WWE releases Enzo Amore

[Mr. Nerfect]

Originally Posted by #1-wwf-fan Jesus. Noid. Listen. I'm not claiming she lied once therefore she must always be lying/is definitely lying. Stop and read what I'm saying. You think "Women tend to not lie about rape" is a meaningful point. Because she's a woman making a rape accusation therefore you're comparing the likelihood of her lying to what typically ends up being the case when a woman makes a rape accusation. Yet you're dismissing "She DOES lie about rape" (Not that she 100% must always be lying. That she indeed has been known to lie about rape.) as meaningless. That's a glaring contradiction. You want to give her the benefit of all other women who don't lie about rape but ignore the DIRECT example of HER... THE ONE WOMAN WHO IS ACTUALLY BEING DISCUSSED... lying about rape. It's a contradiction. How is it not?

Because people change, dude. You can't divide people into binary categories like "liars" and "truthtellers." It's a contradiction only if you're looking at her personality like a logic puzzle, which it is clearly not.

I agree that it makes it problematic, and that skepticism should be taken with this case (as has been done legally), but that doesn't mean you dismiss her outright.

To steer it back to what was originally being discussed: Dale is worried about Enzo's reputation. I am not, because I'm still suss on the whole thing. And I think that's why you won't find that the WWE won't welcome him back and you won't see any WWE contracted personnel publicly congratulating Enzo. I don't mean to appeal to authority, but I think that is really common sense in a situation like this. Enzo's rep is one of the lowest priorities in this for me.

That's all.

[#1-norm-fan]

Originally Posted by Noid Because people change, dude. You can't divide people into binary categories like "liars" and "truthtellers." It's a contradiction only if you're looking at her personality like a logic puzzle, which it is clearly not.

What are you doing when you say "women tend not to lie about being raped"? You're assigning odds based on the history of accusers. Vic is assigning odds based on the history of her as an accuser. You're doing the same... exact... thing. Except Vic's example is actually much more pertinent to the case because it takes into account the exact woman we're talking about and not just women in general. You're rationalizing to keep believing what you're dead set on believing. The contradiction is clear as day though. Any argument you have to tear down Vic's quote can be used to tear down yours.