It's a little shady I agree.

What else would there be to think about? I'd believe the woman, call for an investigation and insist the investigation be transparent. How many republicans are calling for that right now?

I’m still amazed that people consistently read into me moral failures that I have never demonstrated but that they want to justify in themselves

Shocker. I'll just chalk up "doesn't believe women" on my Luckbox checklist

In no reality would I ever in a million years side with an accused rapist. Their political views don't matter.

You do remember earlier this week when I was arguing with Mets against some of other liberals in the thread against left wing anti semitism right? These are basic issues of principle for me that have nothing to do with political partisanship

I won't even side with just general garbage men. John Edwards can burn in hell, Bill Clinton owes Monica a mother****ing apology and then we should shoot him into space, Al Franken is dead to me, etc etc etc. They are garbage to women, and I don't care if they're otherwise the most saintly people on earth. **** them.

I spend more time than is reasonable arguing with fellow liberals that it’s perfectly correct to argue the moral case against Donald Trump but that you really can’t do that while simultaneously defending Bill Clinton because when it comes to how they treat women they are basically the same guy

10,000,000% this. BC is garbage.

Luckbox is a wolf
Although he doesn't know it
Needs to read PM

So this isn't true at all fwiw. In fact generally with most conspiracies (the true ones at least/tautology alert) there is overwhelming evidence of their truth--which is then ignored by the masses because it is not reported on by the msm and because the truth would be too difficult to handle (cognitive dissonance).

Not a tautology alert - if you stopped your post here I would agree with you 100%. The problem is that most of the conspiracy theories out there do not come anywhere close to meeting this threshold including the bogus nonsense you were peddling earlier tonight

Even the end of your post isn’t terribly problematic tbh, it’s far more a question of which conspiracy theories meet the threshold.

That said the behavior of evangelical voters in America these days should put to rest the false narrative that cognitive dissonance serves as a meaningful deterrent to political beliefs and decision making

So when I was 19 I was sort of falsely accused of rape and I want to tell the story even though it isn't much of a story and there don't seem to be much if any parallels to the Kavanaugh case.

I was at a party and I was passed out drunk in a chair at my next door neighbor's house. I woke up to a girl kissing me and we went to my house and had sex.

Some period of time later it got back to me that she had called it "basically rape" due to apparently her own state of inebriation--which if you're kissing guys who are asleep you are probably pretty drunk.

When I found out later that she had characterized our encounter though as 'basically rape' I was decently perturbed by that--although I knew that I had done nothing wrong. And that is the end of the story and I don't think I ever saw that girl again.

So perhaps that has colored my 'don't automatically believe people position' because even outside of the political aspect of this, a rape (or attempted rape) allegation is a very serious charge that shouldn't be taken lightly.

So that post is definitely worthy of a serious response, and it’s why we shouldn’t (and don’t) throw men in jail just because a woman says the word rape. Since you already acknowledged that there are few parallels to the situation we’ve been discussing I won’t belabor that, but it does show why it is important in any of these situations to allow both parties to tell their version of what happened and whenever possible to attempt to find witnesses who can corroborate or deny various aspects of the stories of both parties especially in situations where one or both people are drunk. I think there’s still a lot of grey area around how consent does and should work in situations that involve alcohol and it’s a big part of the reason I wanted to wait to comment on the merits of the accusations until we got a clearer picture of what both parties had to say and what reporting came out abojt the incident and the plausibility of both the accusation and the denial. My only pause in answering your question earlier about whether I would feel the same about a similar situation involving a Democrat is that the details really do matter and something that might at first appear to be a “similar situation” is in fact not at all similar.

I don't think what you are describing is cognitive dissonance--i can't say for sure because I don't know your exact point, but I think Trump tried to campaign by giving his potential supporters all a little bit of what they wanted to hear and requiring them to ignore other aspects--that would be where the dissonance would lie.

Interestingly enough his campaign song was 'can't always get what you want' by Rolling Stones. Which would seem to be an attempt to basically propagandize over the dissonance...

It’s more the obvious cognitive dissonance that relates back to the earlier post about Bill Clinton and Donald Trump in that Donald Trump as a human being is basically everything evangelical Christians are not and claim to be morally opposed to yet they have been among his strongest and most consistently loyal supporters as a bloc

The only thing resembling a point I would like to make about the story you told earlier is that I believe the best way to help ensure that in cases where men are either falsely or ambiguously accused that they continue to receive fair and appropriate due process is to avoid attempting to defend or inject doubt into situations in which there isn’t a realistic basis for that doubt or defense.

So then people are willing to overlook a lot when faced with ridiculous choices.

Hilliary supporters who purport to be antiwar end up supporting a basically unabashed war monger.

But it was her over Trump so they look the other way just like the Trump supporters do.

I don't think this is an argument against dissonance. If anything it is one in favor of its power.

You had sex with a girl who was inebriated beyond the ability to consent.

It was her who initiated it. It was actually I who was beyond to ability to give consent. I was passed out drunk. I think everclear might have been involved but I cannot say for certain.

im sorry that happened to you luckbox. that sucks. really. but imagine if people tore you apart how so many women get torn apart in rape accusation situations.

we all agree that rape accusations are not 100%, so an accusation is not enough to condemn. the accused should have some protection BUT SO SHOULD THE ACCUSER!

i think i might have technically been raped. idk. it wasn't that bad. but it def sucked and freaked me out a little. i know for sure the girl didn't have any bad intentions and that makes a big difference.

we were making out and i was into it. but i didn't want to go all the way. and she just jammed it in when i wasn't ready. total misunderstanding. she was shocked when i was upset.

misunderstandings can def happen in situations, especially when alcohol is involved

FWIW, I can see no real reason why others of the ww2 powers wouldn’t have used a bomb had they had it.

No doubt the particulars would have been different, but I’m not sure how anyone could be confident that others would have been more restrained.

query: do the other powers put you in a position of guilty privilege?



filthy doesn't have to feel bad about his lifestyle or his lack of contribution to rectifying the misery surrounding him so long as he pays lip service to the evil of The Great Satan