I’d be upset, but my emotions on the matter don’t change the fact that he wasn’t criminally convicted. You can say he raped her, which he did. You can’t say (honestly) he was convicted because that means something entirely different. Are you being purposefully obtuse about my point, here?
Perhaps disingenuous. I told you I was a terrible debater. My point is that Judge Kaplan said the difference was semantic, between the terms. It was a civil case, of course he wasn’t criminally convicted. This is the one case where it came to a conclusion. Are you being obtuse about how difficult it is for a woman to bring a case of rape against her to trial, especially against someone who is powerful, wealthy, and male? I mean, what’s in this conversation for you? Why do you care?
I just believe if you can’t make Trump look bad without having to make factually inaccurate statements, that’s a problem. He’s shit enough, you can make your point while still being accurate. Words have meanings, especially in legal matters. And this is all in regards to legal distinction.
Way back at the original comment, the guy could have made his point by calling Trump a rapist. No one here would have had a problem with that. Even a “proven” rapist would have got a pass because he was found to have raped someone. But he used the word “convicted” which means something different. If he had used the word “murderer” that would have been wrong too. Would correcting that make us trolls? No, we just want you to make your point without undermining your own argument.
And yes, even when condemning an undeniable villain like Trump, you undermine your own credibility if you make stuff up to do it.
I’d be upset, but my emotions on the matter don’t change the fact that he wasn’t criminally convicted. You can say he raped her, which he did. You can’t say (honestly) he was convicted because that means something entirely different. Are you being purposefully obtuse about my point, here?
Perhaps disingenuous. I told you I was a terrible debater. My point is that Judge Kaplan said the difference was semantic, between the terms. It was a civil case, of course he wasn’t criminally convicted. This is the one case where it came to a conclusion. Are you being obtuse about how difficult it is for a woman to bring a case of rape against her to trial, especially against someone who is powerful, wealthy, and male? I mean, what’s in this conversation for you? Why do you care?
The other people in this thread are arguing semantics - whether he is “guilty” or not. They may be correct.
Thing is, they’re still trying to split hairs about a man who raped someone to make sure he gets the benefit of … semantics or something.
No. We are trying to be accurate. If you want to say Trump raped her or that he is guilty of rape, there’s no argument from us.
The claim was that he was convicted of rape. He was not. It’s that simple.
@andyburke
@style99 @AmidFuror @wagesj45 @ForestOrca
It’s what Trolls do in order to misdirect the energy in a discussion. Don’t feed 'em.
I just believe if you can’t make Trump look bad without having to make factually inaccurate statements, that’s a problem. He’s shit enough, you can make your point while still being accurate. Words have meanings, especially in legal matters. And this is all in regards to legal distinction.
Way back at the original comment, the guy could have made his point by calling Trump a rapist. No one here would have had a problem with that. Even a “proven” rapist would have got a pass because he was found to have raped someone. But he used the word “convicted” which means something different. If he had used the word “murderer” that would have been wrong too. Would correcting that make us trolls? No, we just want you to make your point without undermining your own argument.
And yes, even when condemning an undeniable villain like Trump, you undermine your own credibility if you make stuff up to do it.