Yet another example of dictator wannabe Trump

Author: Double_R

Posts

Total: 214
#181
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Greyparrot

Well, Ishmael was born and brought up in Abraham's household. Some 13 years later, however, Sarah conceived Isaac, with whom God established his covenant. Isaac became Abraham's sole heir, and Ishmael and Hagar were banished to the desert, though God promised that Ishmael would raise up a great nation of his own.
#182
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,552
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Double_R
Entirety, as in there was nothing else relevant that was left out.
Oh, really? Let’s see here, in the good, old “basic English” dictionary:

en·tire·ty
/inˈtīrədē,inˈtī(ə)rdē,enˈtīrədē,enˈtī(ə)rdē/
noun
the whole of something.

Hmmm… No, I don’t see anything about a carve out for “relevance,” perceived or otherwise. You didn’t even include an elipses to acknowledge missing text. So, gee, thanks and all for trying to make my words sound less ridiculous or more relevant by incompletely quoting them while claiming to completely quote them, but I would rather you at least try to keep your shit honest. It shouldn’t be too much to ask, but it usually is around here, alas…

With “basic English” like this, who needs gaslighting?
#183
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,552
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Double_R
It’s not gaslighting, it’s English.
It most certainly is gaslighting, and the height of arrogance actually, to reinterpret a person’s words despite that person’s disapproval of that rewording. In fairness to you though, this sort of douchebaggery is not limited to you around here, alas…
#184
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@cristo71
Please Sir, no ptsd from my Navy days.
#185
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@cristo71
Yourself, Captain. Me posting in response to you didn’t make that bloody obvious? 
Who are you Richard Dawson? Who are you? Richard Dawson?

What exactly did I say that was a “reasonable request in search of common ground”

Are you from England? Is that why nobody can understand you?

#186
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,552
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
What exactly did I say that was a “reasonable request in search of common ground”
That’s funny— even you are surprised about an alleged show of goodwill on your part. I guess I was giving you too much credit. It’s a shame…
#187
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@cristo71
Gee, that’s a great answer. It appears that most conservatives are addle brained.
Topic's author
#188
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@cristo71
So, gee, thanks and all for trying to make my words sound less ridiculous or more relevant by incompletely quoting them while claiming to completely quote them, but I would rather you at least try to keep your shit honest.
So no, you don't have anything substantive to dispute so you fall back on silly little technicalities.

Again, you argued that my interpretation was drastically different from yours, yet you couldn't be bothered to point out a single meaningful difference between them despite me literally breaking up the two quotes and numbering them piece by piece to show how they line up exactly. So instead you whine and complain that I left out your parenthesis quote, and even after I explained why in detail you have nothing to say in response to it other than to quibble over the definition of one of the words I used to explain it. It just comes off as nothing more than a pathetic attempt to win the argument somehow while ignoring the whole point of the conversation.

It's not that any of this matters, it's that I find the projection fascinating. You claim I'm the one gaslighting you even though I'm the one willing to subject my arguments to a full intellectual autospsy while you sit there and offer nothing more than a carnival bark. Why you bother I don't know but one thing is for sure; if you had a meaningful refutation to the points I've made in this thread you would have offered them.
#189
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,552
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Double_R
you couldn't be bothered to point out a single meaningful difference 
That is because when caught in a blatant lie, you try to prevaricate your way out of it rather than demonstrating integrity. It’s a non starter. Your inevitable and stubborn shenanigans negate any chance at moving any discussion with you forward.

it's that I find the projection fascinating
As the Captain pointed out elsewhere, accusations of projection are all too often the adult equivalent of “I know you are, but what am I?” Which, as you like to say, used to work in the 3rd grade.

It just comes off as nothing more than a pathetic attempt to win the argument
The feeling is quite mutual, I assure you. You insist on dictating to me what I think in this “discussion.” Hey, if you insist on that, you don’t need me. You might as well argue with your own imagination. That way, you get to win every time, and that is obviously of the highest importance to you.
Topic's author
#190
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@cristo71
Your inevitable and stubborn shenanigans negate any chance at moving any discussion with you forward.
By "stubborn shenanigans" what you really mean is that I have to audacity to disagree with your view of it and explain why using logic.

If your only purpose here is to change other people's minds and the apparent lack of possiblity of that happening says to you that the conversation isn't worth it, the clearly it's not me who is the stubbornly close minded one here.

accusations of projection are all too often the adult equivalent of “I know you are, but what am I?”
"I know you are but what am I" is childish because it's a thoughtless retort thrown out there as a point in and of itself, as if that alone qualifies it as legitimate.

I don't use it as a retort, I use it as an assessment after days of providing painstaking detail explaining how your point was BS from the start to which you admittingly never attempted to provide a coherent argument against. Those are two completely different things.

*Whoops, look at Double_R being stubborn again and not just agreeing with you. Clearly he's not worth any serious attempt at conversation, obviously.*
#191
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,552
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Double_R
Well, some things never change. You take care now, Lex. Say hello to Superman for me!
#192
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
I have actually seen MSM only reporting Trump lately as "liable for sexual assault" lately.
there's been a lot of news lately. It doesn't change the fact that he's a rapist. 

State laws that charge you for federal crimes should be removed just as surely as Jim Crow.
A state didn't charge him for federal crimes. They charged him with state crimes. But the state crime is more serious if he was doing it to cover up another crime, and a federal crime counts. 
#193
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Jury - people who to the best of their ability weigh the evidence and decide on the elements of a criminal or civil case
and that is exactly what happened. so you're not making any sense. They looked at the evidence and determined that the most likely scenario is that he did it.

Them coming to a conclusion and that conclusion being true are two different things.
you can choose not to believe it if you want. But a jury of his peers says he did. In the eyes of the law, he did it. Whether or not you believe that is unimportant. 

You are a rapist <- Me saying that doesn't mean you are a rapist.
of course not. You're one random dude on the internet, not a jury of my peers who heard the available evidence and came to a legally binding conclusion. 

If you are saying that you are not an adjudicated rapist then your definition of "adjudication" doesn't include baseless assertions by random people.
it isn't baseless and she wasn't random. She was a woman who was raped by trump. 

There are no "eyes of the law" if it does not mean "the objective meaning of the law" there are the eyes of judges and juries, and real ones could certainly allow him to sue for trillions.
when I say "eyes of the law" I mean it is an established legal fact. Trump cannot say that he didn't sexually assault her in a court. It is a fact. If he said otherwise he would be committing as crime. He has to be very, very careful about it in public either. If he implies she isn't telling the truth, she can sue him again since a jury has already ruled that he did do that and so saying otherwise is defamatory. 

this clown pretend court.
oh the court is very, very real. The money trump has to pay her should prove that.

I can't betray what I have never sworn loyalty to and I have never (as an adult) and never will swear blind obedience to any group of people or organization.
no one has ever asked you to swear blind obedience. the courts are filled with humans and can be flawed like anyone else. That is why there is an appeal process. Trump has appealed the decision. I doubt he'll win. 
#194
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@HistoryBuff
Jury - people who to the best of their ability weigh the evidence and decide on the elements of a criminal or civil case
and that is exactly what happened.
Well minus the "best of their ability"


Them coming to a conclusion and that conclusion being true are two different things.
you can choose not to believe it if you want.
I know, but thanks for the reminder.


But a jury of his peers says he did.
Fake jury


In the eyes of the law
In the eyes of brainwashed zealots acting out a court scene like a high-school drama club.


Whether or not you believe that is unimportant. 
Then there is no need for you to waste your time telling me how super real and legitimate it all was.


You're one random dude on the internet, not a jury of my peers who heard the available evidence and came to a legally binding conclusion.
Why am I not?


If you are saying that you are not an adjudicated rapist then your definition of "adjudication" doesn't include baseless assertions by random people.
it isn't baseless and she wasn't random. She was a woman who was raped by trump. 
Fine, you raped me. Now I have the same basis.


There are no "eyes of the law" if it does not mean "the objective meaning of the law" there are the eyes of judges and juries, and real ones could certainly allow him to sue for trillions.
when I say "eyes of the law" I mean it is an established legal fact.
When I say true law and order may yet prevail I mean that real judges and real juries could easily discard your so called "established legal fact". They have fancy words for it as I'm sure you know but they boil down to "we don't care bro, that was bullshit"


Trump cannot say that he didn't sexually assault her in a court.
No real court would attempt to violate Trump's 1st and 5th amendment rights by preventing him from maintaining his own innocence. One of the many ways a rational person can differentiate a fake court like the one you so foolishly think I am bound to respect and a real court under the jurisdiction of the United States of America.


It is a fact.
It is a baseless highly suspect accusation that ought to result in defamatory damages being paid to Donald Trump.


If he said otherwise he would be committing as crime.
That is why I mean by "your law" vs "my law". "your law" is a dangerous and disgusting delusion having little to no connection with the concept known as "English Common Law", the traditional legal foundation of the USA.


He has to be very, very careful about it in public either.
He has to be careful because they have a lot of guns and they could steal his buildings. That is the only reason. May we soon see justice served where those guns are hopelessly outnumbered and those guilty of extortion and conspiracy to corrupt a federal election serve their due punishments.


oh the court is very, very real.
The guns are real, but they aren't the only guns in the country.


The money trump has to pay her should prove that.
You also have to pay the mugger, that doesn't prove the mugger is a court.


no one has ever asked you to swear blind obedience.
Blindness is what would be required to confuse that court with liberal civilization.


Trump has appealed the decision.
Trump's lawyers are miming along with the clowns in the hope that adults who would rather sweep this debacle under the rug might give in before drastic measures are required. That's not a legal appeal, it's an appeal to sanity.


I doubt he'll win.
He hasn't paid a dime, and if he does it will be his own fault for cooperating with criminal extortion.
#195
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Double_R
That's only the first hire. A second Trump term will result in the gutting of the federal government of anyone who serves the constitution and replace them with those who serve Trump. Let's see how easily he'll get forced out the second time once he has turned the entire executive branch into his own personal task force.
Yeah I just don’t share your confidence in the competence of an 80 year old Trump and his cronies and I think you underrate the stability of the system. I don’t think the apocalyptic rhetoric is warranted, there will be a 2028 election no matter who wins 
Topic's author
#196
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@thett3
Yeah I just don’t share your confidence in the competence of an 80 year old Trump and his cronies and I think you underrate the stability of the system. I don’t think the apocalyptic rhetoric is warranted, there will be a 2028 election no matter who wins 
Of course there will be. Russia also still has elections.

It's not a matter of competence, it's a matter of loyalty. If everyone from the top down cares more about serving Trump than the constitution, the constitution becomes meaningless and whatever Trump says go. This is why the man values loyalty so deeply, he doesn't care about the rules, never has.

His VP pick is the perfect example of this. It becomes clearer and clearer by the day that they didn't even bother to vet this guy, at least not for what he's supposed to get from a VP. Trump learned from having a VP that valued the constitution first, he won't make that mistake again. So once he thought he had it on the bag he picked a guy whose only qualification is that he's a Trump sycophant - a guy who despises everything Trump stands for but was willing to kiss the ring and fully debase himself anyway. That's what having no principals looks like, the most important quality to being on the Trump team.

The executive branch doesn't control everything so I understand the position that Trump will not ultimately succeed at destroying the American experiment. But the fact that there is absolutely nothing you can show to demonstrate that he won't try is what baffles me. The naivety is striking. It's like someone taking their car to 120 with your child in the backseat. Sure they're fine now, and sure they are statistically likely to be fine the next time, but does that mean it's fine to put them in that same car again?
#197
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Of course there will be. Russia also still has elections.

Wow, it's not even November, yet you can't wait to declare the results illegitimate based on who is on the ballot.
Topic's author
#198
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Trolls are gonna troll.

Don't you have anything better to do?
#199
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
If you are gonna type pages of hyperbolic fanfiction, then I have an obligation to address the content of those characterizations.

Even if it's with a one-liner and a video montage.
#200
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
His VP pick is the perfect example of this. It becomes clearer and clearer by the day that they didn't even bother to vet this guy
At least he wasn't like Biden saying the criteria for vetting a VP consisted of the essential and critical  characteristics of skin color and genitalia.
#201
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
At least he wasn't like Biden saying the criteria for vetting a VP consisted of the essential and critical  characteristics of skin color and genitalia.
That’s how Clearance got on the Supreme Court. Even though he’s a sexual harasser and takes bribes, and wasn’t qualified for the job. Just like Aileen Cannon.

But democrats pick qualified people when they try to reflect the diversity of the country. Since there are so few minorities in the GOP, it’s more difficult. Plus conservatives tend to be incompetent just in general.

Topic's author
#202
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
I have an obligation to address the content of those characterizations.
So you see your trolling as the fulfillment of your obligations. Ok bro.

At least he wasn't like Biden saying the criteria for vetting a VP consisted of the essential and critical  characteristics of skin color and genitalia.
Mike Pence was picked because he was an evangelical Christian. Joe Biden was picked because he was a white class working guy. VP's are and have always been picked for superficial reasons as a means of appealing to a targeted segment of the population. No one ever cared about that before until Kamala came along. Gee, I wonder what's different about her.

Regardless, I'd much rather my preferred candidates select a VP for superficial reasons than to single one out for the quality of demonstrating their willingness to be an unabashed sycophant.
#203
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 502
3
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
3
2
6
-->
@Double_R
"Better to be a dictator than gay."
~ Alexander Lukashenko


#204
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Well minus the "best of their ability"
you choose not to believe he's a rapist. But there is no evidence they did anything short of their duty in examining the evidence and coming a conclusion. You just want to believe that trump isn't a rapist (despite all the super creepy shit he's done over the years) so you choose to believe that it's everyone else who is wrong. 

Fake jury
lol what does that even mean? Do you think they aren't people? Do you think they were just cosplaying as jurors and random people showed up instead? Seriously, what does "fake jury" mean?

When I say true law and order may yet prevail I mean that real judges and real juries could easily discard your so called "established legal fact". They have fancy words for it as I'm sure you know but they boil down to "we don't care bro, that was bullshit"
lol it's called an appeal. And yes, trump has appealed the decision. But the only way it can be overturned is if they can find some issue with how the trial was done. It's possible they will find one, but doesn't seem super likely. 

That is why I mean by "your law" vs "my law". "your law" is a dangerous and disgusting delusion having little to no connection with the concept known as "English Common Law", the traditional legal foundation of the USA.
lol you think English common law doesn't have laws about defamation? They absolutely do. They have laws against rape too. Trump did both of those things. 



#205
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@HistoryBuff
Well minus the "best of their ability"
you choose not to believe he's a rapist. But there is no evidence they did anything short of their duty in examining the evidence and coming a conclusion.
Well other than the fact that millions of people were following the trial closely so I/we know that they weren't presented with any evidence nor a reasonable theory of the crime, nor any believable explanation as to why she waited till Trump was the leader of the free world, nor did they care that they were being asked to find damages for someone denying a crime (damages to be paid to the accuser) which to any sane honest person would have instantly caused them to decide against the plaintiff.


so you choose to believe that it's everyone else who is wrong. 
I have no trouble saying "everyone else is wrong", but it's hardly necessary in this case is it. It's more like saying 30% of the population are wrong. That's how many actually believe it. Maybe 20% are so disgustingly fascist as to stand by it after they are familiarized with the facts and realize that they're trying to steal someone's money for defending himself from rape accusations.


Fake jury
lol what does that even mean? Do you think they aren't people?
I mean that even if a person had committed to obedience to the laws of the USA and New York State they have no duty whatsoever to consider the proclamations of the so called jury or the so called judge binding in any way.

Just like no one who had sworn an oath to defend the constitution would have any duty to follow Trump's orders if he declared himself president for life and suspended federal elections.

You break the rules, you don't get the authority. The founding fathers made that very clear and it's a moral necessity regardless.


Do you think they were just cosplaying as jurors and random people showed up instead?
The whole psuedocourt was cosplaying.


lol you think English common law doesn't have laws about defamation? They absolutely do.
It's been about a thousand years since attacking the credibility of your accuser and denying a crime was speech eligible as defamation.


They have laws against rape too.
Why wasn't Trump charged then?

#206
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
Why wasn't Trump charged then?
Because genius, it is common for women to feel shame when they’re raped and don’t report it to police. They fear being traumatized again.

When that guy sodomized you against your will, did you report it to police? I didn’t think so.

so called jury or the so called judge binding in any way.
And you a so called adult and a so called American 

It's been about a thousand years since attacking the credibility of your accuser and denying a crime was speech eligible as defamation.
Are you talking about in public or in court?

You can say “I didn’t do it”. What you can’t say is she’s a liar, especially when she’s the one telling the truth which was the judgement of the jury.

#207
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Are you talking about in public or in court?
Lol, like it matters. If publicly calling someone a liar was actually in the law, you wouldn't be alive.

the truth which was the judgement of the jury.
You can say the court was rigged in America.

In 1997, Barbara Streisand sued Peter Rader, the author of her unauthorized biography, claiming defamation among other charges. One of her claims was based on being called a "liar."
Outcome: Streisand ultimately lost the case. The court found that some of the statements in the book were protected opinions rather than defamatory statements of fact.

John Paulsen, a former lawyer for Tyco International, sued The New York Times for defamation after an article referred to him as "a liar" in connection with his testimony in a trial.
Outcome: The case was dismissed. The court found that the statement was a protected opinion and that it was not made with actual malice.

David Hasselhoff sued the National Enquirer for defamation after the tabloid published a story suggesting he was a liar and drunkard.
Outcome: Hasselhoff lost the case. The court found that the statements were not made with actual malice, and the publication's defenses held under the scrutiny of free speech protections.

Actor Johnny Depp sued The Sun newspaper for defamation after it published an article calling him a "wife-beater," effectively labeling him a liar regarding his denials of abuse.
Outcome: Depp lost the case. The court found that the newspaper's allegations were substantially true, thus dismissing the defamation claim.

Jose Canseco, a former MLB player, sued Major League Baseball for defamation after being labeled a liar regarding his claims about steroid use in baseball.
Outcome: Canseco lost the case. The court ruled that the statements made by MLB were protected opinions and that Canseco did not provide sufficient evidence of falsehood or harm.





#208
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
Lol, like it matters. If publicly calling someone a liar was actually in the law, you wouldn't be alive.
You lie every day. Just like Trump

#209
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
we know that they weren't presented with any evidence nor a reasonable theory of the crime
that is obviously incorrect. I mean, what does that even mean? How is there not a reasonable theory of the crime? He raped her in a changing room in a department store. We all know that.

nor any believable explanation as to why she waited till Trump was the leader of the free world
for the same reason why most women don't come forward. Powerful men sexually assault women all the time. Most don't say anything because they won't be believed, the man will try to harm them, or because people in general will negatively judge them. So they stay silent. This is an extremely common thing. She came forward because years later she was no longer concerned about those things and felt the country deserved to know he is a rapist. 

I mean that even if a person had committed to obedience to the laws of the USA and New York State they have no duty whatsoever to consider the proclamations of the so called jury or the so called judge binding in any way.
lol, that is really stupid. They are absolutely binding. And you know that.

The whole psuedocourt was cosplaying.
you aren't even making any sense. That was a real courtroom, a real judge and a real jury. And you know that. You are being REALLY dense. 

It's been about a thousand years since attacking the credibility of your accuser and denying a crime was speech eligible as defamation.
lol no. He was found civilly liable for raping her. That means it is now an established fact that he did it. If he says she is lying, he is automatically defaming her because a jury has already found that to be a defamatory lie. So if he does it again, he is guilty again. Which is why he was found liable the 2nd time.
#210
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@HistoryBuff
He raped her in a changing room in a department store.
After which (like all rape victims) she publicly praised him because she wanted to be on his show. riiighhtt....



nor any believable explanation as to why she waited till Trump was the leader of the free world
for the same reason why most women don't come forward.
People might not believe them? but when Trump became enemy of the deep state #1 you had a whole city of delusional fascists who would believe anyone accusing Trump of anything.


Powerful men sexually assault women all the time.
Doesn't change the burden of proof.


or because people in general will negatively judge them. So they stay silent.
Works the other way too, if you get praised for crying wolf; you might just do it whether you saw a wolf or not.


They are absolutely binding.
I dare you to bind me.


You are being REALLY dense.
That's what parliament said.


It's been about a thousand years since attacking the credibility of your accuser and denying a crime was speech eligible as defamation.
lol no. He was found civilly liable for raping her. That means it is now an established fact that he did it. If he says she is lying, he is automatically defaming her because a jury has already found that to be a defamatory lie. So if he does it again, he is guilty again. Which is why he was found liable the 2nd time.
It's been about a thousand years since attacking the credibility of your accuser and denying a crime was speech eligible as defamation.