Well yes. Let's lay out the groundwork.
My stance:
Rapists deserve the death penalty. I need hard evidence before condemning a man to that degree.
We have a civil case, not a criminal case, where a man was found liable, not guilty, due to the nature of the evidence.
The evidence: DNA, which can be found in consensual or nonconsensual sexual activity. Hence, why this was not a criminal case, but a civil one.
The context: A woman meets up with a rich celebrity, pre-gaming with hard drugs, late at night at a hotel leaving her S.O at home.
My take: Conor's character is questionable leaving the probability for a S.A. case, albeit low, but this could be a money grab. We don't have strong enough evidence to say without a reasonable doubt. This isn't necessarily my opinion as it is founded by the very nature of how the case was tried.
Your response:
Incel, rape apologist, perpetuating rape culture, idiot, buffoon, misogyny, pseudo-intellect, etc.
It's not just found across this one thread though but dozens and dozens of interactions where we've followed the same blueprint. You take a socially driven narrative and go with it full force and when someone doesn't conform you mouth vomit trending phrases of the week. It's always predictable down to not just the stance but also the delivery, language, and choice of words. While you may have folks who will back your fallacies, prevalence doesn't equate to merit.
The approval of your peers gives you a strong sense of validation which fuels the arrogance of your posts and keeps you entirely in the dark to the ignorance of it all. Arrogance fuels ignorance just as ignorance fuels arrogance. It is a nasty feedback loop.
To state that I'm a pseudo-intellect for not conforming to your worldview when you have no context of my background is entirely ignorant and if anything is more of a projection of your own pseudo-intellectualism than anything about me.
