That’s yet another mischaracterisation. I absolutely didn’t object to people defending themselves, it’s letting expensive lawyers into a school discipline hearing (to giving rape victims a horrendous, harrowing experience where they’re more on trial than the perpetrator and the rich rapists get away with it) that I object to, as you know perfectly well because I’ve said it so many times.
If you want to debate with me, why not discuss what I said instead of reinterpreting it to your exaggerated false version every time?
If you knew anything about it at all, you would know that rape perpetrators are overwhelmingly male and the vast majority of rape victims are female. I never tried to assert that it was exclusive, that was all you, as usual, and to be honest I’m surprised that someone like you spending so long defending trump’s policy is objecting to the occasional (and it was occasional, and mostly when I was comparing the rich male rapists to the rich male rapist in chief, Donald J Trump) use of a non gender-neutral pronoun. But then consistency and fair mindedness has never been a characteristic of people who defend misogynists like Trump and their policies.
As I’ve said all along lawyers into school is all about making reporting rapid more harrowing for the victims and easier for the wealthy rapists to get away with it. That’s how trump sees it, that’s why he supports it, and if I’m to believe you, apparently he’s more perceptive and intelligent than you on this topic.
Because your single biggest key points, repeated time and again are that the accused shouldn’t be allowed to have a lawyer and that Trump is a rapist and therefore the policy is bad regardless of what the actual policy is.
OK, so the accused shouldn’t be allowed to have a lawyer. Should the accused be allowed any kind of representative (such as a faculty rep), and what would you do to ensure that representative is both competent and acting in the best interest of the accused? I asked 14 questions previously about policy and what it should look like that you entirely ignored.
the policy is bad regardless of what the actual policy is.
You can’t help yourself but invent things I didn’t say. Argue with what I said, not with what you wish I’d said.
What I said was that you’d have to be really, really, really, really, really gullible to believe that the Rapist in Chief, who uses expensive lawyers to silence his victims, is inviting lawyers into K12 exclusion meetings over rape for any other reason but to allow expensive lawyers to let rich rapists get away with it, just like him. Irrespective of who proposed it, it’s a terrible idea and you and I know full well it will discourage rape victims from even telling a teacher of their attack because they know they’ll have a horrendous experience.
I told you exactly what I think should happen, and as usual, you ignored it and made up your own version of what I said so you could argue with that instead.
That’s yet another mischaracterisation. I absolutely didn’t object to people defending themselves, it’s letting expensive lawyers into a school discipline hearing (to giving rape victims a horrendous, harrowing experience where they’re more on trial than the perpetrator and the rich rapists get away with it) that I object to, as you know perfectly well because I’ve said it so many times.
If you want to debate with me, why not discuss what I said instead of reinterpreting it to your exaggerated false version every time?
If you knew anything about it at all, you would know that rape perpetrators are overwhelmingly male and the vast majority of rape victims are female. I never tried to assert that it was exclusive, that was all you, as usual, and to be honest I’m surprised that someone like you spending so long defending trump’s policy is objecting to the occasional (and it was occasional, and mostly when I was comparing the rich male rapists to the rich male rapist in chief, Donald J Trump) use of a non gender-neutral pronoun. But then consistency and fair mindedness has never been a characteristic of people who defend misogynists like Trump and their policies.
As I’ve said all along lawyers into school is all about making reporting rapid more harrowing for the victims and easier for the wealthy rapists to get away with it. That’s how trump sees it, that’s why he supports it, and if I’m to believe you, apparently he’s more perceptive and intelligent than you on this topic.
Because your single biggest key points, repeated time and again are that the accused shouldn’t be allowed to have a lawyer and that Trump is a rapist and therefore the policy is bad regardless of what the actual policy is.
OK, so the accused shouldn’t be allowed to have a lawyer. Should the accused be allowed any kind of representative (such as a faculty rep), and what would you do to ensure that representative is both competent and acting in the best interest of the accused? I asked 14 questions previously about policy and what it should look like that you entirely ignored.
You can’t help yourself but invent things I didn’t say. Argue with what I said, not with what you wish I’d said.
What I said was that you’d have to be really, really, really, really, really gullible to believe that the Rapist in Chief, who uses expensive lawyers to silence his victims, is inviting lawyers into K12 exclusion meetings over rape for any other reason but to allow expensive lawyers to let rich rapists get away with it, just like him. Irrespective of who proposed it, it’s a terrible idea and you and I know full well it will discourage rape victims from even telling a teacher of their attack because they know they’ll have a horrendous experience.
I told you exactly what I think should happen, and as usual, you ignored it and made up your own version of what I said so you could argue with that instead.