Quote:You keep saying absolve when there is no reason to absolve them from anything. But yeah sure I suppose there's always a small possibility that when a guy says a women let him do something that he may in fact be lieing.


In the same way when my girlfriend comes back with the shopping theres a small possibility that she may in fact have stolen it all.



This is a classic Kotite debate. Step 1) Come out all guns blazing opposing one particular area. Step 2) Insert supposed superior knowledge based on personal experience and relationships. Step 3) Change argument based on if you seem to be losing or not. Step 4) Ask vague open ended questions and argue about the semantics of them. Step 5) Flail around in an attempt to win some kind battle in the debate. Rinse and repeat.

I'm not claiming any superior knowledge and I am not making a case whoever had their crotch pet by Trump did not do so willingly. I will say I don't know anyone who would even think about touching a woman's crotch they just met without the smallest sign there is consent, but that's irrelevant.


I am pointing out the blanket excuse that just because Trump (or any man) SAYS that a woman let them do whatever to them does not make it necessarily so. Bunnie floated the argument he said that the women let him do that, therefore what is the big deal. As you finally admit, just because he says it was consensual does not necessarily make it true. To make a blanket excuse "he says" it was all cool without getting any additional detail of what actually took place and dismissing the possibility many, some or one of these women did not want to be touched is insane. You cannot just absolve someone of any potential wrongdoing by simply getting one side of the story. That is basic logic. But that is the argument which was posed. And where Trump is concerned, logic goes out the window. Was that really so hard?

---