"This is not a legal argument about what standards we should use in the courts; it's a moral one,"

So a “moral” argument is all that is needed in cases of rape?. Yes, according to Zerlina Maxwell at the Washington Post:

We should believe, as a matter of default, what an accuser says. Ultimately, the costs of wrongly disbelieving a survivor far outweigh the costs of calling someone a rapist. Even if Jackie fabricated her account, U-Va. should have taken her word for it during the period while they endeavored to prove or disprove the accusation. This is not a legal argument about what standards we should use in the courts; it’s a moral one, about what happens outside the legal system.

The accused would have a rough period. He might be suspended from his job; friends might defriend him on Facebook. In the case of Bill Cosby, we might have to stop watching his shows, consuming his books or buying tickets to his traveling stand-up routine. But false accusations are exceedingly rare, and errors can be undone by an investigation that clears the accused, especially if it is done quickly.

The cost of disbelieving women, on the other hand, is far steeper. It signals that that women don’t matter and that they are disposable — not only to frat boys and Bill Cosby, but to us.

…The time we spend picking apart a traumatized survivor’s narration on the hunt for discrepancies is time that should be spent punishing serial rapists.

This argument is so wrong on so many levels, it is hard to know where to start. Men don’t suffer from being called a rapist all that much? False rape charges are “rare”? Not true.

I am reading a new book by William Gairdner called The Great Divide: Why Liberals and Conservatives Will Never, Ever Agree that sums it up pretty well. For the modern liberal, “morality is relative and changes according to cultures and situations.” “For conservatives, morality is rooted in universal principles, minor moral habits may change. But basic moral principles are constant and universal.” In other words, in rape cases morality is whatever a woman says using the fluid, modern liberal definition of morality.

This is sick reasoning for privileged women using the system to stack the decks against men. The law is following suit. The legal argument matters, we are supposed to be a nation of laws, we cannot give into the liberal definition that all that matters is a privileged protected group “feels wronged” and is entitled to special treatment or is given rights over other unprotected groups. This is unfair, unjust and goes against all that America stands for. But I guess this is the new America. Guilty unless proven innocent if male.