For all we know that court case could have never even happened! If it did just as you reported, then that would be bad, but please understand the following:
It's a tall order to ask random strangers on the internet to trust your second (third?) hand account of what happened when, by your own admission, there's a jury (and professional judge!) who disagree.
You've been told something by a dissenting element of that jury, and you may trust their word, but random strangers on the internet have really no reason to trust you or your friend over the conclusion of a court.
To sway any opinions, you'll have to present a more convincing case than "trust me it happened and trust me all the others are morons". To me you're just as reliable - less, given that you're presenting hearsay - as the dozen people who chose not to convict.
For all that we know, you're a ChatGPT bot? Maybe GPT4?
I don't see what that has to do with anything, and I don't see what that has to do with productive debate. Either you believe something written on the internet, or not. I really do not believe that anything I say or give evidence of (if that wasn't already incredibly illegal) will convince you.
I'm going to believe that you're a human, and as a consequence I think the only reason why you landed on this specific iteration of incredibly feeble epistemology-based argument is because any other argument you formulate comes out as "rape is good" in some way, and you realise that and want to avoid it.
> I don't see what that has to do with anything, and I don't see what that has to do with productive debate.
You can't have a productive debate about this topic with not-verifiable anecdotes and second-hand accounts.
> Either you believe something written on the internet, or not.
People are generally capable of more nuance than that. For clearheaded people there's at least a "don't know" in the middle of that. To move the needle, you weigh the stakes against the likelihood of something being true.
After reading some article about a medieval practice, I'm likely to just proceed as if everything written therein was true. If I repeat what I read there to another person despite the original source being wrong, it's no big deal. The stakes are low. However if we're in a discussion about politics or accusing someone of rape, I'm not going to change my opinions or simply believe rape accusations based on nothing. The stakes are high.
> I think the only reason why you landed on this specific iteration of incredibly feeble epistemology-based argument
It's a bit rich to fluster at that after having made an argument that's really just a not verifiable anecdote, but maybe it's an understandable response given the subject.
Allow me to reiterate: I pointed out that even if your first-hand account of your friend's report is trustworthy, it's reasonable to assign credence to a jury and judge over your friend - as dmurray hinted at. You cannot expect people to act as if the man is guilty of rape after he was cleared of the charges - just because you/your friend claim he is guilty (however convincing you think your argument is). The consequences of being considered guilty of rape are enormous, making the stakes too high to be swayed by so little.
> I think [...] any other argument you formulate comes out as "rape is good" in some way, and you realise that and want to avoid it.
And I'm going to assume you wrote that because you actually believed it and mistakenly thought it would positively add to your comment, rather than it just being a thinly-veiled attack on my person.
Hopefully this comment gave you some perspective on why people who aren't immediately racing to your support may not be caricature villains trying to protect rapists through verbal sleight of hand.
To circle back to the needle analogy: People aren't pointing out issues with your argument because they believe "rape is good", but rather because the argument isn't good to move their needle on "rape is hard to prosecute" in the direction you obviously desire.
It's a tall order to ask random strangers on the internet to trust your second (third?) hand account of what happened when, by your own admission, there's a jury (and professional judge!) who disagree.
You've been told something by a dissenting element of that jury, and you may trust their word, but random strangers on the internet have really no reason to trust you or your friend over the conclusion of a court.
To sway any opinions, you'll have to present a more convincing case than "trust me it happened and trust me all the others are morons". To me you're just as reliable - less, given that you're presenting hearsay - as the dozen people who chose not to convict.