How is it a false equivalence? One person broke a rule and might receive legal consequences, and the act certainly merits something more severe than that. Do you not think the legal consequences are not enough in that case? Because following your logic here, you would defend that rapist.
Again the only difference is where you draw the line, and that defeats the moral purity of your terrible argument. Abusers deserve the abuse they receive. End of fucking story.
Sure sounds to me like you are defending that rapists “rights” rather than subject them to a punishment they richly deserve. I think there would be a lot fewer rapists in the world if we made sure we actually made sure their actions had appropriate consequences.
That’s a false equivalence.
How is it a false equivalence? One person broke a rule and might receive legal consequences, and the act certainly merits something more severe than that. Do you not think the legal consequences are not enough in that case? Because following your logic here, you would defend that rapist.
Again the only difference is where you draw the line, and that defeats the moral purity of your terrible argument. Abusers deserve the abuse they receive. End of fucking story.
The rapist in the scenario should be serving their time in jail.
Sure sounds to me like you are defending that rapists “rights” rather than subject them to a punishment they richly deserve. I think there would be a lot fewer rapists in the world if we made sure we actually made sure their actions had appropriate consequences.
This story isn’t about a rapist though. You presented a false equivalence and I’m not going to continue to play this game with you.
You’re the one with the faulty argument and you’re not answering the question because you know it exposes your argument as such either way.
I did answer your question.
The wife was in the wrong for cheating. The husband is in the wrong for recording her having sex without consent.