Johnny Bravo

I really try to be respectful, but your statement absolves me of that responsibility. So thank you. Obviously you can read since you are on a message board. It’s comprehension (which really is the main point of reading) where you struggle. Or you’re just a snarky jerk. I listed a second question. I also explained (patiently) that my point is NOT about what I believe regarding the truth of the allegations made against Wiley. My argument is about whether we should be able to ask questions about those questions-whether it is one, two, or one hundred. It’s obvious that you don’t think we should ask any questions, we should just believe whatever allegations are thrown out. I suppose that is much easier to live that way than it is to have to think and examine things critically. So explain to me again why we should accept the allegations made against Matt Araiza.

Well first off, to me why wait 30 years is a huge question. Let’s not just dismiss that. It’s like saying besides the eyewitnesses and DNA, what evidence do you have that I committed the murder? Why a civil trial, where you can be awarded money and have a lower burden of proof than a criminal trial where Wiley could actually face jail time? Thats really it. I don’t have 100 questions. I don’t need 100 questions because my point isn’t that Wiley is innocent and that these women are liars. My point is about the reaction to even asking these questions…the accusations and name calling against guys who ask them is ridiculous and tantamount to demand to believe the women because of the seriousness of their charges.

Who is saying otherwise? Of course victims of sexual violence should be treated with compassion. That isn’t the question here. The question is whether these women are actually victims of sexual violence just because they say they are. None of us know these women or Wiley. All we know is what they said and what he said. We don’t have any obligation to treat the women as victims or to treat Wiley as an innocent man falsely accused based on their respective say-sos.

Nobody is. I’m crazy. I thought I was called a misogynist and labeled as ignorant for saying there are reasons to be skeptical of the accusations (not even that those accusations are false, just that there are legitimate questions about them that need to be answered), but I was mistaken. Sarcasm aside, the syntax of the words used doesn’t matter. It is obvious that to some people in this chat, there is only one acceptable way to think about this issue and to treat the accusation.

That’s odd. I didn’t think it would be hard to follow. I’ll try again. There was a past similar case to this one discussed on this message board. We know now that the accuser made up that entire account. The people who demanded that the accuser be believed then are demanding the same thing now. Worse, they still accuse anyone who even raises questions about the allegations of all order of misogyny, ignorance, etc.

I will admit I was skeptical of Cosby’s accusers too for many of the same reasons I am skeptical now. I changed my opinion as we learned more about the case-particularly his testimony in his civil case. The lesson from Cosby and Araiza is to be humble, admit we don’t know everything, scrutinize the claims, and learn the facts before we form an opinion. My skepticism about the current claims isn’t my opinion about Wiley’s guilt or innocence, it is just a hurdle that the evidence presented at trial will have to overcome.

You are asking “why wait” as though there are no plausible reasons beside trauma. I’m not saying this is what happened, but it’s what could have happened… Maybe now our culture is full of people predisposed to believe any accusation regardless of the absence of any evidence. And they will shout down and shame anyone who even questions their claims. So the climate is much more conducive to making that claim now. This thread is full of people saying the same things now about people questioning the claims of Wiley’s accuser that they did about people question Matt Araiza’s accuser. Now we KNOW that she wasn’t telling the truth, but if Araiza hadn’t stopped at an ATM that night he could be in jail. It is frustrating because there is no humility or introspection about past rushes to judgement, just more of the same preaching against apostates who even dare to raise questions about these new claims.

It's pretty weak sauce to quote one part of my post without the supporting context. In fact, it's more work to select only a portion of the quote, so I guess that wasn't accidental. If the evidence doesn't support @Simon's point, I guess you are okay with just changing the evidence. Well done, you win🙄

That wasn’t an assumption. It was fact from the FBI. it doesn’t prove anything about Wiley and his guilt or innocence. I think it doesn’t prove anything show that we shouldn’t automatically believe a woman just because she makes an accusation. Furthermore, I said nothing about these women or their character. I don’t know them so how could I have an opinion about them? (Maybe you can give me some pointers on judging people I don’t know. You seem to be pretty good at it as you feel free to call me ignorant, misogynistic, and biased without ever having met me). My comments are 100% related to their actions. You are obviously passionate about the topic. That said, I hope you would never sit on a jury.

I don’t know Wiley personally, but I can look at the evidence and make a fair assumption. He was a Walter Payton award nominee multiple times. It’s the most prestigious award the NFL has. Does charity work mean he can’t be guilty of rape? Of course not. But it does give us some sort of indication of the kind of man Wiley is. My argument isn’t that Wiley is a saint or can’t be guilty. My argument is that we don’t have to believe the accusations against him just because they are serious and that other factors besides the accusation can inform our thinking on the subject before all the facts come out. As new facts are presented, we can change our opinions. But right now, with the things we know, I’m skeptical of their accusations.

This is the problem. You are saying "he gets away with it" referring to the women as "victims", etc as though you know the events happened as alleged. Araiza's case proves the problem with this sort of thinking. Women are people and therefore some lie, some are mistaken, etc. Even our moms, even our sisters, wives, etc. Let's see how the case goes, what evidence is presented at the civil trial, etc. But let's not convict Wiley in the court of public opinion based just on the fact that he was accused of something. Especially when that accusation is contrary to what we have seen about his character for almost 30 years now.

Is buyer's remorse a myth or is that just speculation? Look, women sometimes lie about being raped for all sorts of reasons. I can tell you what percentage of liars lie for each particular set of reason. We do know that 8% of all rape allegations are PROVEN false (again not just a failure to convict). That is astounding whether that is 8% that are completely made up, 8% that are just errors by the accuser, or some combination of those and other reasons. My point remains the same-we need to skeptical-especially when three are other factors like three decades since the alleged events, seeking a civil versus criminal tral, etc.

I agree with a lot of this. One point of disagreement though. You are saying you stay away from the "believe all accusers" mantra. You say you want people to come forward and your prescription to help bring this about seems to be that everyone else needs avoid doing anything that looks like skepticism lest another accuser see that and be hesitant to come forward. Functionally, I don't see a difference. One doesn't need a "believe all accusers" outlook if he acts and speaks in the ways you suggest...his actions end up being the same. I say that since no one here (or anywhere as far as I can tell) suggesting that Wiley's accusers not have access to the court and police systems.

These are good points and good examples-especially the Church and Penn State. I'll have to consider them some more. Thanks!

Is it shaming the victim to have a healthy skepticism of an accusation based on the timing? Does the crime for which someone is accused mean we just believe everything is the accusation is terrible enough. How about juries...can they find a man innocent even if it could cause another woman to think twice about coming forward? I think your second question refuting the gold digger accusation is a fair one. However, it is worth considering that the case is a lawsuit and not a criminal trial. Any lawyers feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but in this case Wiley would not be facing any jail time AND the criteria for finding him liable is much lower than at a criminal trial. So basically, the woman is pursuing her case against Wiley in a venue where he doesn't need to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, where he stands no risk of being sent to prison, and where she gets a check if she prevails with that lower burden of proof. You seem to be saying that we shouldn't even consider these factors when discussing this incident for risk of shaming the accuser. I say that is an irresponsible dereliction of our duty to exercise our judgement.

"That's immaterial to whether not he's innocent in this particular instance." I don't understand this. We should encourage people to make accusations of rape whether or not the guy is innocent? We only need to go back 2 years to Matt Araiza to see the consequences of this sort of attitude. Matt Araiza lost two years of his career and his reputation because a woman lied about being raped by him. For point of reference, the FBI says the 8% of all rape accusations are PROVEN false. That isn't that the accused was not convicted because there was a reasonable doubt about his guilt...it's that it was proven that the accuser was wrong or lying in making the accusation in the first place. As far as the support structure in the 90s versus today, when has there ever been a reluctance to believe rape accusations? If your claim was about something like sexual harassment, I'd probably agree with you that society has changed for the better. But rape? It used to be a capital crime. Men used to be executed for raping a woman-that's how seriously it has always been taken. I believe that reluctance to come forward with a rape accusation today is more a product of the situation not being rape as traditionally understood. I think these situations are more an instance of drunken hook ups with next day regret in which the accuser shares culpability with the accused.

I was worried about this before the two pt attempt. BBBFS for the Dallas Monday night game in ‘07.

Is it matchups or did we just have a bad night? I remember the Bills getting smoked on MNF back in 1991 by the Chiefs at Arrowhead. Playoffs in Buffalo we crushed them…up 24-0 at one point. The Ravens are playing awesome right now. Can they beat us? Sure. But you make it sound like we have no shot, which is an absurd take.

He and Gabe are both big receivers, but the similarities end there. Keon can make contested catches and run after the catch. The next time Gabe does either of things it will be the first.

Unless I am remembering wrong (and I'm not, LOL), Von accepted those incentives as part of VOLUNTARILY renegotiating his contract to a lower number. It was the ultimate, team-first sort of thing we as fans are supposed to love.

So true. When we get that Lombardi, I wouldn’t trade it for all the Pats* SuperBowls. All the heartbreak of my 30+ years of fandom won’t matter at all any more and the victory will be that much more sweet because of it.

What a fun topic! QB=Allen RB=OJ WR=Moulds TE=Riemersma OT=Dion OG=Joe D C=Hull DE=Bruce OLB=Biscuit MLB=Sam Cowart CB=Odomes S=Henry Jones P=Moorman K=Christie KR=McGee Coach=McDermott

Take away the two TDs by Cook and we would have been shut out. Fire everybody!

Well done😂. Merry Christmas😊

this wasn’t just a regular knee injury. It was disturbing looking. So where is the line where real men and leaders can show emotion? I ask as someone who is pretty unemotional myself but who doesn’t see anything wrong with how Stroud acted.