She also posted about how her friend defended him because she's a Christian who doesn't believe in judging people, and in the next breath says herbthegirl only thinks he did it because she never liked him.
She points out that she's mocking the reasons they're using to defend this guy, not the defense itself. And they are pretty stupid reasons, right?
Not according to the members of MTS. They jump right on the bandwagon with stupid reasons of their own, defending strangers over the Internet. We have:
"Not only is she a Christian, but she is an American. And a damned fine one at that." Why? Because she judged her friend instead of the accused rapist.
"Just because the initial discussion about how he wouldn't 'need' to rape anyone is stupid doesn't make it less valid in pointing out that these people are siding with him because of who he is and what he represents."
There's also a few people saying that maybe the girls got together and made it up because "that's how high school is."
And when several posters start talking about him being innocent until proven guilty, there's this gem:
"Even if he was convicted, would that really mean it was 'proven'? Just because there's a pretty little saying about something doesn't mean it's true ... If the girls could prove that sexual contact did occur with them, it would be their word against about whether there was consent or not, and he could perfectly easily be convicted even if each girl gave very clear consent. Hell, even if the girls raped him."
I just... don't even know where to start with this. I have no problem with people defending their friends, but a.) do it with a better argument than "he's pretty!" and b.) defending a complete stranger over the internet while simultaneously ignoring the actual mock completely? My judgment: Stupid.
(Oh no, I must be one of those judgmental, jealous, non-Christian, un-American people.)