> Tellingly I have seen that fallacy used overwhelmingly when it comes to sexual misbehaviour. This is because unlike most other categories of criminal conduct

> Tellingly I have seen that fallacy used overwhelmingly when it comes to sexual misbehaviour. This is because unlike most other categories of criminal conduct, allegations of sexual misconduct are particularly damaging to the accused, owing to the enormity of the crime and its effects on genuine victims. We might expect, then, to require a higher quality or quantity of evidence versus 'lesser crimes', no? But this isn't the case. If somebody in the public sphere is accused of shoplifting, f.i., you would hear many a person declare said somebody "innocent until proven guilty!". In the case of sexual assault and rape, however, there exists a very loud minority that appear to hold we should accept all allegations without reservation – or, at least, those we deem "trustworthy" based on a vague nothingness. After all, if they were a friend of yours, you would take their word for it. Right? Regardless, I am not in fact saying we should necessarily require evidence before we believe any allegation. I am more concerned with how we communicate our beliefs, especially in public. I might happen to believe Appelbaum's accusers are telling the truth, but it's decidedly not okay to assert that he is "a rapist" on the basis of nothing. People like to turn rape accusations into a little game of odds, but at the end of the discussion the fact remains: anybody can accuse anyone of anything.