Phoenix Wright
-
Posts
5,329 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Phoenix Wright
-
-
8 hours ago, Edgelord said:
so apparently donald trump wrote an op-ed for USA Today
Yeah, I know, I'm just as surprised as you that Trump actually wrote something.
Otherwise it's full of factual errors and brain-decaying matter as you'd expect with Trump talking about medicare for all (since the campaign of course, because before and sometimes during it he praised the idea)
edit: also republicans getting mad at eric holder saying 'when they go low, we kick them'
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/11/eric-holder-speaks-out-kick-them-comment-stop-fake/
I think this is another example that that those who shout the loudest about snowflakism aren't necessarily immune to it, if that's fair
(once again, cases like sarah palin places crosshairs on political opponents leading to an actual attempted assassination, or trump asking the crowd to get violent at disagreement in the audience, or musing that the 'second ammendment people might do something about hillary', but no it's only the democrats that ever do that. jesus.)
i got stupider after reading that.
6 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:I didn't pay much attention to the article and was more curious as to why the fuck USA Today would even publish that piece of garbage. The criticism they're getting for it is deserved
Also, Bernie responded.
i honestly don't see the problem, in fact i applaud them. donald trump, in addition to his moronic ramblings, has given us yet another piece of undeniable proof of his stupidity, arrogance, and delusion. plus, it's the president of the united states for god's sake--that's a big story just by itself. there's a factcheck.org piece accompanying it as well.
-
yeah it's pretty funny.
-
6 hours ago, Anacybele said:
"HE'S SO HUNGRY HE'S GONNA EAT THE ENDZONE!"
Omg. XD
gonna eat in the endzone :p
3 hours ago, Randombobman said:Been a while since I checked in. I see it's still active and ana likes to argue with everyone and bemoan the Steelers whenever they lose lol.
NFC north is a mystery this season. My Lions currently undefeated against qbs with #12. Mason Crosby you da real mvp (1-5 fg, 1-2 PAT)
I can live with the vikes or even bears taking it because FTP!
LORD MAHOMES is the next GOAT
he had quite a horrible day lol
-
sucks that it was the ravens that lost, but i'd pick the browns to win over any other team right now. i love an underdog.
this rams-hawks game is classic. sucks that we aren't humiliating them again, but it's been good. goff returning to form of overthrowing passes a bit lol.
-
8min is a lot of game in the 4th quarter. relax dude
-
honestly sounds like an afc problem. i haven't had a problem with it yet. besides, suh knows what to do.
-
a bit speculative, but alarming if the future turns out the way it's hinted at in the article. not alarming because of any results; all the results that are likely to happen haven't changed (dems are slated to take the house, gop the senate, not to mention repub congress + pres means gop scotus nomination will go through), but because it seems to be identity politics are only getting worse. we're listening to each other less, getting angry at each other more. i hope we can find a way out of this garbage political landscape--it's not healthy for us as a people.
this judge, for example, has absolutely no business in a supreme court anywhere. i don't understand what his qualifications are compared to others--i don't understand his appeal. in each test, he's been pretty lackluster: won't give straightforward answers to straightforward questions, poor temperament, no outstanding qualities to note. not to mention the assault accusations coupled with a joke of an fbi investigation.
the gop can ok this guy simply because and people eat it the fuck up. it's frightening.
-
7 hours ago, Anacybele said:
And I still have no idea what "moral" opinions you're talking about. Also, an opinion is an opinion, they're neither wrong nor right.
Hey, didn't we play so god awful in that game that it looked like we didn't even deserve to be there? Oh yeah, we did. Came unprepared and just played like shit and got blown out. That. Is. On. Coaching. Not to mention in the divisional game before that, we only got FGs, no TDs. That was bull too. Also, that tie was to the crappy Browns and both losses were to teams we should be better than. Playing down to the competition yet again, which is again, due to poor coaching. When will you get this?!
it's possible to hold an opinion on something based off of flawed information. example:
black people make up the majority of enrolled college students, with white people the disproportionately enrolled minority group (that is, not enough are enrolled.) therefore, it is my opinion that we should help white people get enrolled in college.
now, that opinion is inherently flawed. it's not wrong, but it's ill-informed and would probably change if i knew the actual facts.
to be clear: it's actually the opposite. we see much less black students enrolled in college (<1% black student population in most cases) despite amounting to ~13% of the population (more in certain college areas). we'd expect at least 13% of college students to be black, just statistically speaking.
does this paint a clear enough picture for you?
i will say your reasoning is at least more solid than the above example, but the idea is the same: your reasoning is flawed, therefore the conclusions you've made (even though they're just opinions) are unsound. make sense?
17 hours ago, Anacybele said:Using the same words I just did against you to go against me, how smart... Doesn't change anything though.
And...uh, that's the same thing. I have my reasons for my opinion, so if you say my reasons are wrong, you're saying my opinion is wrong too which makes zero sense.
Okay, how about this. I wish you didn't root for any of the same teams I do.
Oh, and yeah, I do like the Panthers. But I'm not so sure they're great right now either. That remains to be seen for me, but I'll be keeping watch.
Because of things that have happened in past seasons too, not just this one. This one is just the last straw because it shows that the team's only been getting worse, not better. I already said this.
see above.
that's a bit mean-spirited for "peaceful conversation," no?
-
sounds like it lol.
-
tomlin isn't doing a bad job. you don't fire a head coach because they don't win superbowls. jeff fisher has an almost 0.5 record with the titans and he was head coach longer than tomlin has been. tomlin has never even had a losing record with the steelers.
-
i certainly hope gsot is back. i want a sb
-
2 hours ago, Johann said:
Random anonymous online posts somewhere are giving you doubts? For all you can tell, that's just a campaign put together by trolls to discredit her. Frankly, based on his testimony, there's more reason to doubt anything come out of Kavanaugh's mouth since you can demonstrably show where he's evaded questions and lied.
Simply coming forward about this stuff pretty much overturns the lives of these women. They're getting death threats for crying out loud. Plus, if they are found to be committing perjury, they'd definitely end up facing serious charges. It's not some petty game to sabotage another person.
1i think one of my most hated 21st-century political developments is that this is something that actually happens. in a positive light, it's somewhat beautiful that normal people have found a platform by which to exercise considerably more power than they otherwise would have in any other platform (aside from voting).
however, it seems to never be used for progressive purposes. or even simply educational purposes. they're used to manipulate people and spread lies in order to discredit the opposition because it's easy and it works.
frostyfiremage, note in the future that it's a fact russian operatives held an online brigade to elevate trump's status. now more than ever, it is imprudent to believe anonymous people. there was a recent new york times article that was fully anonymous--to the general public. that was okay because folks at the times know the person's identity. (which, i suppose a leap of faith is required to believe that ny times actually knows the person. but, you'd have to be quite cynical to think they were lying, especially given the respect that the times garners.)
believe facts, not hearsay.
-
the highlights make me very sad i didn't get to watch the game.
-
i can't tell if that was an impressive show by the rams or an impressively bad show by the raiders.
-
7 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:
so who's watching pitt-cleveland...
EDIT: ben roethlisberger picked off in OT...
EDIT 2: LOL FIELD GOAL BLOCKED TIE GAME
crazy. my first tie game!
-
i am nearly in love with this season already. very bummed the rams dont play at a decent time for me. (4am cest.) i might actually set an alarm to watch...
-
7 hours ago, Hylian Air Force said:
No. I thought that was evident when I said it was unnecessary. I don't like nukes as weapons, today. Too even seek to make one marks just how dangerous a country is, and it only adds to global tension every time a nation decides to join the ~2% of countries that have them, with half of them being known global superpowers at one point. I wish that total nuclear disarmament was possible, but that would only embolden countries that seek them, as that means there would be nothing short of a military invasion that could stop them, especially if the government only cares about power, and not about the people they serve.
what's different between then and now?
6 hours ago, blah the Prussian said:Well, sometimes we have to do things that are morally reprehensible. You were asking if I condoned stuff like Operation Whirlwind, the answer is yes.
Because the military as a whole did not set out to deliberately kill Iraqi civilians. Collateral damage can't be a war crime because everyone does it.
ok.
if the military targets indiscriminately, that's equivalent to targeting civilians imo...
-
15 minutes ago, blah the Prussian said:
Yeah, I guess that's true, but international law is a joke anyway and will never have any effect beyond being a vehicle for victor's justice.
1this isn't an argument lol. the point is that it's morally reprehensible.
QuoteIf I were a judge in a case where a starving man stole reread I'd let him off with a slap on the wrist. Similarly, I'd let a military commander who targeted civilians when it was absolutely necessary off with a slap on the wrist.
let's just say i count my lucky stars you are no judge.
QuoteI don't think the military as a whole is liable for crimes against humanity. I think individual war crimes(which there indeed were) should be tried individually. It is not a war crime unless intent to kill civilians can be proven. Those certainly happened in Iraq but I don't think the military as a whole can be accused of that.
and why not?
-
On 8/31/2018 at 9:45 PM, blah the Prussian said:
Which neither Operation Whirlwind nor Hiroshima and Nagasaki were designed to do. However, if you're the Soviet Union, and your defeat to the Nazis will mean the literal enslavement of your people, I'm willing to look past targeting civilians if done when the Soviets were losing.
There's a difference between civilians as collateral damage(Operation Whirlwind) and civilians as the deliberate targets(the Blitz).
soviets being desperate doesn't stop it from being a crime. a starving man stealing food is still tried as theft. yes, circumstances are more sympathetic, but targeting civilians is a crime.
when over 100k civilians in iraq die as a result of our intervention (the numbers are not certain, that's a low estimate), you think we're doing their job right? were those killings justified? does the number need to be 6 million before you hold the military liable for crimes against humanity?
On 8/31/2018 at 9:51 PM, Hylian Air Force said:Nagasaki was a major military industrial target. Hiroshima was the site of a naval academy. Neither of those could have, in that time, been referred to as anything less than justifiable military targets. Nowadays? Carpet bombing and especially nuclear bombing aren't necessary to tear down the enemy's infrastructure. Standards have changed, and I doubt Truman having foreknowledge on what exactly would happen would change his decision to bomb either city. It was a tragedy, but it was the last out of a period of 6 years and 1 day of tragedy. It's barbaric and fortunately has not been repeated, but do you think the war-weary US was going to do anything else?
do you think the use of a nuclear weapon is justifiable under any circumstance today?
-
19 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:
Agreed.
I disagree, the alt-right's opinion of a politician serves as a tell to how dangerous they can be if left unchecked and which people in power you should look to remove if you seek to do away with the racism in the country and work towards the equality the declaration of independence alludes to. The alt-right is dangerous, stupid but dangerous. The right-wing can project that the "left is violent" is all they want but the reality is that alt-right would be the most likely instigator/starter of riots or anything resembling a civil war in the country over Trump.
that isn't the point. the point is they're uneducated and likely know very little about mccain's voting record. therefore, their opinions are ignorable. because they should like him, overall.
9 hours ago, blah the Prussian said:Well, but the way you said it implied that even granted that the use of the bombs had sound military reasoning behind them they wouldn't be justified("bombing people is never justified") which is what I take issue with. In this case, I think that the bombs had sound military reasoning behind them. In other cases, such as, in fact, the use of drones in Iraq, I don't think the military reasoning is enough to justify it.
To be clear I have never nor will never support the Iraq War and I think that US troops committed war crimes there. However, that doesn't make it a genocide.
Assuming your family members were slated to invade Japan you can bet your ass they would have been. Not to mention, of course, all the Japanese civilians who would have died.
Tokyo: not to the extent it was bombed but yes bombing it was legitimate.
Berlin and Germany as a whole: I'm never gonna agree with the people going do it again Bomber Harris but the strategic bombing campaign over Germany was militarily justified and the death toll it caused often gets overinflated by Wehraboos and the like to a ridiculous degree.
London: The bombing of London wasn't just an atrocity, it was a stupid idea. Before then, the Germans were only bombing military targets. By including civilian targets(and, unlike Operation Whirlwind, they deliberately targeted civilians) the Germans inflicted less damage on the RAF and lost the Battle of Britain.
Everything else: no as chemical and biological weapons are banned. However were the situation to be dire enough(which it never was during WWII) I could see the argument.
targeting civilians is a criminal act.
-
11 hours ago, eclipse said:
@Phoenix Wright who is that post addressed to?
no one?
10 hours ago, Edgelord said:If you're gonna rag on politicians for Iraq, a large swath of the Democrats deserve it as well for supporting it at the time, including Hillary.
Unlike some neo-conservatives to this day (John Bolton), McCain actually admitted the Iraq war was a mistake.
It's not necessarily wrong that Iraq was more horrible than any single one thing Trump has done, but he's certainly trying his hardest to escalate in other regions and bring more troops to Afghanistan 17 years after the war started...
who said this individual doesn't rag on dems, including both clintons?
admitting to a mistake of that magnitude doesn't make him a better person. why does saying "i'm sorry" matter here?
8 hours ago, blah the Prussian said:I mean the way I see it if there's military reasoning behind using them then using them is justified. If using the atomic bombs in that situation wasn't justified nothing could have been justified.
but is the reasoning sound? is it accurate? i'm not so certain. a blanket statement like that allows a military to do whatever it wants.
6 hours ago, XRay said:If I was alive at the time, the use of the bomb would be a no brainer. Better the enemy die than my family, my friends, and I. I would be outraged if Truman did not use the bomb to end the war as soon as possible.
Trump's time is not up yet, so I would hold off on saying McCain is worse than Trump. I believe McCain genuinely want what is best for America, while I cannot say the same for Trump.
It is one thing to have an unintentional huge fuck up, but it is a whole another thing to intentionally and slowly undermine America and betray our country.
your family, friends, nor you would have been in any danger. i honestly cannot believe the atomic bombs still get support like this to this day.
do you all support the bombings of tokyo too? london? berlin? do you all support the use of agent orange? do you support gassing the enemy? biological warfare? i mean wtf
6 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:The statements made here are technically correct, the war on Iraq is indeed much worse than the hush money and a lot of the scandals that Donald Trump is facing scrutiny for, I do not contest this.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting or reading this entire quote wrong, but I do take issue with the implication here that McCain is a worse person than Trump (also, I'm not sure if on this bit these are your own words or you're quoting somebody else but regardless...). Let's be clear here: I do not condone the war on Iraq or McCain's "warmongering" history, as @Edgelord pointed out, the war on Iraq is something the Democrats deserve some of the flak too, it is something the United States as a country deserves flak for and should be labeled as a great error/mistake in our history. My intent is to argue against the implication of McCain < Trump by suggesting why I think McCain > Trump as the notion that "What has happened on Iraq is worse than the hush money" downplays how bad Trump actually is.
1. Trump is practically if not technically a warmonger as well, there's a lot of shit that's visible to us because of leaks and Trump's big mouth but not everything is. We do know however that he wanted to invade Venezuela, he bombed Syria after a suggestion from Fox and Friends and there's 2 countries he's being provocative with where you can tell he's just itching for war: one is Iran and the other is North Korea. John Bolton is his National Security adviser and you can bank on the fact that if Trump had the right to declare war and NOT congress, we would be at war with Iran and possibly with North Korea in 2017. Arguably, Trump's attempts at diplomacy with North Korea and handling of Iran could stem from Putin's influence, he's practically doing that man's bidding to make US look bad.
2. McCain makes clear actions demonstrating that he stands with the country, our Democracy and our allies. Trump on the other hand shits on our allies, coddles up to dictators and specially Russia, mocks due process and our constitution which is probably one of the main aspects at play that's keeping him president instead of just being jail or assassinated by people who believe in the constitution.
3. Trump IS racist and he's a voice for the alt-right, white supremacists, neo-nazis and anything close to it as the man is a fool intent on self-serving his pathetic ego. Alt-right REJECTS McCain. You could argue that Trump hasn't publicly endorsed a neo-nazi or white supremacy running for office, but that's currently debatable.When asked questions regarding that crowd, he tends to ignore them. As of late and throughout his political career, he's been using more and more of their rhetoric and appealing to their values with situations like the infamous "very fine people on both sides", the South Africa "white genocide" that the US Embassy itself is rejecting, his illegal immigration rhetoric consisting of estimates from "FAIR", an organization that's generally considered a hate group. Arguably, Trump's use of right-wing media for his talking points, as evidenced by his recent attacks on Google, are a product of them being so pro-Trump that you have Fox News employees leaving the network because of the "Pro-Trump propaganda machine" they've become. McCain defended Obama against a racist voter and voted against the Obamacare repeal.
4. The value of their fucking word. I'll keep this short: You can tell me that in those abhorrent Trump tweets, you can find some truths... I won't contest that, "even a broken clock is right twice a day" after all. But anyone who were to argue that Trump isn't a pathological liar, is credible, would be approved for a security clearance if he weren't president and doesn't lie to the American people on a daily basis regardless of party, that person needs to have their head examined. Trump is now arguing that the VIDEO where he admitted to Obstruction of Justice by firing Comey is faked. Again, keeping this short, I could go on for a looooong time.
There's just no real comparison between these two men, the media and lots of people are indeed exaggerating on the praising of McCain in the aftermath of his passing and really it's all a product of how low the bar's been set in the Trump era, he's showing shreds of integrity, resistance against brazen attacks on the American people and support for the country as a Republican when other members of his party are being complicit spineless schmucks. Cancer is not enough to describe Trump.
the alt-right is stupid. what they think of mccain is irrelevant. the poster argued that mccain furthered their causes and then some.
2 hours ago, blah the Prussian said:And I'm sorry, casualties in war will never be a minor genocide and even if it was McCain was not responsible for the policies that killed civilians in Iraq.
you have way too much of a hardon for the military.
-
it's extremely tough to argue the use of the atomic bombs, especially 2, were justified. was there a decent (enough) military reasoning behind the use? maybe, sure. i'm not certain, especially looking back, but even at the time, that its use was justified or is justified. then again, i'm not certain really any bombings are justified.
a political fb group member's opinion on mccain, which i find myself not disagreeing with...
John McCain fought tooth and nail to make sure that people like my late father would die of preventable illnesses they couldn’t afford to treat and that people like my mother would drive their families into medical bankruptcy as a result of an aggressive stomach tumor and a protracted hospital stay.
Were he content to enjoy his ill-gotten fruits outside of the legislative sphere, I would have begrudged him little in his decline.
Were he merely a two-term stooge of the financial industry cut from a common bipartisan cloth, I could chuckle at his death but have some level of compassion for his situation.
But this is a man who - aside from voting against MLK day as a holiday, and fuck anyone who suggests an “evolution” on such an issue is possible while holding office all the time - worked tirelessly until his last day in the Senate to propagate violence across the globe, to pilfer the third world of what little resource wealth it doesn’t have, to suffocate American citizens under a blanket of police surveillance and data mining, and to deprive every American from the basic modern liberties of health care and education.
I do not need to lie about McCain to sully him. I do not need to commit libel to invite heaping scorn from merely relitigating his atrocious record as a humanitarian and representative of the best interests of the people. Everyone who cries loudest about the insidious creep of “fake news” weeps most openly over the passing of what can most charitably be described as a terrifically compromised fossil with a singular focus on erasing brown lives abroad. News that paints a such a genuine and heartfelt proponent of war crimes, baseless invasions that slaughter hundreds of thousands, and “100-year wars” as a lion of political independence and steadfast courage is faker than the fakest Russian-funded Blacktivist web-page could ever dream of being. There is no “Fairness Doctrine” to the media portrayal of McCain. It is a post-wasabi diarrhea of platitudes and bipartisan gladhanding. Events such as these are used to bring us all together as Americans and remind us of how similar we really are as police increasingly tighten the vise around the necks of the poor and former Obama Treasury Secretaries lead ten-figure firms that send predatory loans to the same families made destitute by their policies and/or negligence. The runway of our booming economy was foamed with the turmoil and upheaval forced upon millions after millions of families - overwhelmingly black and Latino, mind you - and you must not be angry about this because everyone agrees that McCain was a hero.
Even Bernie Sanders, socialist that he might sometimes pretend to be, is convinced of redemptive qualities within John McCain’s character. If those qualities exist, then they must be juxtaposed against the absolute shame of his tenure as a legislator and public voice for the people to digest. To do otherwise is to erase the death perpetrated against countless families both at home and abroad as a result of his campaigning.
Condolences to his family. Like Reagan, I’m glad he’s dead. I want to know what all of your reactions will be when Trump dies, because nothing he has done (please miss me with that white collar financial crimes shit, his money has always been dirty) is anywhere close to as bad as Iraq. If you think blowjob hush money is a greater treason than a minor genocide, then I don’t know what to tell you.
Oh, yes I do. Go cry over John McCain’s death some more.
-
16 hours ago, Life said:
Regarding the claims that I did not explain how to get rid of gender/identity politics, none of you were listening. So let me explain in bold.
Stop assuming that if you are part of X identity group (woman/black/whatever) that you think or SHOULD think the exact same thing. You need to look at the fact that the smallest minority is the individual who has their own desires, goals and flaws.
it's unfortunate that nothing has changed since i've started coming here less.
but anyway, i'm not going to tear your posts apart because i no longer find it useful or entertaining. i will say this, though: the democratic party, as an entity, does not do this. people on twitter do this. people on tumblr do this.
i have to let you know that individual people have very little potential to illuminate the strategies or operations of the party itself. analyzing the behaviors of fringe party members isn't useful lol. you've always felt that it was and i don't understand why. you actually understand so little about the democratic base, which is why your positions and insights are stupid. (seriously--you're gonna bitch about affirmative action? you obviously do not understand the very basic philosophies behind the democratic party.)
i'm not listening to you because it's obvious you are ill-informed and arrogant, not because you're right-wing.
16 hours ago, Life said:You guys are so far down the rabbit-hole. Well, when it turns on you, I'm just going to laugh and say "told you so".
what the hell are you even talking about here? this is a child's mentality. ("laugh and say, 'i told you so'"? really? lmfao.) rabbit-holes don't 'turn' on anything. this reads like an un-ironic version of this.
-
17 hours ago, Edgelord said:
Note that when talking about tax cuts that blow a hole in the deficit, or deregulation or social welfare checks to corporations to bail them out when they crash their own economies, or for voting for expanding the military budget even further when there's already a bunch of wasted funding, voted for by both Republicans and Democrats, or for funding continued military intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else, or for a stupid wall project (the money comes from Mexico, honest!) nobody is ever asked 'where the money comes from', because it is the norm. Republicans aren't fiscally conservative. Only left economic policies are challenged in this fashion, and it's disingenuous.
For Medicare for All, for example, a recent study funded by the Koch Brothers and libertarian Mercatus Center (who aren't in favour of left-wing economic policies at all obviously), had to conclude that a single payer system would cost slightly less than the system currently in place in the US, due to it being a middle-man gouging mess. $34 trillion compared to $32 trillion over the next ten years. And that's with a source with a bias against such a system.
https://www.thenation.com/article/thanks-koch-brothers-proof-single-payer-saves-money/
In some ways, I do think it's a little more nuanced than that. When implementing the NHS in the UK, cost exceeded initial expectations. But ask any regular civilian in the UK and they'll tell you the NHS is one of our, if the not the biggest achievement for our country. It may require some form of hike in taxes, but it eliminates rising premiums for regular people, and the worry if you are going to go into debt just because you got sick. It is worth it. Which is why the medical industry doesn't want this, because they make major bank over people not be able to pay when they are severely injured or dying. Americans should be a little more concerned with life over money.
And as for GDP spent on healthcare, well:
and
I'm a little less enthusiastic on other areas like tax-funded college compared to healthcare, but America could absolutely do it if they deem it worth it. Scotland manages to do it for citizens. Another idea would be just to put money into education in general - this is why there was a teachers strike earlier this year - and these weren't in liberal states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_teachers'_strikes_in_the_United_States
Cutting the military is still a good idea, considering a) waste of resources in many areas and b) less intervention presence from US military around the world, something the American people generally want too. The US has 800 military bases around the world in 80 countries that cost $100 billion annually to maintain.
i truly do not understand the logic behind being against welfare but for big bank bailouts (especially in 2008, after they took advantage of the american people and crashed the economy for nearly a decade). if a fiscal conservative can explain the reasoning to me articulately, please do.
23 minutes ago, Life said:If you ask me about Democrat strategy, they need to start caring about white working class instead of going farther progressive. Progressives turn people off the same way that Christian Conservatives turn people off.
maybe to those wanting to stop the clock or turn it backward...
a far-right winger's opinion on what left-wing strategy should be is also a funny concept.
General US Politics
in Serious Discussion
Posted
this has been thrown around a lot, but i just don't think it's true. anecdotally, i know it isn't true and in the general case i find that there are sufficient ways to deal with trauma s.t. the victim is not "dying every day."
replace the word rape with [crime that causes trauma]. would you be singing the same tune?