The first post was phrased as to imply that one of the falsely accused man had committed an actual rape, that was proven.
If he did not, and the "actual rape" mentioned was not an actual, but just an alleged rape, then of course I don't believe him to be guilty.
Just, IF he had been in front of a judge two times, one times with the here mentioned false accusation, and then a later time, convicted of rape, that'd mean a woman making false accusations would have to have accused an actual rapist by sheer accident. Which is hard to believe.
How? If I lie about being burgled or mugged how does that affect any one else?
It doesn't, because people aren't in the habit of not believing victims or burglary.
It also doesn't in the case of rape, except that people who don't want to believe rape victims will have a nice excuse - they'd continue to not believe rape victims without anyone giving them an excuse for it, of course, but they feel better if they can point at a woman and blame her for their lack of empathy and their misogyny.
I also don't think that people claiming to have been burgled are then given thrice as long a sentence as people who actually commit burglary.