Okay for instance, with Trump the evidence is written on the walls. Ideally he should be tried and found guilty, but he controls the courts. That’s its own problem, wouldn’t you say?
Compare this with the 5 hockey players that were just acquitted in Canada. It’s a national scandal. But there was a video of the (ostensible) victim giving what the judge considered to be enthusiastic consent and showing no sign of duress whatsoever. Her story is that she was faking consent because she was afraid of the 5 men. If you asked me if she’s definitely lying, I’d say no; and if you asked me if she’s definitely telling the truth, I’d say no. By the principle of innocent until proven guilty, I’d say the judge made the right call in acquitting the men.
okay fine, I don’t really believe in innocent until proven guilty, I believe in “no punishment until proven guilty.” I feel that I made myself clear when I said I neither believed for sure that she was lying nor for sure that she was telling the truth. I don’t see how this is a binary view.
i, too, believe in gulity until proven innocent
Enjoy losing your liberty because some lunatic made false accusations on you
(I was being sarcastic)
(It went over my head)
no that’s fair, it seems like these days it’s impossible to tell people’s legitimate takes apart from sarcasm.
Yeah, until the court system he owns says he’s bad, again, hes good!
well I am not talking about Trump. I believe he’s guilty. There’s plenty of evidence to support that.
Oh so what’s that about the courts?
Okay for instance, with Trump the evidence is written on the walls. Ideally he should be tried and found guilty, but he controls the courts. That’s its own problem, wouldn’t you say?
Compare this with the 5 hockey players that were just acquitted in Canada. It’s a national scandal. But there was a video of the (ostensible) victim giving what the judge considered to be enthusiastic consent and showing no sign of duress whatsoever. Her story is that she was faking consent because she was afraid of the 5 men. If you asked me if she’s definitely lying, I’d say no; and if you asked me if she’s definitely telling the truth, I’d say no. By the principle of innocent until proven guilty, I’d say the judge made the right call in acquitting the men.
I think you’re generally thinking in very simple binary terms. Justice does not dwell there. Justifying it with misogyny is not helpful.
what do you mean?
One degree of certainty, one degree of action, guilt or innocence. Nothing in between.
okay fine, I don’t really believe in innocent until proven guilty, I believe in “no punishment until proven guilty.” I feel that I made myself clear when I said I neither believed for sure that she was lying nor for sure that she was telling the truth. I don’t see how this is a binary view.