Drlee wrote:Nonsense. A court is seeking the truth. It looks for proof and includes the use of reasoning skills on the part of jurors. The same skills we on this forum ought to use in deciding whether the allegations are true or not.
While trials and debates hold many similarities, there are significant qualitative differences.
The first is the presumption of innocence, which is a direct result of trying to protect individual liberty from tyrannical governments.
This does not exist in debate. We cannot start with the given that Moore is innocent and proceed from there, because that assumes a given fact that may not be necessarily true, and places all the burden of proof on one side.
It would be like starting a debate about whether Loki exists and assuming he does unless the atheist side can disprove it.
It makes perfect sense. Look at the title of the thread. We are debating whether or not those accusations are proven. Each of us is doing that. We arrive at what we believe is true. Using that decision as a basis for our action we decide what to do about it. It is perfectly possible for someone, the governor of Alabama for example, to believe the women and decide to vote for Moore anyway. That may not be what you or I would find reasonable but they certainly can sacrifice their integrity to serve what they consider a greater good.
You are confusing a liberal legal principle with a method at arriving at truth. They are two different things. The tools we use to arrive at truth in a debate should not include presumed innocence. It is logically fallacious to assume one answer and just mindlessly stick to it unless forced otherwise, even if the exact same tool works in a court of law. And by “works”, I mean it creates an somewhat effective obstacle to government tyranny, which is completely pointless in debate.
This is not even logical. Look at what you wrote and get back to us.
You do realise that this is part of different discussion that I am having about the prevalence of false rape allegations, I hope.
——————————
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:The only interesting aspect of the sexual assault frenzy is that the left seems to really want to challenge the principle of innocent until proven guilty. It started on university campuses and is now spilling out into wider society.
No, this is a strawman. Leftists and progressives do not actually want this. This is fear mongering at worst and a huge misunderstanding at best.
I actually hope they carry on with these witch hunts, especially among their own and those who have publicly professed to be progressive. It demonstrates nicely how dangerous their mindset is. And if they don't, they look utterly hypocritical. If the right cannot capitalise on this politically, they'll only have themselves to blame.
Out of everyone here, I am the one who has actually challenged this idea. And I have not ever suggested that presumed evidence should be discarded from the justice system.
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:I don't think that's very different in other western countries. Also, in my view, @Pants-of-dog is wrong to separate what happens in a court of law and in society in general, because acceptance of this principle must come first. Once people no longer appreciate how vital it is, the law may well change further down the line. But even if it doesn't, who needs a court of law if we can try people in the court of public opinion?
This is one of the milestones of any civilized society and must remain part of the cultural fabric. There aren't really very many of these basic principles, but they have to be defended unconditionally, because they are in place to moderate and counteract insidious and dangerous human instincts that have the potential to be very destructive.
This uncritical worship of a legal principle is all very moral, if we disregard sexual assault.
The argument is that we should treat women who have been sexually assaulted exactly as we treat potentially tyrannical governments when it comes to being trusted and dealing with burden of proof.
And not only in court, but in all walks of life. And the justification for this seems to be a slippery slope fallacy that also disregards the very different contexts.
No. When my friends come to me to tell me that they have been sexually assaulted, I do not place the same burden of proof on them as i would place on the state accusing someone in court of law. These are two very different contexts. And debate is another different altogether.
Yes, it may give the average person way too much credit in the thinking department, but I am not going to ignore reality just because people might misunderstand me.
———————————
Beren wrote:They nominated Hillary Clinton for president for example, I wonder whether Pod and comrades could be stopped under a Clinton administration.
Lol. I think Clinton is almost as bad as Trump.
Anyway, if progressives got their way, all boys would be raised to not sexually assault females.
Is that what you want to stop?
- By late
- By JohnRawls
- By ingliz
- By Tainari88