[Beren]

I did not claim this either.

What do you claim then? Let's make it clear finally...

[Pants-of-dog]

What do you claim then? Let's make it clear finally...

I basically said that I don't believe Moore is innocent, however, the burden of proof is on the women and that Moore doesn't have to prove anything in a court room.

But politics and political forums are different, of course. There is no need for a presumption of innocence.

What is the difference you may ask.

As I explained to Drlee:

In a court of justice, the burden of proof lies with accuser, and this is a resilt of ensuring individual liberty when the accuser is a state.

But this is not a way of arriving at truth. It is a methodological principle of law, not an actual tool for discerning truth from falsehood.

Consequently, using that as an argument on PoFo makes no sense.

This shifts the burden of proof onto the women targeted by Moore, assumes a fact that is not actually a given (i.e. Moore’s innocence), and ignores the very real possibility that Moore is guilty and that it cannot be proven.

It also ignores the reality faced by women who come forward about sexual assault: their reputations will almost certainly be attacked and questioned in the media and during the trial. There are strong disincentives and negative repercussions from doing this, and it makes little sense to assume that women do this just because.

TLDR: presumption of innocence is good in court, but bad in debate.

[Beren]

I think we're just done with this Pod. I'd never ask Moore, or anybody else for that matter, to prove his innocence, no matter if we're in a court room or not, however, I'd never vote for him anyways as well. Anybody asking him to prove his innocence in any way is a threat to an enlightened republic, however, we're all free to make our own personal judgements and do political acts accordingly.

[Pants-of-dog]

Sure.

Now that we have discussed that, do you have anything to say about my actual point?

[Beren]

Sure.

Now that we have discussed that, do you have anything to say about my actual point?

Whatever your point is I'm just done with this debate.

[jimjam]

It's OK for Roy "The Alabama Groper" Moore to grope away because: “Mary was a teenager and Joseph was an adult carpenter. They became parents of Jesus.”

Maybe the Civil War was a mistake and the South should have been permitted to break with the North (and a wall constructed between the two).

[Suntzu]

So JFK, Teddy, Slick Willie were all rapist and molesters. Where is the outrage?

[Hindsite]

As I said, please read the thread for context, and if you are still confused, please quote the part that confuses you.

I should have know better to try to make sense out of your nonsense. Forget it.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

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.

It's one of the left's common fallacies to extrapolate from their personal relationships to society at large. Society cannot resemble your interactions with people you know well.

I am not misunderstanding or misrepresenting you and other progressives. You personally have demonstrated multiple times on this board that in order to bring about what you consider social justice you are willing to sacrifice the principles and foundations of our societies that, in my view, make them great places to live. There were two cases recently where you and I have debated other principles, first your support of mob violence against perceived or real nazis, white supremacists and white nationalists, and second your wish to criminalise what you consider racist speech. This is just another one of these cases.

[Pants-of-dog]

It's one of the left's common fallacies to extrapolate from their personal relationships to society at large. Society cannot resemble your interactions with people you know well.

Since I did not argue this, I am simply going to move on.

I am not misunderstanding or misrepresenting you and other progressives. You personally have demonstrated multiple times on this board that in order to bring about what you consider social justice you are willing to sacrifice the principles and foundations of our societies that, in my view, make them great places to live. There were two cases recently where you and I have debated other principles, first your support of mob violence against perceived or real nazis, white supremacists and white nationalists, and second your wish to criminalise what you consider racist speech. This is just another one of these cases.

Actually, you have just shown that you have misunderstood me at least two times in the past. I never argued in support of mob violence against Nazis, nor do I ever argue for criminalising racist speech. I understand why you incorrectly believe that I argued these things, but if you were to read my posts carefully, you would see that you are mistaken.

Again, my claim is not that rapists should have to defend their innocence in a court of law, nor am I arguing that they should have to prove their innocence in society.

I am saying that assuming one person is entirely correct and the other one is not may be applicable in other situations (such as a court of law) but it is a fallacy to assume that in debate.

My argument would be exactly the same if you guys decided that the women who were allegedly assaulted were all telling the absolute truth and Moore had to prove his innocence. It would be a fallacy for the exact same reasons: it would shift the entire burden of proof on one side, and assume facts that may not be true.

Now, if you wish to ignore this and decide I am attacking the very foundations of freedom (or whatever), go ahead. But that would be attacking a strawman.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

I am able to read, Pod, and I have read your posts carefully. If you want to deny what you have clearly argued previously, go ahead, but that's not really credible.

[Pants-of-dog]

Sure.

Do you have anything to say about my actual argument involving those fallacies asscoaieted with using presumption of innocence (or guilt) in debate?

[Kaiserschmarrn]

I haven't come across an argument from you that is worth addressing. And that you deny that you supported mob violence and free speech restrictions in previous debates with me doesn't inspire confidence that you are now debating in good faith.

[Pants-of-dog]

Then there is nothing more to say. Have a pleasant day, Kaiserschmarrn.

[SpecialOlympian]

Um?

If I had a vote I would vote for Doug Jones.
If I had a vote I would not vote for Roy Moore.
I support Doug Jones
I oppose Roy Moore.
I'm pro abortion and therefore anti Roy Moore.
I'm anti Christianity, anti Christian theocracy and therefore anti Roy Moore.
I don't believe the creator of the Universe gave the ten commandments. therefore they shouldn't be up in a court room. Another reason I oppose Roy Moore.
I have previously stated more than once that I support Doug Jones.
I have previously stated more than once that I oppose Roy Moore.
I haven't changed my mind.

Ok perhaps you could pause at this point and take a short multi choice test.

Do I?
A back Roy Moore
B back Doug Jones

Now if you answered A, you need to go back and work through the material above again. please feel free to question me if anything above is not clear. Its often tricky to grasp these difficult concepts at first. But only when you're ready go on to stage 2

Stage 2
Even if I knew Doug Jones had raped an underage girl I would still support him over Roy Moore. I'd rather not have to make that choce, but given only two options that's the choice I would make.

Thanks for your input, guy who said child fucking is OK in this one instance because Roy Moore earned it.

Lol that's a thing you said.

[Hindsite]

Thanks for your input, guy who said child fucking is OK in this one instance because Roy Moore earned it.

As I understand it, these accusations date back to alleged incidents 38 to 40 years ago. That is a long time to think back and remember every detail correctly. But none of these incidents are alleged to have included any sexual intercourse, so the claims of child fucking by some posters is incorrect.

Not only that, but the timing and source is suspicious, since it came from reporters looking for dirt on Roy Moore for the Washington Post, which had been supporting the Democrat Doug Jones. The timing is just after Roy Moore had defeated Luther Strange in the primary and a month before the election, which gives too little time to determine if the allegations are true or false.

That is good news for the Democrats and Doug Jones, because the allegations alone have caused a big change in the polls, so that Roy Moore is no longer leading. Even the RNC has become scared to support Moore with campaign funds. But the President, even though originally supporting Luther Strange, has recently said that you have to listen to Roy Moore too, because Moore says the accusations are not true. Although President Trump has said it is up to the people of Alabama to decide and that he has no plans to campaign for Roy Moore at this time, he hasn't ruled that possibility out.

Gloria Allred has refused to release her client's yearbook with the alleged entry by Roy Moore for handwriting and forensic examination until there is a Senate investigation. That means, we will not be able to determine the authenticity of the entry unless Roy Moore wins the election to the Senate. So that is what I wish would happen at this time, because I would like to know the truth.

[SpecialOlympian]

Yeah it's really difficult for teenaged girls to remember the times they were molested by an adult man who is also a lawyer and ought to be familiar with the "don't fuck children" laws on the books. Thank you for your input, Hindsite.

Personally, I can't even remember if I have or have not fucked children. I don't think I did, but who knows? This is common for most adults.

[Hindsite]

Yeah it's really difficult for teenaged girls to remember the times they were molested by an adult man who is also a lawyer and ought to be familiar with the "don't fuck children" laws on the books. Thank you for your input, Hindsite.

Personally, I can't even remember if I have or have not fucked children. I don't think I did, but who knows? This is common for most adults.

Those teenage girls are 38 to 40 years older now so that means they are around 55 years old now. They say they don't remember Roy Moore fucking them (as in sexual intercourse). Roy Moore also said he did not do it. I think that should settle that matter. Praise the Lord.

[SpecialOlympian]

Roy Moore absolutely fucks children and I wouldn't be surprised if he was balls deep inside some young boy right now.

Additionally, all conservatives are child fuckers. Every single one. If you voted for Trump you fuck children, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Trump himself is a pedophile rapist.

[Hindsite]

Roy Moore absolutely fucks children and I wouldn't be surprised if he was balls deep inside some young boy right now.

Additionally, all conservatives are child fuckers. Every single one. If you voted for Trump you fuck children, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Trump himself is a pedophile rapist.

This is nonsense.