Aaaaaand there’s the smoking gun. He all but admitted it. And as I said, accusations help her credibility and puts focus on his culpability, but it doesn’t convict. On its own. His own words did.
Additionally I don’t know why you’re pushing so hard to be right when we’re debating something that I admitted can be a grey area. I already said there are exceptions to the rule. But you’re buying the point of my argument by forcing the exception to be the rule.
The fact of the matter is- accusations don’t convict.
Learn how law actually works and stop googling shit, but if you must: please, look up two things:
“Burden of Proof” and-
“Presumption of Innocence”.
Because in practice, using the former informs the latter.
Now I’m done with this sideshow. If you’re unwilling to come to terms on this, it’s no longer my problem if it ever was to begin with.
I have been responding to you without the context of the surrounding arguments. I see now this thread has been heated. A lot of people here haven’t given your points a fair shake, and some have even gone straight to insults. I want to make clear: that’s not how I am or have been approaching you.
You’ve been defending an important principle, that justice requires safeguards like presumption of innocence and burden of proof. I respect that, and I’m not your enemy here. Where I think we’ve gotten stuck is in treating this like a contest of right vs. wrong instead of an opportunity to explore a tricky issue together.
When you said, “If you’re unwilling to come to terms on this, it’s no longer my problem,” I understand the frustration. But I see conversations differently. They aren’t problems to discard once they get hard, they are opportunities to grow, to test ideas, and to sharpen our own thinking. Even when we disagree, I learn from exchanges like this. Your pushback has made me think more carefully about how testimony is weighed in practice versus principle.
So I’d like to approach this less as sparring partners and more as fellow learners. We may not land in the same place, but if we both leave with deeper clarity, then that’s a win for both of us. That is why I have continued our discussion.
Aaaaaand there’s the smoking gun. He all but admitted it. And as I said, accusations help her credibility and puts focus on his culpability, but it doesn’t convict. On its own. His own words did.
Additionally I don’t know why you’re pushing so hard to be right when we’re debating something that I admitted can be a grey area. I already said there are exceptions to the rule. But you’re buying the point of my argument by forcing the exception to be the rule.
The fact of the matter is- accusations don’t convict.
Learn how law actually works and stop googling shit, but if you must: please, look up two things:
Because in practice, using the former informs the latter.
Now I’m done with this sideshow. If you’re unwilling to come to terms on this, it’s no longer my problem if it ever was to begin with.
I have been responding to you without the context of the surrounding arguments. I see now this thread has been heated. A lot of people here haven’t given your points a fair shake, and some have even gone straight to insults. I want to make clear: that’s not how I am or have been approaching you.
You’ve been defending an important principle, that justice requires safeguards like presumption of innocence and burden of proof. I respect that, and I’m not your enemy here. Where I think we’ve gotten stuck is in treating this like a contest of right vs. wrong instead of an opportunity to explore a tricky issue together.
When you said, “If you’re unwilling to come to terms on this, it’s no longer my problem,” I understand the frustration. But I see conversations differently. They aren’t problems to discard once they get hard, they are opportunities to grow, to test ideas, and to sharpen our own thinking. Even when we disagree, I learn from exchanges like this. Your pushback has made me think more carefully about how testimony is weighed in practice versus principle.
So I’d like to approach this less as sparring partners and more as fellow learners. We may not land in the same place, but if we both leave with deeper clarity, then that’s a win for both of us. That is why I have continued our discussion.
Right on. I can respect that.
The smoking gun was pure testimony and yet testimony is still not enough for a conviction? How the fuck does that work?
Stop defending rapists.