Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[redwallzyl]

"Innocent until proven guilty."  This.  This is the fundamental foundation of the entire United States legal system.  It doesn't matter how corrupted it becomes, this is the mindset that we are supposed to take to EVERY allegation of wrongdoing.  And ignoring this basic principle is seriously damaging our entire legal framework.

Of course, once it IS proven, then the guilty party deserves the punishment for their crime as laid out by law and a jury of their peers.

It has less than nothing top do with the allegation being fake, it has to do with it being proven true.

One does not have to be legally found guilty to resign from office. Its not forced by anyone but generally expected. Also while the system might be innocent until proven guilty in practice its plea bargain as guilty if you don't have money.

[bloop_bleep]

Everyone knows he did it

...And it is exactly that kind of thinking that is harmful. What the hell happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? No one has any substantial evidence that he did it, but of course they immediately assume that because he's of the opposite ideology. What I'm seeing a lot is that everyone cherry-picks the allegations against those they don't like to be true and says everything is false. The left does it, the right does it, everyone does it because it's human nature.

None of the evidence you provided is close to even half enough to prove the act "beyond reasonable doubt." You can't just say he did it because "everyone knows he did it"; that's not how the legal system works.

What does it take for allegations to be more than allegations?

I don't know, but perhaps, it's like, actual evidence maybe? Look at the Al Franken allegations. There was undeniable, photographic evidence to the incident, and the accused actually admitted to the act (probably because of the first part.) That is more than an allegation; that is proven fact, and Al Franken resigned because of it.

Fake-edit: Ninja'd slightly by NullForceOmega.

[WealthyRadish]

What's important to ask yourself is what sufficient proof would be, and whether such sufficient proof is possible. It would be wrong to characterize this situation within only the framework of the legal system, and make the only sufficient proof for forming an opinion be what is sufficient for a trial and conviction, considering that:

1) the legal system is so complex, fallible, and at times corrupt that even getting anything to trial would be daunting, let alone reaching a verdict that reflects whatever the truth of the situation is
2) some of these accusations aren't even illegal, e.g. I don't think being a lecherous creep who hits on teenagers is illegal, but many people don't like the idea of that person being a senator whether it's illegal or not

People (generally) don't seem to be calling for him to be imprisoned or punished by the law (partially because I think they know he would need to be super obviously guilty as f*** to get even a token sentence), they're just calling on him to resign. Saying that he's innocent until proven guilty is good, but what really matters here is the word "proven", and you can't reasonably say it's equivalent to the legal sense here.

[NullForceOmega]

It doesn't matter how corrupted it becomes, this is the mindset that we are supposed to take to EVERY allegation of wrongdoing.  And ignoring this basic principle is seriously damaging our entire legal framework.

Already addressed.  Our legal system is an extension of our society and is representative of the way society views itself, intentionally ignoring a very sound principle such as innocent until proven guilty is just a plain bad idea.

[bloop_bleep]

What's important to ask yourself is what sufficient proof would be, and whether such sufficient proof is possible. It would be wrong to characterize this situation within only the framework of the legal system, and make the only sufficient proof for forming an opinion be what is sufficient for a trial and conviction, considering that:

1) the legal system is so complex, fallible, and at times corrupt that even getting anything to trial would be daunting, let alone reaching a verdict that reflects whatever the truth of the situation is
2) some of these accusations aren't even illegal, e.g. I don't think being a lecherous creep who hits on teenagers is illegal, but many people don't like the idea of that person being a senator whether it's illegal or not

The same reasoning applies, though. You're not supposed to assume important things like this with no evidence, in court or out of court.

Fake-edit: Ninja'd by NullForceOmega. AGAIN.

[redwallzyl]

He's running for public office. There is not time to go through the entire process. There is a scandal with a good change of being true so he should step down.

[NullForceOmega]

No.  There is a scandal that hurts his reputation and therefore his credibility, and so he should step down.  Not at all the same.

[EnigmaticHat]

Everyone knows he did it

...And it is exactly that kind of thinking that is harmful. What the hell happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? No one has any substantial evidence that he did it, but of course they immediately assume that because he's of the opposite ideology. What I'm seeing a lot is that everyone cherry-picks the allegations against those they don't like to be true and says everything is false. The left does it, the right does it, everyone does it because it's human nature.

None of the evidence you provided is close to even half enough to prove the act "beyond reasonable doubt." You can't just say he did it because "everyone knows he did it"; that's not how the legal system works.

What does it take for allegations to be more than allegations?

I don't know, but perhaps, it's like, actual evidence maybe? Look at the Al Franken allegations. There was undeniable, photographic evidence to the incident, and the accused actually admitted to the act (probably because of the first part.) That is more than an allegation; that is proven fact, and Al Franken resigned because of it.

Fake-edit: Ninja'd slightly by NullForceOmega.

Would Roy Moore as a witness saying he propositioned both a 17 year old and 18 year old for sex when he was over the age of 30, in an interview that has been plastered across every television screen and mainstream news site in America count as evidence?  How about the fact that in that same interview he refused to say the same of a 14 year old, but also refused to deny it?

[WealthyRadish]

intentionally ignoring a very sound principle such as innocent until proven guilty is just a plain bad idea.

You're misinterpreting my argument here; I agree that he is innocent until proven guilty, but the sticking point is on the word "proven". The legal, technical sense of proven is here irrelevant, because we're just talking about forming an opinion on whether the guy should be a senator (not executing a punishment with the force of the law). You can decide to fix your personal standard of evidence in forming an opinion to the legal standard, but if you do that you should consider whether that standard of evidence is impossible and precludes forming an opinion altogether.

[bloop_bleep]

He's running for public office. There is not time to go through the entire process. There is a scandal with a good change of being true so he should step down.

Mmhmm. So I suppose if you are elected to public office, and some random right-wing outlet starts reporting that some random person who you haven't even met claim you harassed him/her, you should step down because there is a "scandal with a good chance of being true."

What if every person who was hit by a scandal which may or may not be true (but it has a good chance of being true, because I say so!) stepped down?

Do you see the flaw in your logic?

[misko27]

By definition, assuming anything at all requires that there is no evidence. If you have evidence, it's not an assumption. Also by definition, some things must be assumed. No one has ever managed to construct a system without assumptions.

vis-a-vis the specific issue of "innocent until proven guilty", it really is a legal principle first-and-foremost though, designed to avoid the specter of state-sanctioned tyranny and injustice. The court system as constructed strongly prefers letting the guilty go free over innocent people being imprisoned by the state, at least at its theoretical base (how it works out in practice is another matter). There are systems which do not do this, and assume guilty until proven innocent. It is not obvious to me why society should necessarily prefer letting the guilty go free (and all that entails) over punishing the innocent (with all that entails) with regards to groping, which is the specific issue we are discussing.

It doesn't matter how corrupted it becomes, this is the mindset that we are supposed to take to EVERY allegation of wrongdoing.  And ignoring this basic principle is seriously damaging our entire legal framework.

Already addressed.  Our legal system is an extension of our society and is representative of the way society views itself, intentionally ignoring a very sound principle such as innocent until proven guilty is just a plain bad idea.

Which is why people love and respect lawyers, right? Because we see them as extensions of ourselves, and not guardians of a mystical, archaic forces of dangerous power?

It's unclear to me that society must act exactly as the state does and follow the same principles thereof, which is what you are implying. I believe an argument could be constructed such that state should act differently, precisely because it is the state and not society.

[redwallzyl]

He's running for public office. There is not time to go through the entire process. There is a scandal with a good change of being true so he should step down.

Mmhmm. So I suppose if you are elected to public office, and some random right-wing outlet starts reporting that some random person who you haven't even met claim you harassed him/her, you should step down because there is a "scandal with a good chance of being true."

What if every person who was hit by a scandal which may or may not be true (but it has a good chance of being true, because I say so!) stepped down?

Do you see the flaw in your logic?

[bloop_bleep]

Everyone knows he did it

...And it is exactly that kind of thinking that is harmful. What the hell happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? No one has any substantial evidence that he did it, but of course they immediately assume that because he's of the opposite ideology. What I'm seeing a lot is that everyone cherry-picks the allegations against those they don't like to be true and says everything is false. The left does it, the right does it, everyone does it because it's human nature.

None of the evidence you provided is close to even half enough to prove the act "beyond reasonable doubt." You can't just say he did it because "everyone knows he did it"; that's not how the legal system works.

What does it take for allegations to be more than allegations?

I don't know, but perhaps, it's like, actual evidence maybe? Look at the Al Franken allegations. There was undeniable, photographic evidence to the incident, and the accused actually admitted to the act (probably because of the first part.) That is more than an allegation; that is proven fact, and Al Franken resigned because of it.

Fake-edit: Ninja'd slightly by NullForceOmega.

Would Roy Moore as a witness saying he propositioned both a 17 year old and 18 year old for sex when he was over the age of 30, in an interview that has been plastered across every television screen and mainstream news site in America count as evidence?  How about the fact that in that same interview he refused to say the same of a 14 year old, but also refused to deny it?

No. Actually, no, it would not count as evidence. It may be a little suggestive towards the accusation, but otherwise it means nothing.

intentionally ignoring a very sound principle such as innocent until proven guilty is just a plain bad idea.

You're misinterpreting my argument here; I agree that he is innocent until proven guilty, but the sticking point is on the word "proven". The legal, technical sense of proven is here irrelevant, because we're just talking about forming an opinion on whether the guy should be a senator (not executing a punishment with the force of the law). You can decide to fix your personal standard of evidence in forming an opinion to the legal standard, but if you do that you should consider whether that standard of evidence is impossible and precludes forming an opinion altogether.

It's not proven, not in the technical sense nor in any other sense. You can't just start assuming stuff is true and false because of your own personal bias.

EDIT:

He's running for public office. There is not time to go through the entire process. There is a scandal with a good change of being true so he should step down.

Mmhmm. So I suppose if you are elected to public office, and some random right-wing outlet starts reporting that some random person who you haven't even met claim you harassed him/her, you should step down because there is a "scandal with a good chance of being true."

What if every person who was hit by a scandal which may or may not be true (but it has a good chance of being true, because I say so!) stepped down?

Do you see the flaw in your logic?

Um... I don't quite understand what you're saying...?

[EnigmaticHat]

"Innocent until proven guilty."  This.  This is the fundamental foundation of the entire United States legal system.  It doesn't matter how corrupted it becomes, this is the mindset that we are supposed to take to EVERY allegation of wrongdoing.  And ignoring this basic principle is seriously damaging our entire legal framework.

Of course, once it IS proven, then the guilty party deserves the punishment for their crime as laid out by law and a jury of their peers.

It has less than nothing top do with the allegation being fake, it has to do with it being proven true.

HE FUCKING SAID THAT HE DID IT.  He admitted to something that was nominally legal in Alabama, and refused to deny everything else.  Yeah,what he admitted to was legal, but no one gives a shit because what he did was morally wrong.  The argument that's going to damage the Republican party (that half the thread keeps trying to explain to the other half) isn't whether Roy Moore should go to jail, its whether he should be part of the senate.

On top of that, Roy Moore himself is clearly stating by implication that he did it.  That's why I'm saying that he doesn't give a shit, and why establishment Republicans are freaking the fuck out.  Considering most of the Roy Moore defenders in this thread have explicitly stated that they don't belong to "either side", you all sure seem to have "my party right or wrong" hardcore for the Republicans.  There's failing to read between the lines and then there's abandoning your car at the stop sign because there were no further instructions.

Where were you guys coming out of the woodwork with "we can't criticize anyone unless they've been literally found guilty in a court of law!" with Hillary?  I'm not going to because it would be a jerk move, but all you guys that are chastising me for being premature with Roy Moore, what would I find if I searched your post history for Hillary or her nicknames?  Would you stand up to your own standard?  Cause I have heard so much "Hillary is corrupt" "Hillary is a scumbag" "she's clearly guilty of something" in the past year, usually in posts that took it as a given.  But call out America's second smuggest sex offender, and suddenly we need a dozen text walls and a fucking court order to be able to say anything.

And before someone comes in and says that I defended Hillary.  I defended Hillary *in specific*, using arguments related to her specific character and deeds.  You guys aren't defending Roy Moore, you're using an *in principle* argument.  You have nothing good to say about Roy Moore in specific, but you're just defending him because in principle we can't act like people are guilty until the courts find them guilty.  The fact that you happen to be defending Roy Moore is surely just a coincidence.  Yet from where I'm standing it looks a whole hell of a lot like none of you believe in that in principle except when it suits you.

[NullForceOmega]

It's unclear to me that society must act exactly as the state does and follow the same principles thereof, which is what you are implying. I believe an argument could be constructed such that state should act differently, precisely because it is the state and not society.

The state only exists because society creates it.  It is an outgrowth of the needs of increasingly complex social interactions as population grows.  The state IS society and society IS the state.

I cannot even begin to understand how you can view such utterly intertwined co-dependent structures as distinct entities.

@EnigmaticHat: You have repeatedly eschewed any form of logic in your argument in favor of emotion based sensationalist rhetoric, shown blind disregard for actual evidence used to refute you (in previous arguments) and are now making an attack to discredit others who disagree with you. THAT ENTIRE ATTITUDE IS THE PROBLEM HERE.  Criticize all you want, but your opinion is exactly that, an opinion, not fact.

I haven't seen anyone defend the man (tho' I have not read all the comments in this particular argument), all I've seen is people, myself included, say that the simple act of stating something doesn't make it true.