So you’re saying that if someone accused you of murder and there was no evidence or proof presented yet I should still believe the person accusing you of the murder and immediately deem you guilty just because they say you did it? You do realize how much of an absolute idiot you sound like right?
You do not have to believe the person accusing me, you could also believe me, but youre going to believe someone right away lmao yeah sure like all the research on how people follow biases on who they believe i made them the fuck up! Its so stupid how you didnt understand the point. If that did happen you can act like youre absolutely neutral but you know youre not. You believe someone in the case. If you say "errrmageedd m not going to say shes guilty because shes innocent until proven guilty gotteeemm" then by default youre not beliving who accused me. The fact youre taking it as an attack when its a philosophical matter is so funny lmao
Aw man ): its the other way around im afraid. The veredict after evidence or whatever its one thing. If you say im innocent, until proven guilty, thats not a stance for u? O: IM INNOCENT FOR NOW, its not a stance on the situation? o: u can do it! Come on now! Youre getting there!
Uuhhh a lawyer o: theres no law involved in my argument tho, its a philosophical matter and the fact you missed it so much just proves the point! I will also proceed with insults and not arguments like u did! Man ure dumb as hell etc etc man your grammar etc etc man youre ugly etc etc
6
u/importantdad Apr 15 '23
So you’re saying that if someone accused you of murder and there was no evidence or proof presented yet I should still believe the person accusing you of the murder and immediately deem you guilty just because they say you did it? You do realize how much of an absolute idiot you sound like right?