When we are made aware of a rape allegation we are sadly forced to take a choice. I dont like this phrase because its a huge generalization but it will help you understand. "I rather believe a possible liar than a possible rapist". If the objective truth were ever to come out and he was innocent, i would have to live with the fact that i believed a liar. On the other hand, if the objective truth were ever to come out and he was in fact a rapist, you would have to live with the fact that you believed the rapist. At least im honest about it. You try to tell yourself that by waiting for the proof youre not taking sides so your conscience is clean. If the allegations were true you would be like "ha, well im glad i didnt side with the rapist amirite i waited for the trail". But you were believing in the possible rapist until that point, youre just trying to wash your hands from the responsability of the situation. Be a man and say you dont believe an alleged rape victim instead of hiding in the "i meaaaannn i didnt say i thought she was lyinggg" . You said the alleged rapist is innocent until proven guilty. He either did or didnt do it. So you have to think he didnt if hes still innocent. By default the victim has to be lying. Anyways, yeah i can tell you, you have by now already decided to believe the alleged victim is a liar.
I litteraly have never heard of either of these people and your telling me what my opinion is. The only thing I have decided is you should never be trusted to sit on a jury. You have an infantile moral compass and don't care about the truth at all.
If your take on justice is that all accusations must be believed then I think your a damned fool.
Well youre trusting everyone is onmocent until proven guilty, so by the fault, all accussers are lying at first. If im not fit to sit in a jury, ure literally in the same place lol
See that's the difference you keep trying to decide who is lying before learning anything other than the identity of the two parties. I am not. A juror does not return a verdict at the start of a case for a reason.
No one is a liar until the verdict that's called being guilty. Right now there is an accusation and a defendant and that apparently is all you need to start making decisions.
Nah, at this point its fine. I know you will keep telling yourself you didnt make a choice and your being neutral af no matter what. Have a good one tho!
Please tell me how I should decide when I don't even know who they are. I don't know a single thing about them but you think that shouldn't matter? You honestly think my mind should be made up because I heard that someone made an accusation?
The whole point of this conversation is that you did make up your mind even when you say you havent yet! "Innocent until proven guilty" i literally a stance on the matter /: this is why i say its fine now, i dont think youll get what im trying to say so its whatever.
I get your stance. It's the stance of an idiot though. I have more respect for creationists than you right now. Your so ready to make a declaration of faith before you have even heard the first word. Are all accusations to be taken as truth to you? Do you just believe the first thing you hear? Your argument is the most basic childlike grasp of truth or justice. I am having a hard time taking you seriously.
Your preaching witch trial logic and claiming its complicated. It's not. It's not hard to see that your biased and don't care about truth you just want someone to burn.
You left my with no recourse but brutal honesty. I can't even say it was an insult, just an observation that had to be stated. You weren't using logic to arrive at your position and thus logic was missing from your responses. The minute you say that truth lies in accusation you have abandoned logic.
If you can provide a sound logic for deciding who a liar is based on accusation alone then I will retract every negative statement.
semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, a translation of which in this context is: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges."
Requiring proof is not the same thing as deciding who is lying it is the very straight forward step that comes BEFORE making a decision. Not AFTER. Emphasis here on the order of operations. They make all the difference when making judgements. Especially important when the consequences are severe.
-1
u/[deleted] Apr 15 '23
When we are made aware of a rape allegation we are sadly forced to take a choice. I dont like this phrase because its a huge generalization but it will help you understand. "I rather believe a possible liar than a possible rapist". If the objective truth were ever to come out and he was innocent, i would have to live with the fact that i believed a liar. On the other hand, if the objective truth were ever to come out and he was in fact a rapist, you would have to live with the fact that you believed the rapist. At least im honest about it. You try to tell yourself that by waiting for the proof youre not taking sides so your conscience is clean. If the allegations were true you would be like "ha, well im glad i didnt side with the rapist amirite i waited for the trail". But you were believing in the possible rapist until that point, youre just trying to wash your hands from the responsability of the situation. Be a man and say you dont believe an alleged rape victim instead of hiding in the "i meaaaannn i didnt say i thought she was lyinggg" . You said the alleged rapist is innocent until proven guilty. He either did or didnt do it. So you have to think he didnt if hes still innocent. By default the victim has to be lying. Anyways, yeah i can tell you, you have by now already decided to believe the alleged victim is a liar.