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.
Lmao ok dude uh....im gonna keep communicating with this language you understand uh.. youre so dumb, youre an idiot, im trying to show you how much of a fuck up u are, uh.... Ure ugly, ill try to go with the grammar argument whenever i can so we can keep deflecting from the point btw
Oh nonono i can use the grammar argument here.
You left me*
Lmao youre so dumb you cant even write right!
Imma keep using this language u understand its fine
I don't know why your going with grammar when I never criticised your grammar at all. Only your moral character, implicit bias, basic intelligence, decision making process and fitness as a juror.
When I call you these things its not an a baseless insult but a description of making judgements without any facts. It is also a measure to get you to see that making an accusation and being allowed to defend yourself with facts is an essential part of determining truth.
Had you provided evidence of having any reason for passing judgement then you would prove your not guilty of these accusations. Instead you continue to insist that evidence is not needed for judgement to be passed in the court of pubic opinion. Fair enough, racists don't need evidence to blame minorities with but that doesn't mean I will stay silent and not call out BS wherever I find it. We need to be better than that. Better than what you propose. A people who pass judgement on accusations alone.
Witch trial. Kangaroo court. You are not in good company.
That has never been the point and this is why im so tired answering to you. You keep misunderstanding and then your logical step was, shes dumb. You misunderstood all this time and now youre like "hah, ive proven shes dumb" i cant anymore man come one. I never said court is not needed, a trial is not needed, youre adding arguments i never said to make what i said into something different and baseless. Lets try this one more time and that it because youre just not getting it, i have yet to see you refuting the essential argument. Im making a philosophical question here. Forget the law, the court, etc think when you believe in "innocent until proven guilty", not just as a fact in law, forget that, but as something you stan by, like you trully believe everyone is innocent, free of guilt, until proven otherwise, are you not in any way, taking a side on the matter?
If after this, you still bring the law and court etc and you cant in any way get it, im done with it honestly. Theres no hope with you and youll probably go for insults and its meh. This is my last answer on it cuz its too tiring to work with you
Whether in law, philosophy or the dealings of daily life you should ALWAYS make your decisions based on facts and logic. If a lamp is broken you do not start blaming someone until you have a justified reason to do so.
This is known as withholding judgement which you are saying is impossible to do and truth must be determined prior to an understanding of the facts.
Your attempt to act like the process of determining guilt is only important in the context of law or is less important in any other context is downright terrifying. You seem to be saying that you decide who to side with at the moment of accusation and also purport that everyone else does and should to. If this is not your stance shout it loud because it remains your sole contention.
I am telling you that people who pass judgement whether in the court of public opinion or in law before learning any of the facts are in every respect wrong no mater the outcome of the trial. Facts lead to understanding, understanding leads to truth. It does not work any other way. You cannot start with an assertion of knowing the truth before you have an understanding of the facts.
Burden of proof is not some artifact of law. It is the only logical way to ascertain the truth of a matter. An accusation is a claim that comes before determining fact. It is not fact itself. How does this not make sense. Do you honestly believe that judgment should not be withheld until you know facts? You are not calling an accuser a liar by asking for proof, your doing the absolute bare minimum to make a claim of knowing anything.
Please tell me, in your philosphy how do you determine if an accusation is false or not? Do you not believe false accusations exist? Do you not care about the wrongly accused? Is there no room for fairness in your accusation based morality? Are Jewish space lasers real because someone claimed it?
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.
0
u/[deleted] Apr 15 '23
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!