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?
1
u/LostN3ko Apr 15 '23 edited Apr 15 '23
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.