Presumption of Innocence and #MeToo

So in short I agree and all below is just an echo of that but not without my personal touch. I don't think that this view should be controversial and it should only be a "hot button issue" in the cases that are treated as some kind of witch hunt for a "possible" guilty person. I do think that we should always treat every case with the moto of "innocent till proven guilty" and you must display proof of factual guilt and factual info to demonstrate to what degree of guilt. Once you toss out the idea of someones right to be tried correctly you lose all credibility as a natural state inturn people. It's proven it's self to be the best system which is a neutral state takes on inspecting each side and then determines who is right in defense and prosecution. I'm against the ruling of allowing "Feels" affecting any case beforehand and well being processed. Juch illogical things such as feelings can heavily influence a case and the outcome of each processed bit of data that gets put before the jury. These things need to be checked for illogical fallacies and such as ad populum. Like Benjamin Franklin said, "That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." Another problem is that courts are not always of logic, evidence, and facts but instead more like a theatrical play. This is a symptom of having people of the general public participate. I'm all for the inclusion of the average joe but sadly the average joe is susceptible to dirty tactics and character assassination. There's a powerplay as hand and it's being played by someone that's just got the houses job. I'm not sure how we can keep the system clean and fair other than being part of these cases and trying our best to let other people see that we should not judge each side before evidence or the lack thereof is displayed.

Yes... personally can we specifically call the Kavanaugh case out for exactly what it is? I don't even think most of the Dems supporting Christine Ford actually believe her. With the nomination of Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court will lean solidly conservative for the foreseeable future. This is without a doubt last-ditch effort by the Democrats to prevent this by any means necessary. But of course, it's not hard to come to the conclusion this part of the bigger problem with the "Listen and Believe" narrative put forward by feminists in recent years. Listen and believe by its very definition reverses the norm of "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" because it suggests we take the accusers word for it. In reality while our justice system isn't perfect, it's still one of the best if not the best among our first world contemporaries. It was designed to give the accused the benefit of the doubt over the accuser, regardless of the crime committed, including heinous crimes such as rape and sexual assault. Call me an agent of the status-quo, but I prefer our justice system the way it is over how SJWs think it should be.

If you go online JF on TPS had an excellent video regarding this topic from a couple days before and also I watched the hearing today and... yikes, twitter was an uproar with people patting themselves on the back as they shit on Brett. Even if he did do it it’s really telling of society, everyone will always be at your throat and things like this kinda take away from other cases. Like we always here about these “public figure women” getting raped but what about the smaller stories of people. The stuff comes in droves. They tried so hard to frame him during certain questions and all of Twitter dehumanized the shit out of him and can’t even talk civilly with out blowing a gasket. Almost 80days of stalling since July they even said they already conducted an investigation a long time ago that’s on going. A lot of people I bet didn’t even watch it and are just looking through meme threads. Even Anthony bordein’s GF who was going #metoo tried to pull some shit because she’s a “whamen” and paid off a 17yr old boy barely any talk I bet where ever there’s an election of some sort or the mid term there’s gonna be tons and tons of leaks of allegations.

Well Aleuzia, that is because most of the blue checkmark crowd on twitter finds it easier to virtue signal, talk down to others, and dismiss people/things they don't like as sexist or racist rather than take the effort and do what it takes to sway people to their side with facts and logic (most likely because they can't). They wonder why they're losing and why no one who isn't an arch-leftist doesn't care for them. And remember, civility is for the privileged according to them.

Man, I'm a little sad that there aren't any people here that want to challenge it so I'll play devils advocate here. (JK but really I'm surprised it's not a shit show or that no one tried to defend it. So to help people understand the view of some of these people i'll put it here.) So The problem that I hear is that if you say one "defendant" is innocent till proven guilty then by proxy you're saying that the prosecutor or "Victim" is lying. However, that's a fallacy of ergo hoc propter hoc. The job of the court is to be natural well-analyzing data and info by both sides. Not be a crucible where one's word is valued more just because of uncertainty. Unknowns and uncertainty should always lead to the dismissal of an alleged crime because of the reality that we can't be sure without a reasonable doubt of guilt. This dismissal of an alleged crime, however, will not mean that it didn't happen nor does it mean the other party is lying because the case is not normally about attacking the prosecutor but rather the data and lack of evidence to suggest a crime. The problem is in the ideology that if you're not for the victim or if your middle/neutralist then you're against the "victim". Understand the people you argue with so to better dismantle their toys of thought. This is why I love this quote "I know you won't believe me, but the highest form of Human Excellence is to question oneself and others." - Socrates

"So The problem that I hear is that if you say one "defendant" is innocent till proven guilty then by proxy you're saying that the prosecutor or "Victim" is lying. However, that's a fallacy of ergo hoc propter hoc." It's also a false dilemma, because there could be a case of mistaken identity, especially if the victim is unfamiliar with the attacker. I heard it was not unheard of in rape cases for victims to mistakenly accuse someone else of being the attacker when it was in fact someone else, which may have been what happened to Ford. Most people believe she was the victim of some kind of attack, but due to this being 30+ years after the fact, it is hard for her to remember. This can also be the case for many crimes in which there was no clear view of the perpetrator. And how would they apply that logic to murder? The victim is Dead! How can someone lie when they are dead?

It was on at work all day and couldn’t change it :/ I hate the smug looks of those news casters and protesters always presuming that he is guilty even though their was proof that showed he didn’t do it. That this is just the Democrats way of delaying and smearing. Honestly felt sick watching it.