Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Pat Clements
Feb 10, 2008

Duro posted:

A) I never claimed that rape cases are fabricated

B) What are you basing "there is a high degree of likelihood that Kane is guilty" on? Your blind belief in a rape accuser's story? Even if zero rape cases are fabricated, Kane is still entitled to a fair trial and to the presumption of innocence, whether he's an athlete or joe schmo.
This doesn't logically follow at all. You realize that, right?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

toxicsunset
Sep 19, 2005

BUY MORE CRABS
Jury by peers is stupid anyway because the only people who end up on the jury are people who are too stupid to figure out a way to not end up on the jury

flakeloaf
Feb 26, 2003

Still better than android clock

A jury of NHLers would be hilarious though.

e: oops that wasn't a public image host

[eberle-hangman.jpg]

flakeloaf fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Sep 24, 2015

communist kangaroo
Oct 2, 2006

those are my principles, and if you don't like them...well, i have koalas.
If I've learned anything from this thread it's to never go to a party of any sort with Duro or Patrick Kane

Paulocaust
Jan 29, 2008

by FactsAreUseless

Ginette Reno posted:

So everyone that wants to give Kane the benefit of the doubt is aware he's a guy that beat up a cab driver over a nickel, right? This is the guy you're asking us to give the benefit of the doubt to.

Although you should never assault anybody, I have a very hard time feeling bad for the unlicensed cabbie with two drunk driving convictions that forcibly confines people.

Perdido
Apr 29, 2009

CORY SCHNEIDER IS FAR MORE MENTALLY STABLE THAN LUONGO AND CAN HANDLE THE PRESSURES OF GOALTENDING IN VANCOUVER

Ginette Reno posted:

So everyone that wants to give Kane the benefit of the doubt is aware he's a guy that beat up a cab driver over a nickel, right? This is the guy you're asking us to give the benefit of the doubt to.

There's a difference between "benefit of the doubt" and being in favor of due process.

Paulocaust
Jan 29, 2008

by FactsAreUseless

Perdido posted:

There's a difference between "benefit of the doubt" and being in favor of due process.

Seriously. This. I don't think anyone in here thinks Kane is an upstanding individual that couldn't possibly commit heinous acts.

Perdido
Apr 29, 2009

CORY SCHNEIDER IS FAR MORE MENTALLY STABLE THAN LUONGO AND CAN HANDLE THE PRESSURES OF GOALTENDING IN VANCOUVER

Pat Clements posted:

This doesn't logically follow at all. You realize that, right?

Well, no. Courts tend to have a pretty high burden of proof. Typically things like "evidence" are useful in ensuring convictions. Feelings, no matter how strong they are, don't go over well in a court of law. The "blind belief" was kind of harsh wording from Duro, but you don't just go to trial because I said you raped me.

All Duro was saying is that there needs to be an investigation/proper evidence needs to be secured against Kane to ensure his guilt. As of right now, the only evidence that has been revealed is the DNA evidence on the woman's shoulder/fingernails and the fact that they went back to his place.

flakeloaf posted:

I believe that was chapter three in "How to Poison a Jury Pool".

You believe that Kane's lawyer did this deliberately? Or am I misunderstanding ou.

Ginette Reno
Nov 18, 2006

How Doers get more done
Fun Shoe

A) No? You're doing it in your answer under B).

B) Statistically, fabrications in rape cases are rare. Therefore, I am presuming Kane is likely guilty. He absolutely deserves a fair trial and presumption of innocence by the actual court of law. He does not deserve my presumption of innocence - I can form an opinion if I want, and based on the stats I'm likely right about his guilt.

C) Fair point. I would argue they're just as likely to lose money due to the cloud surrounding Kane and the Hawks while the trial etc goes on. The bad optics from this could cost sponsors, cause bad publicity, etc. So it's lose/lose in my opinion, and given that, they might as well take the moral high ground at least and keep the bad optics away from the sport.

D) I'm not arguing Kane be punished. Being at home being paid millions of dollars is not a punishment.

E) And if it goes to trial and he loses, the NHL loses in a big way too because people will rip them for how they handled it.

Perdido posted:

There's a difference between "benefit of the doubt" and being in favor of due process.

I'm absolutely in favor of him having a fair trial and presumption of innocence by the court and NHL. The fact that the NHL would continue to pay him while he's under investigation but suspended seems to fall pretty well in line with giving him the benefit of the doubt but also protecting the integrity of the league.

Ginette Reno fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Sep 24, 2015

flakeloaf
Feb 26, 2003

Still better than android clock

quote:

You believe that Kane's lawyer did this deliberately? Or am I misunderstanding you.

Unironically no I don't, that would be a hilariously unethical thing to do. I just think it's unfortunate that evidence is leaking out like this because it's going to make it that much harder for an increasingly hypothetical jury to look at it in an objective light during the actual trial.

Perdido
Apr 29, 2009

CORY SCHNEIDER IS FAR MORE MENTALLY STABLE THAN LUONGO AND CAN HANDLE THE PRESSURES OF GOALTENDING IN VANCOUVER

Paulocaust posted:

Seriously. This. I don't think anyone in here thinks Kane is an upstanding individual that couldn't possibly commit heinous acts.

As I've said elsewhere I have zero reason to be proclaiming his innocence. I also think he's probably guilty of a lesser charge -- sexual battery or something along those lines.

What I've just gotten sick and tired of are people going into hysterics because this is a rape case and we all need to show the proper amount of moral outrage over it. Even if it involves implying that there is a far-reaching conspiracy involving multiple members of law enforcement to protect a millionaire. Like, I get it, you think Kane is guilty. But he's not a loving moustache twirling supervillain.

flakeloaf posted:

Unironically no I don't, that would be a hilariously unethical thing to do. I just think it's unfortunate that evidence is leaking out like this because it's going to make it that much harder for an increasingly hypothetical jury to look at it in an objective light during the actual trial.


Yeah, this trial in the court of public opinion poo poo doesn't generally do a lot to help matters. Thankfully, Americans don't give a poo poo about hockey, so finding jurors who have never heard of Kane should be easy. :v:

Perdido fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Sep 24, 2015

Jordan7hm
Feb 17, 2011




Lipstick Apathy
The accusation of rape is also evidence, and probably the most important evidence.

Duro
May 1, 2013

by Lowtax

flakeloaf posted:

No, what I'm saying is that when a woman steps forward and says she was raped, our first reaction should not be "pff you're just after his money". It shouldn't be ":supaburn: BURN THE WITCH" either, but forming an opinion 1% closer to the second one than the first is much safer, both from a balance of probabilities and from a harm reduction point of view. Yeah, being falsely accused sucks, but it happens so rarely and the punishments for it are severe enough that if you look askance at the alleged bad guy you're not going to cause harm most of the time.

That kind of thinking is entirely distinct from what happens in a legal proceeding in a court of law, because that proceeding is held to a higher standard. I was talking strictly about each of us making up their own mind about what happened based on the imperfect information we have: A woman accused him of rape, samples were taken from her, a police report was filed, criminal charges are being considered. With a view to all that, I think it's likelier than not that he did it.

I don't recall ever personally saying she was after his money or that she was a whore that asked for it. In fact, I don't believe either to be true. Even though you claim you don't want a reverse-onus introduced, or that you're only talking about the court of public opinion, your train of thought, if adopted by the masses (including the lawyers, judges and juries) would effectively lead to that. It would be up to the accused to prove that he didn't rape someone rather than the accuser, because the slant would inevitably fall in the accuser's favor. I'm saying that there should be no slant and that people should remain impartial, even in the court of public opinion, before making a judgment call. I feel that's fair, as it doesn't unfairly favor the celebrity accused, nor does it hurt the accuser's case in any way.

And to be very honest dude, if the reports on those samples are true, they make Kane seem rather innocent. If a rape kit determines that there's no DNA in the genital area, it doesn't really help the accused's case. It's safe to say that Kane was in her presence and touched her in some way, shape or form. Does it mean he raped her? I dunno


Pat Clements posted:

This doesn't logically follow at all. You realize that, right?

Of course it does, if you are neutral. Not blindly believing the accuser and not blindly condemning the accused. It flows very logically with what I said


Ginette Reno posted:

So everyone that wants to give Kane the benefit of the doubt is aware he's a guy that beat up a cab driver over a nickel, right? This is the guy you're asking us to give the benefit of the doubt to.

So what? That has nothing to do with this trial. You can't use character evidence in criminal proceedings. If the victim's lawyer brings that up he'll be slapped with an objection so fast, his head will spin


Jordan7hm posted:

Innocent until proven guilty applies to most things, including the inevitable civil trial. The burden of proof will change depending on who is determining guilt though.

Not necessarily. The civil trial will have nothing to do with whether he did or did not commit the rape. If the criminal court determines he didn't commit it, a civil trial can't be used to say that he did. There is no "innocence or guilt" in that sense in the civil trial. The civil trial will likely have to do with the damages that the victim alleges stem from the entire incident, probably over vague hard to prove things such as "emotional distress" and for a poo poo ton of money. Expect a settlement there.


Harlock posted:

The problem is proving that the person did not consent. A victim doesn't even necessarily have to say no if they are impaired in one way or another.

The question then becomes how do you prove someone said no beyond he said / she said. Evidence of trauma or DNA is usually a good indicator of that, but not always present in every case. Then it sort of becomes a character assassination side show.

I tend to be biased toward accusers/victims as well because what is there to really gain from making a rape accusation? How pessimistic or paranoid would you have to be to think that they're doing it for nefarious purposes. I would say that a good portion of rape victims who try to seek justice are often treated worse than the alleged rapist.

I feel as though the definition of rape has expanded so much that it's completely meaningless outside of defined laws or jurisprudence. It's gotten to such a ridiculous point that neither us would give a similar answer to the question "what is rape?", and neither of our answers would probably be correct either. We don't even know the story yet surrounding the events that night, that's why I'd rather wait until I hear what the victim claims happened in her testimony

Ginette Reno
Nov 18, 2006

How Doers get more done
Fun Shoe

Duro posted:


So what? That has nothing to do with this trial. You can't use character evidence in criminal proceedings. If the victim's lawyer brings that up he'll be slapped with an objection so fast, his head will spin

I'm not implying it does? I'm saying as a person that is not involved with the trial I can absolutely use stats and past actions to form an opinion of Kane's likely guilt or lacktherof. He will (rightly) be afforded a higher standard of guilt by the court.

That doesn't mean I have to - or should - give a millionaire prick athlete the benefit of the doubt here. Given his wealth and access to good lawyers the vitriol he faces from the public might be the only shame he ever feels.

flakeloaf
Feb 26, 2003

Still better than android clock

Perdido posted:

What I've just gotten sick and tired of are people going into hysterics because this is a rape case and we all need to show the proper amount of moral outrage over it.

That's a fair comment. We're allowed to feel revulsion but the histrionics for their own sake are pretty silly.

Duro posted:

Even though you claim you don't want a reverse-onus introduced, or that you're only talking about the court of public opinion, your train of thought, if adopted by the masses (including the lawyers, judges and juries) would effectively lead to that.

If.

e: That train of thought is already happening in the masses of non-robot-people who see things and form opinions about them based on available information and their past experience. This thinking is quite distinct from the thinking that takes place during a legal proceeding in the minds of people whose stated purpose is to be impartial and make decisions based only on the things that can be proven.

flakeloaf fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Sep 24, 2015

Aphrodite
Jun 27, 2006

flakeloaf posted:

That's a fair comment. We're allowed to feel revulsion but the histrionics for their own sake are pretty silly.

Who is doing that, besides that row of scarecrows that seems to have been setup in the corner?

flakeloaf
Feb 26, 2003

Still better than android clock

So far it's only been the row of scarecrows. I was just hedging.

e: probably Twitter but really, just don't read serious twitter.

Duro
May 1, 2013

by Lowtax

Ginette Reno posted:

I'm not implying it does? I'm saying as a person that is not involved with the trial I can absolutely use stats and past actions to form an opinion of Kane's likely guilt or lacktherof. He will (rightly) be afforded a higher standard of guilt by the court.

That doesn't mean I have to - or should - give a millionaire prick athlete the benefit of the doubt here. Given his wealth and access to good lawyers the vitriol he faces from the public might be the only shame he ever feels.

It's not healthy to pick sides the way you're doing. He might be a rich entitled prick, but I think automatically giving Kane grief is just as bad as badmouthing the victim for [insert misogynistic reason here]

I personally don't care about the victim or Kane in any way shape or form. I've been trained to remain emotionally unattached when I hear these things. Whether he's guilty or not, whether she's lying or not, I don't give a gently caress. I have no side. I just want to know the truth, or as close to the truth as we'll get via a fair trial. This tampering BS might gently caress us all over, and I wouldn't be surprised if a skilled lawyer can get Kane off due to the BS

Perdido
Apr 29, 2009

CORY SCHNEIDER IS FAR MORE MENTALLY STABLE THAN LUONGO AND CAN HANDLE THE PRESSURES OF GOALTENDING IN VANCOUVER

Ginette Reno posted:

I'm absolutely in favor of him having a fair trial and presumption of innocence by the court and NHL. The fact that the NHL would continue to pay him while he's under investigation but suspended seems to fall pretty well in line with giving him the benefit of the doubt but also protecting the integrity of the league.

Well, with this, I find it improbable that the NHL hasn't consulted with Kane, his attorney and potentially investigators regarding this case (the latter of which would be highly unethical but this is the world we live in.) The subsequent route that investigators have taken since then has been murky at best. Kane hasn't been charged or arrested with anything (although it's very likely he will be), the DA has dragged their heels on a grand jury and now evidence leaks are all painting a picture that doesn't exactly scream "let the bastard hang."

On top of that, the NHL has to consider other factors. Yeah, they could suspend him. But that would be challenged and overturned almost immediately because the PA wouldn't leave the precedent that would cause to go unchallenged. So then you have a player who you tried to suspend but is then brought back in, which creates great optics for the league and creates a mini-media shitstorm. Which I'm sure the NHL would love to have to deal with. If the odds were great that the PA wouldn't challenge/wouldn't win, the NHL most likely would have suspended him.

Now, if Kane ends up being charged or something more weighty gets thrown Kane's way (say, multiple other women speak out with credible stories) the NHL should have enough grounds to suspend him.

Perdido
Apr 29, 2009

CORY SCHNEIDER IS FAR MORE MENTALLY STABLE THAN LUONGO AND CAN HANDLE THE PRESSURES OF GOALTENDING IN VANCOUVER

Aphrodite posted:

Who is doing that, besides that row of scarecrows that seems to have been setup in the corner?

I linked to people implying that the police were part of a conspiracy to protect Kane earlier in this thread. I think you were one of them, actually.

There was someone else who yelled at a guy for "victim blaming" because he asked if it was possible there was a case of mistaken identity. Ignoring that that isn't what victim blaming is (victim blaming is generally blaming the victim for getting raped/assaulted), the general tone was just over the loving top.

Perdido fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Sep 24, 2015

Aphrodite
Jun 27, 2006

Both of us were simply answering the question "If the FBI comes in, who do they investigate?"

Perdido
Apr 29, 2009

CORY SCHNEIDER IS FAR MORE MENTALLY STABLE THAN LUONGO AND CAN HANDLE THE PRESSURES OF GOALTENDING IN VANCOUVER
It was worded a little more strongly than that, dude.

Shadow Ninja 64
May 21, 2007

"I stood there, wondering why the puck was getting bigger...

and then it hit me."


I know Duro's made his share of poo poo posts in hockey threads in the past but I appreciate his input from his perspective here and I don't get why his posts are getting attacked or even summarily dismissed, especially by a moderator.

I've been loathe to post any opinion on the entire Kane situation but I guess I will need to since I'm making a post now. I think the lawyers and the professional organizations involved have both handled things poorly recently, almost to the point of farce, and I feel bad for the victim in this case no matter what the truth of the incident ends up being, since her identity is apparently now out in the open in her home area or something. I'm also troubled and even somewhat frightened by posts like "there's a high degree of likelihood that Kane's guilty" and the general "guilty until proven innocent" vibe that's become prevalent in the court of public opinion before the case has even reached trial, although I understand the reasons for feeling that way, especially when it comes to rich white dudes who often weasel out of punishment for things they turn out to be guilty of.

Basically, my hope going forward is that the legal/professional people involved in this entire debacle get their poo poo together, conduct a proper trial, and that a correct verdict is reached, whatever that ends up being.

anotherblownsave
Feb 26, 2008

The sponsors will like you better this way, trust me.

As a paralegal, and a law school student I gotta go with Duro here. The biggest thing is the evidence that leaked pre anything saying his DNA was not present where you'd think it'd be, and they said the other DNA which iirc, said was in her fingernails, could have come from casual contact. His presumed innocence should be defended, no matter the circumstances.

Aphrodite
Jun 27, 2006

The bite mark with his DNA is a little harder to get from casual contact though.

anotherblownsave
Feb 26, 2008

The sponsors will like you better this way, trust me.

Aphrodite posted:

The bite mark with his DNA is a little harder to get from casual contact though.

Fair enough, I hadn't heard that detail, but my point still stands

Paulocaust
Jan 29, 2008

by FactsAreUseless

Aphrodite posted:

The bite mark with his DNA is a little harder to get from casual contact though.

But pretty common in consensual sex. That's not an indictment by any means.

Aphrodite
Jun 27, 2006

Paulocaust posted:

But pretty common in consensual sex. That's not an indictment by any means.

Right, I just mean that it makes it pretty clear they didn't just hang out at his house.

Paulocaust
Jan 29, 2008

by FactsAreUseless

Aphrodite posted:

Right, I just mean that it makes it pretty clear they didn't just hang out at his house.

Ah, my bad. Agreed. There's no doubt in my mind sex happened.

Sharks Eat Bear
Dec 25, 2004

Shadow Ninja 64 posted:

I know Duro's made his share of poo poo posts in hockey threads in the past but I appreciate his input from his perspective here and I don't get why his posts are getting attacked or even summarily dismissed, especially by a moderator.

I've been loathe to post any opinion on the entire Kane situation but I guess I will need to since I'm making a post now. I think the lawyers and the professional organizations involved have both handled things poorly recently, almost to the point of farce, and I feel bad for the victim in this case no matter what the truth of the incident ends up being, since her identity is apparently now out in the open in her home area or something. I'm also troubled and even somewhat frightened by posts like "there's a high degree of likelihood that Kane's guilty" and the general "guilty until proven innocent" vibe that's become prevalent in the court of public opinion before the case has even reached trial, although I understand the reasons for feeling that way, especially when it comes to rich white dudes who often weasel out of punishment for things they turn out to be guilty of.

Basically, my hope going forward is that the legal/professional people involved in this entire debacle get their poo poo together, conduct a proper trial, and that a correct verdict is reached, whatever that ends up being.

:agreed:

For those saying that they believe that due process/innocent until guilty must be followed in court, but not in public/individual opinions, I'd be curious to understand why. If you don't believe in that standard when forming your own opinions, why do you believe that the standard is important in the legal system?

I find myself agreeing most closely with Perdido -- I think Kane is a scumbag and something bad probably happened, but don't think there's nearly enough information available to conclude that he's guilty of rape. And this is not the same thing as giving Kane the benefit of the doubt, as others have mentioned.

The reality is that the legal system seems extremely poorly equipped to deal with rape cases, and I don't really have any idea what the solution for this is. But I'm fairly confident that abandoning the principles of due process is not involved in the solution.

Paulocaust
Jan 29, 2008

by FactsAreUseless
It's truly refreshing to see level headed people still exist in SAS

Aye Doc
Jul 19, 2007



http://nhl.nbcsports.com/2015/09/24/erie-county-d-a-calls-press-conference-to-address-evidence-tampering-allegations-in-kane-case/

scheduled for 11 am est tomorrow

flakeloaf
Feb 26, 2003

Still better than android clock

Shadow Ninja 64 posted:

I know Duro's made his share of poo poo posts in hockey threads in the past but I appreciate his input from his perspective here and I don't get why his posts are getting attacked or even summarily dismissed, especially by a moderator.

I thought the way he started in the thread was kinda dickish and patronizing, but he makes good points here too and I think this conversation is definitely better with him in it.

Sharks Eat Bear posted:

:agreed:

For those saying that they believe that due process/innocent until guilty must be followed in court, but not in public/individual opinions, I'd be curious to understand why. If you don't believe in that standard when forming your own opinions, why do you believe that the standard is important in the legal system?

Because when the legal system makes up its mind about something and expresses an opinion, that opinion is meant to be taken as an objectively true fact that will serve as the basis for revoking or adjusting someone's civil liberties. A court presumes it has all of the information it needs to make such a high-quality pronouncement, and it makes its decisions impartially based on facts and logic.

I, on the other hand, know that I don't have all the information and I know that I'm not impartial. I see what few facts I do have, I hold those things up to my own personal experiences and I form an opinion based on those things as influenced by my own biases. I'm allowed to do that and to say what I think, but I can't use that opinion as a reason to haul someone off the street and set him on fire.

Sharks Eat Bear posted:

The reality is that the legal system seems extremely poorly equipped to deal with rape cases, and I don't really have any idea what the solution for this is. But I'm fairly confident that abandoning the principles of due process is not involved in the solution.

The Canadian systems' biggest weapon is only really half-used. We allow sworn statements that contradict the witnesses' later testimony to serve as evidence that the thing the witness swore to originally is true (a "KGB statement") but you can't do that in the states because the 6th (I think?) amendment is in the way. The other main upside of a KGB statement is the ability to charge a recanting witness with public mischief, perjury or contempt of court, but the optics of jailing an alleged rape victim for coming forward are so horrible that it would probably never be done.

It's a lovely lovely situation all around :(

flakeloaf fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Sep 24, 2015

Jordan7hm
Feb 17, 2011




Lipstick Apathy
I think that the state has a higher standard to maintain because they have the power to completely remove someone's freedom. As a private individual or organization I have the power to not associate with someone (including to not employ them, subject to a bunch of conditions on that), and that's generally where my power ends. My ability to punish is significantly lower than the state's ability to punish.

Kane is already guilty or not guilty of raping his accuser, and nothing that happens now changes that. The question is how much proof is required for others (and specifically the criminal justice system) to believe in his guilt or innocence.

Reince Penis
Nov 15, 2007

by R. Guyovich

Fateo McMurray posted:

This is America, buddy. I'm free to form opinions on anyone I want regardless of evidence. Kane is a shitheel and I hope he gets 17 years in jail.

Aww jeez Fateo and I was getting ready for another season of Habs-Bruins shitposting rivalry.

Maybe we can be friends after all. :unsmith:

Hot Diggity!
Apr 3, 2010

SKELITON_BRINGING_U_ON.GIF
Duro the courts are treating Kane as if he is innocent. We the public have no such obligation to particularly considering how obscenely rare false accusations are and how the system is designed to make it especially difficult to prove guilt in a case like this. Kane's defense so far has been to smear the accuser as much as possible. Great guy taking a moral high ground let me tell you.

JollyPubJerk
Nov 10, 2009

by Jeffrey of YOSPOS
It's New York. Yes still means no there, the only thing she has to prove is contact and a drink please correct me if I'm wrong here, but that's the precedent set. The hardest part is getting a victim to take it to court and society is moving forward on this front. This all taking so long and all of these abnormal 'leaks' all seems very fishy, which leads to suspicion on the matter. At least enough that I can understand how the league is scared to potentially upset the player's union on the matter before the case has even gotten to the first stage of formality. If that changes I'd hope they move quickly to change the stance. That's what justifies outcry on this matter from concerned citizens - rich white boys not being able to buy off their problems and it deserves its place, but I think asking the league to jump the gun early here is ignoring another major societal issue you shouldn't forget. Yes the league's record is inconsistent, but it's moving the right way. Imagine if this case was 20 years ago. The dialogue is different now.

For anyone's sake I'd hope people could be a little less accusing of an individual before actual evidence presents itself, no matter which side, they are human afterall, but you aren't going to get that out of most bleeding heart liberals their moral compass is impeccable they will be quick to tell you this, like shown in this thread. Glad it's out of N/V, but isn't this what discussion is about? Listening to opinions from all sides? Echo chambers are boring that's what hfboards is for.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

flakeloaf
Feb 26, 2003

Still better than android clock

Do you think characterizing one side as "bleeding heart liberals" for relying on the overwhelming likelihood of a rape accusation being true is the most constructive thing said in this discussion so far?

I'd hardly call this an echo chamber. We have people saying he probably did it and is therefore a terrible human, we have people saying we don't know if he did it or not and to get off his nuts until we do know, and these two groups of people were challenging each other's ideas in a mostly constructive way without much dismissiveness or name-calling until very recently.

JollyPubJerk
Nov 10, 2009

by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

Veskit posted:

Not to derail too much but I think Hand knit is trying to explain that there's a way to tell someone facts without being mean about it, and your core is in question, not your ability.





Kind of like how Kane's integrity is in question.... Considering how much of a shitheel he is in general.

I'm just referring to this series.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Paulocaust
Jan 29, 2008

by FactsAreUseless

TubeStank posted:

Duro the courts are treating Kane as if he is innocent. We the public have no such obligation to particularly considering how obscenely rare false accusations are and how the system is designed to make it especially difficult to prove guilt in a case like this. Kane's defense so far has been to smear the accuser as much as possible. Great guy taking a moral high ground let me tell you.

So it's alright to make presumptions based on statistical outliers? So I guess you think it's alright to profile black people because they're statistically more likely to commit a violent crime? Or do you only operate under such assumptions when it fits your narrative?

  • Locked thread