Well you haven’t denied thinking she’s lying, or denied that you don’t care to respect her innocence so I’ll just keep going with the assumption you agree. This latest comment seems to say you don’t have to because she’s not on trial. She isn’t accused of a crime but that doesn’t mean she’s not on trial in the very court you find so distasteful. For the entire time I’ve been alive women have been afraid to come forward with allegations of harassment or assault because of what it could do to their life even if they have plenty of evidence. There’s a reason things got to this point, I understand finding the outcome less than ideal but honestly I just think we’re lucky things didn’t get violent.
I am unable to form an informed opinion of that, not enough relevant data. She's not on trial, I have no idea what this phrase means in context. Correct. There is a claim in the positive being made that Garrison Keillor is a sexual predator, or however we choose to label him. That claim is the one being evaluated in this case. My opinion of the person making the claim will be formed after the veracity of the claim has been examined by due legal process. The fact that we are even discussing violence shows how far from civilized these discussions are.Well you haven’t denied thinking she’s lying
respect her innocence
you don’t have to because she’s not on trial.
Interesting you didn't feel this way about the pages of work her lawyer did that you've never seen. You formed an opinion on that one. Yes you do, because I explained to you how she is on trial in the court of public opinion that you seem to have a problem with. I'm going to go on a tangent here because this irritates the hell out of me. You were challenged on a point and you shut down and started quoting what you think you believe in. This is something you said because apparently it's something you believe in, I bet you've even said you would die for it, but only in the context that they told you to care about it. You don't have to presume innocence or care about any of that stuff unless somebody is literally on trial by the government, right ? I mean that's basically what I'm challenging you on. You say she's not on trial so you can belittle the prosecutions paperwork all you want while disregarding the whole thing as a witch hunt and I say she is on trial in another way. This concept was a thing before it became easily quotable though for reasons. Do you see any other reason to presume somebodies innocence ? Take the government out of the equation. Why should you presume innocence in a one on one situation ? A group ? Family ? Community ? Does it matter at all to you in those situations ? Because the only thing you can seem to say here is that she isn't on trial which suggest to me that you haven't considered presumption of innocence as a concept outside of government. I have, and I don't have any interest in carrying on a discussion with people who can't leave their safe harbors of easily quotable concepts the government told them to care about.I am unable to form an informed opinion of that, not enough relevant data.
She's not on trial, I have no idea what this phrase means in context
It is a cornerstone of liberal democracy that the accused be presumed innocent until proven guilty.