so i weigh a accusation slightly higher but no action should be taken without evidence

“It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished.
But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, 'whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,' and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever.” - John Adams

@Timcast cool, I must have missed that bit.

thanks for clarifying

@Timcast so what you're saying is... lobsters?

So what you're saying is... All lobsters are rapists?

#yesalllobsters

I think the issue here is that innocence is violated by the insinuation that there is _any_ validity to accusations which are almost beyond proof by definition.

If you allow Dr. Ford's testimony to in any way affect your perception of Judge Kavanaugh's moral character, something has already been lost.

That's because you're looking it as either
"The accusation is 100% correct"
Or
"The accusation is 100% incorrect"

It could be that Ford was assaulted, but not by Kav

Sure, but that is also the crucial matter determining whether Kavanaugh is even 1% guilty, or whatever you want to call it.

Right but it's not a necessary fact that Kavanaugh is guilty for Ford to have been a victim

Sure, but what we are opining on here is not the guilt of Kavanaugh, not the existence of Ford's abuser.

So you can believe that someone is victimized, and then go "okay, let's see if we can determine the victimizsr"

because Ford's alternative perpetrator is not present, and has not been named.

That's not what Tim's comments have necessarily addressed

I've found he's made clear distinctions in general

And even directly stated that it's possible, perhaps even probable, for Kav to be innocent and Ford to be a victim

Sure, but I think it is hard to draw a clear distinction here between acknowledging accusations, and believing accusations.

I can fully acknowledge Dr. Ford's testimony without believing its contents, which include fingering Judge Kavanaugh as the perpetrator.

but I must be careful not to characterize the acknowledgement as a "partial belief"

because Judge Kavanaugh can't really be _a little bit guilty of sexual assault_.

You can also believe some or nearly all of her testimony without presuming the guilt of Kavanaugh

My point is that belief in the parts of the accuser's testimony which are insufficient to establish the crime alleged should not have any effect on my perception of the accused as guilty of that crime.

Sure

Otherwise that gives the broad public the ability to generally paint anyone as guilty of just about anything.

(if only to the slightest degree)

Here is something that is absolutely accurate

Pence was right

Right about what?

Using principles to avoid the specter of impropriety?

You still need records, to complete that deal.

true

Doesn't protect Mike Pence from the "Mike and his buddy tied me up and spitroast me in a DC alley!" type accusations.

shit

Well, you can always go full NEET and then make sure whenever you go ANYWHERE you have a camera on you AND... I was going to say a woman with you but what if that woman is the one that accuses you?

heheh

my god we're all fucked

Well, I don't record 100% of the time currently, but most of the time yes.

BACK TO THE BUNKER