Re:Libreboot is not GNU Libreboot anymore
by sanxiyn on Friday September 16, 2016 @03:43AM
(#12512511)
Presumption of innocence is reasonable because most people are innocent. It is not because the world is imperfect. It follows from the base rate, which is experimental, not from any fundamental principle.
For example, if most officials are corrupt, you should not presume the official you are dealing with is not corrupt. That's just stupid. Legal case still should be backed by evidence, but your personal presumption should consider the base rate, not just presumption of innocence.
Re:Libreboot is not GNU Libreboot anymore
by michaelmrose on Friday September 16, 2016 @04:13AM
(#12512595)
A presumption of innocence decreases the value in telling damaging lies which in turn disincentives lying. It would be valuable in the face of most people being guilty.
Re:Libreboot is not GNU Libreboot anymore
by CJefferson on Friday September 16, 2016 @03:46AM
(#12512519)
How does some trans person you know with a drug problem have any connection to this situation? Are you trying to generalise from one trans person to ask others?
Re:Libreboot is not GNU Libreboot anymore
by michaelmrose on Friday September 16, 2016 @04:11AM
(#12512585)
The point is that while lots of people face very real discrimination a minority creates drama.
Re:Libreboot is not GNU Libreboot anymore
by Dain42 on Sunday September 18, 2016 @11:24PM
(#12528641)
If it's the minority that are drama creators, isn't it more reasonable to think that in most cases it probably is discrimination, then?
Your comment really seems to be an attempt to turn that presumption and balance on its head.
Re:Libreboot is not GNU Libreboot anymore
by michaelmrose on Wednesday September 21, 2016 @12:32PM
(#12549746)
Presumption of innocence implies that the default attitude towards accusers is healthy skepticism plus a willingness to listen. This is necessary because if we are not skeptical nearly anyone can successfully attack anyone else with impunity and destroy their reputation and if we aren't willing to listen we risk ignoring victimization.
In this case the proposed victim is silent on the matter and there is not only no proof there aren't even any details. My default assumption of skepticism leads me to conclude in the total absence of any other information that the individual was fired for some other reason and the accusations of bias was erroneous.
People lie and the presumption of innocence isn't just the law its a reasonable reaction to the imperfect, screwy world around you.
Expecting people to back up accusations with proof isn't hate.