Re:Richard “Lowtax” Kyanka, creator of Somethingawful, has died
by IanCal on Thursday November 11, 2021 @05:51AM
(#29186612)
> You present strawman (seeing it makes it credible)
Multiple eye witnesses help make the allegation credible, yes. Which would go against the idea of no allegations being considered credible by the general public. That was your opening statement.
> But I'd suggest stepping back and considering the overall point you're trying to make.
It's very simple. Some allegations are credible, and it is entirely reasonable for the general public to thing some allegations are credible and others not.
> You might start with a scenario which is, by construction unfair: a couple fights, she takes the kids, he shouts, she calls the police and claims abuse, he is beaten and arrested; during the divorce she uses the arrest as evidence of the abuse, and frames the beating as evidence of her husbands violent tendencies; the court accepts this argument and he loses the children, getting supervised visitation only 90 minutes once a week.
> Does that sound right, or fair to you?
It sounds like it has nothing to do with whether any allegation can be considered credible. It could be an argument against all allegations being considered credible and it can be an argument against people mixing up someone _alleging_ another is guilty and that person being _found_ to be guilty.
> all in seeming defense of the principle: we can and should considered guilty until proven innocent.
Perhaps try reading my comment again, and if after that and this extra explanation you still think I am claiming somehow that all allegations should lead to convictions or that all allegations are credible or that guilt should be assumed, then I have no way of reaching a consensus with you as to what point I'm even trying to make.
Multiple eye witnesses help make the allegation credible, yes. Which would go against the idea of no allegations being considered credible by the general public. That was your opening statement.
> But I'd suggest stepping back and considering the overall point you're trying to make.
It's very simple. Some allegations are credible, and it is entirely reasonable for the general public to thing some allegations are credible and others not.
> You might start with a scenario which is, by construction unfair: a couple fights, she takes the kids, he shouts, she calls the police and claims abuse, he is beaten and arrested; during the divorce she uses the arrest as evidence of the abuse, and frames the beating as evidence of her husbands violent tendencies; the court accepts this argument and he loses the children, getting supervised visitation only 90 minutes once a week.
> Does that sound right, or fair to you?
It sounds like it has nothing to do with whether any allegation can be considered credible. It could be an argument against all allegations being considered credible and it can be an argument against people mixing up someone _alleging_ another is guilty and that person being _found_ to be guilty.
> all in seeming defense of the principle: we can and should considered guilty until proven innocent.
Perhaps try reading my comment again, and if after that and this extra explanation you still think I am claiming somehow that all allegations should lead to convictions or that all allegations are credible or that guilt should be assumed, then I have no way of reaching a consensus with you as to what point I'm even trying to make.