But civil cases have a far, far lower bar. 4/5 is acceptable, especially considering that sentencing can incorporate uncertainty.
Plenty of cases succeed in civil court where they would fail in criminal court.
A court that can render legally enforceable judgements against someone should absolutely have a higher bar of certainty than an organization that is simply excluding someone from participation in that organization.
The exact numbers here are examples, not the determining factor here, nor do most organizations express them quantitatively.
The important point is that organizations can and do have a different threshold for action. You could absolutely argue about whether an organization has the right threshold, but I don't think there's a case for a deontological requirement that every organization's threshold for taking any action at all must be the same as the threshold for conviction in a court. (Leaving aside that that would utterly invalidate freedom of association.)
i strongly disagree with that. allowing public opinion to judge people without proof leads to mob rule. any rumor can destroy someones life. as a society we must not allow that to happen.
innocent until proven guilty should apply to every interaction we have with any human being. if there are suspicions it is ok to take precautions, and obviously those who are victims should be able to seek and get support even if they can't prove what happened. but any actions against the accused must not be irreversible until a verdict has been reached.
part of the reason this is necessary is because as a society we are not doing well with forgiveness especially in cases where someone has been wrongfully accused. to many times their life has been destroyed anyways.
that is ludicrous.
people are free to have red flags that cause them to cut ties with other people without clearing any evidentiary bar.
that is part of entirely healthy human behavior.
remember that joke about a someone in an airplane sitting next to a black person, complaining loudly that they want to sit somewhere else. the stewardess comes over and says: "my apologies, it is of course unacceptable that you should have to sit next to such an obnoxious person". and then invites the black person into first class to everyones applause.
get out of a swimming pool if a black person shows up and nobody can or will force you back into it.
i don't know why we are having such a stupid argument. it should be clear that racism is unacceptable and that it doesn't give you any right to show disrespect.
innocent until proven guilty should apply to every interaction we have with any human being
as individuals we need to be careful to not allow prejudice to control our actions
if you see red flags you should evaluate them and make sure they are not just prejudice
you seem to be claiming that the right to free association should allow people to remain to be racist. no, it shouldn't.
i not twisting anything, especially not since this thread started with your criticism of my first statement, and this whole argument looks like you seemingly trying to use the right of free association to excuse people being racist.
what if a person was asking for help? but they couldn't because you turned away? can you see how an action that according to you is just your expression of free association turns into active discrimination?
Suppose we say that the legal system needs to have 95% probability of guilt to render a guilty verdict, and its associated consequences such as imprisonment and/or restitution. A high threshold makes sense for such systems (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio).
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that you have a person for whom you have 80% probability of their guilt. That, then, is not enough to render a guilty verdict; 20% is clearly "reasonable doubt".
80% probability of guilt, however, is absolutely enough for reasonable people to say "I don't want this person associated with my organization", or "I don't want this person presenting at my conference".
This, among many other reasons, is a very good reason for organizations to have their own standards which are independent of those of the legal system.