Ah, so really, I'm not an individual when on social media, I'm part of a hive, and I have hive responsibilities. Got it. Sounds very "liberal."
Could you not just say 'There's strong circumstantial evidence for this and much precedent in the form of other cases.'
-
-
But maintain a personal commitment to presumption of innocence when literally no way for someone to defend themselves, outwardly anyway.
-
You're urging a principle of restraint in expressing an opinion, but what's the principle for when that should be applied? There is no criminal case here.
-
I'm not sure what you're asking.
-
What are the boundaries of this principle of not expressing a rational opinion for fear of being 1/400,000th of a dogpile? Whenever prison time is at stake? A job? Shame? Hurt feelings?
-
I'm not opposing expressing rational opinions.
-
Okay, well, if you want to put meat on the bones of your take here, go ahead, but I'm not going to keep firing shots in the dark until I have its outline.
-
I'm not sure what's unclear tho. I am disagreeing that we should think statistically abt guilt going on previous cases and saying that stating what is known & unknown without assuming guilt or innocence is ideal.
-
You're arguing against inductive reasoning. The presence or absence of characteristics of previous cases that make them reliable--multiple accusers, thorough reporting, corroboration, etc.--are what make a putative case more or less reliable.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.