Stephan you're twisting what TJ is saying. He's saying that it's better to go "I don't know" instead of picking a side when there's no proof for or against either party. Stop it
-
-
-
I think Stefan is virtue-signalling to his conservative Christian audience that he doesnt like this atheist. He has been doing that ever since he began supporting Trump.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
His statement is fine. He’s talking about the objective truth of what occurred 35 years ago. None of us can know that objective truth except the involved parties. “Innocent until proven guilty” is a man-made concept created for benefit of Justice. It has no bearing on reality.
-
No bearing on reality? This is post modernism at its finest...
-
Jesus. You really have to stretch to misinterpret what I said.
-
Quote 4 words out of your entire tweet is stretching? More post modernism... What is to stretch? What bearing does it have on reality? What is reality? What are property rights? What is innocent until proven guilty? What is justice? None of it has any bearing on reality.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
@amazingatheist appears to be taking that position on faith. -
Idk if you know what faith is. It isn't withholding judgement until more facts present themselves, that's for sure.
-
I may not know, but that wasn't what I was inferring. I was making a note that a sceptic was taking up a position not based on tangible proof.
-
No, he was saying that he doesn't know. Nobody does... How is not knowing a matter of Faith?
-
Because he came to judge the situation nonetheless. It's a play on the way he promotes the atheist argument.
-
You have no clue what you're talking about.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Or... You goofy goofy man...
@amazingatheist is actually making a good point by saying take time before jumping the gun... And I'm out here defending him...damn it...Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Legally he’s innocent. I don’t think he was disputing that. What he’s saying is people take a personal stance on it, and that personal stance has little rationalization until more evidence comes forward. Hence why he said “a lot of people” and not “a jury of his peers”
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Many replies fall for the magic trick in the quoted statement. "We can't know." Stefan is making the point that this is not the same as innocent until proven guilty. Not even close. Miles and miles away in fact.
-
“Innocent until proven guilty” is a standard by which the state must abide so as not to unduly strip a man of his freedoms or property. It has no bearing here outside of criminal proceedings.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The amazing atheist is the lowest common denominator for political commentators.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Presumed neither innocent nor guilty is a dumb position to take. It makes everyone 50% guilty before the evidence is even presented.
-
TJ wasn't talking in a legal sense, he was talking about people personal opinion on the case. As of this moment you can't possibly know for sure either way, legally he's innocent until proven guilty, publicly we don't know.
End of conversation
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.