3 ms·

innocent until proven guilty. this means that we have to hold 2 competing ideas at the same time until due process has been given, like shrodeinger's cat only

innocent until proven guilty. this means that we have to hold 2 competing ideas at the same time until due process has been given, like shrodeinger's cat only for justice: 1) the woman is a victim and the "shitbag" should be punished appropriately. 2) the woman is lying and the "shitbag" is a victim of false accusations. until more details are known, it is possible that the accused is the victim. If this ends up being the correct situation, than having their names smeared in the public eye for crimes they did not commit is morally reprehensible.

ohyes 10y ago
That applies in the case of a court of law or if I were an individual in the media reporting on the alleged incident (in which case I would likely try to corroborate with other alleged victims). It doesn't make sense in the situation (here) where someone is making the accusation. She knows it happened, she was there, from that perspective this guy should be getting wrecked. It would be a public service. There's no reason for her to fear that she herself is lying. (Irrelevant to my argument but perhaps relevant to yours: I'd also argue that de-facto assuming there's a good chance the accuser in the situation is lying flies in the face of everything I've read about it being difficult for abuse victims to come forward. There's little to no gain for the accuser. The accuser is often assumed to be lying, they now have to fear reprisal from the accused and others. Making this type of thing up isn't a rational move with a useful end. Unless it is true, in which case the useful end is to take down the accused, in which case the accused should be named).
- ryanx435 10y ago
  I hereby accuse you of sexually assaulting me. I know it happened. I was there, and from that perspective you should be getting wrecked. I am making my accusations anonymously on the internet so it must be true. by your logic we should now scream your name from the mountain tops and conduct a witch hunt and destroy your reputation and livelihood simply because you have been accused. the truth is that Women are people and people often lie. True equality means recognizing that everyone, male, female, and everywhere in between, have the capacity for lying.
  - ohyes 10y ago
    Part of my point is to look at it from the accuser's perspective. So you're not really responding to my the point, which is that the accuser in this and the other case didn't name the person. It seems like from the accuser's perspective, a witch-hunt and the destruction of my reputation would be great. So... why not do it? It seems like the most effective path would be to absolutely destroy the other person (corroboration, witnesses, detailed accounts) before they can play defense and start smearing you. You've spoken to and demonstrated why we shouldn't believe everything we read on the internet, which is well and good and correct. But what you haven't answered is why someone making serious accusations of this nature wouldn't name the person who has done this to them? I don't think equality has anything to do with my point? It's more a game theoretic question.
    - ryanx435 10y ago
      because if the courts find her accusations to be false (even if they are true), than she would than open herself up to defamation and lible charges from the accused. From a game theory perspective, it doesn't make sense to break the accused anonymity outside of official court procedings if she doesn't need to because of the huge liability it unnecessarily opens up if her accusations are deemed false.

ohyes 10y ago

That applies in the case of a court of law or if I were an individual in the media reporting on the alleged incident (in which case I would likely try to corroborate with other alleged victims). It doesn't make sense in the situation (here) where someone is making the accusation. She knows it happened, she was there, from that perspective this guy should be getting wrecked. It would be a public service. There's no reason for her to fear that she herself is lying. (Irrelevant to my argument but perhaps relevant to yours: I'd also argue that de-facto assuming there's a good chance the accuser in the situation is lying flies in the face of everything I've read about it being difficult for abuse victims to come forward. There's little to no gain for the accuser. The accuser is often assumed to be lying, they now have to fear reprisal from the accused and others. Making this type of thing up isn't a rational move with a useful end. Unless it is true, in which case the useful end is to take down the accused, in which case the accused should be named).

ryanx435 10y ago
I hereby accuse you of sexually assaulting me. I know it happened. I was there, and from that perspective you should be getting wrecked. I am making my accusations anonymously on the internet so it must be true. by your logic we should now scream your name from the mountain tops and conduct a witch hunt and destroy your reputation and livelihood simply because you have been accused. the truth is that Women are people and people often lie. True equality means recognizing that everyone, male, female, and everywhere in between, have the capacity for lying.
- ohyes 10y ago
  Part of my point is to look at it from the accuser's perspective. So you're not really responding to my the point, which is that the accuser in this and the other case didn't name the person. It seems like from the accuser's perspective, a witch-hunt and the destruction of my reputation would be great. So... why not do it? It seems like the most effective path would be to absolutely destroy the other person (corroboration, witnesses, detailed accounts) before they can play defense and start smearing you. You've spoken to and demonstrated why we shouldn't believe everything we read on the internet, which is well and good and correct. But what you haven't answered is why someone making serious accusations of this nature wouldn't name the person who has done this to them? I don't think equality has anything to do with my point? It's more a game theoretic question.
  - ryanx435 10y ago
    because if the courts find her accusations to be false (even if they are true), than she would than open herself up to defamation and lible charges from the accused. From a game theory perspective, it doesn't make sense to break the accused anonymity outside of official court procedings if she doesn't need to because of the huge liability it unnecessarily opens up if her accusations are deemed false.