3 ms·

I take it you're one of those folks who doesn't care for the whole "innocent until proven guilty" concept.

michaelmrose 9y ago
We don't even have a name yet so we are talking about whomever did it. The unnamed guilty party is guilty by definition.
- moron4hire 9y ago
  yes, the whole thing is a fiction
cbsmith 9y ago
You'd be wrong. You may have noticed I qualified my statements with "if the claims are true". That the actions described in the claims are criminal is not in doubt. Whether those actions actually took place is unproven, as is whether this unnamed ex-administrator performed those actions. So, I'm not ready to say that this person is a criminal, or that a crime was committed, but I am ready to say that the actions described in the claim are criminal and wrong.
- moron4hire 9y ago
  The point of "innocent until proven guilty" is that, in these situations, we don't argue from an assumption that the claims are truthfull.
  - cbsmith 9y ago
    Actually, we talk about what is and isn't a crime all the time. That's how the laws are made in the first place. ;-) We also say that people are alleged to have committed a crime. When you charge someone with a crime, you don't necessarily have definitive proof that they committed a crime. That's potentially established in a court of law. Finally, all of that is applicable to the courts & government determining criminal acts. The courts don't determine what is moral or ethical. Lots of things are wrong that aren't criminal. Saying something particular behaviour wrong really doesn't have anything to do "innocent until proven guilty". Saying that, "if someone did what the story said they did, it's wrong" is really not saying anyone is guilty of anything.
  - cbsmith 9y ago
    Trying to think of how to summarize this better. We can have right and wrong without having any guilty parties. Saying that murder isn't a crime isn't the same as saying that anyone was murdered or that a particular person committed the crime.

We don't even have a name yet so we are talking about whomever did it. The unnamed guilty party is guilty by definition.

moron4hire 9y ago
yes, the whole thing is a fiction

cbsmith 9y ago

You'd be wrong. You may have noticed I qualified my statements with "if the claims are true". That the actions described in the claims are criminal is not in doubt. Whether those actions actually took place is unproven, as is whether this unnamed ex-administrator performed those actions. So, I'm not ready to say that this person is a criminal, or that a crime was committed, but I am ready to say that the actions described in the claim are criminal and wrong.

moron4hire 9y ago
The point of "innocent until proven guilty" is that, in these situations, we don't argue from an assumption that the claims are truthfull.
- cbsmith 9y ago
  Actually, we talk about what is and isn't a crime all the time. That's how the laws are made in the first place. ;-) We also say that people are alleged to have committed a crime. When you charge someone with a crime, you don't necessarily have definitive proof that they committed a crime. That's potentially established in a court of law. Finally, all of that is applicable to the courts & government determining criminal acts. The courts don't determine what is moral or ethical. Lots of things are wrong that aren't criminal. Saying something particular behaviour wrong really doesn't have anything to do "innocent until proven guilty". Saying that, "if someone did what the story said they did, it's wrong" is really not saying anyone is guilty of anything.
- cbsmith 9y ago
  Trying to think of how to summarize this better. We can have right and wrong without having any guilty parties. Saying that murder isn't a crime isn't the same as saying that anyone was murdered or that a particular person committed the crime.