3 ms·
The context was: > The only thing you can't reasonably argue is what you've tried to argue here, which is that we should judge this person by what they were pr
by willstrafach 9y ago
The context was:
> The only thing you can't reasonably argue is what you've tried to argue here, which is that we should judge this person by what they were previously best known for.
I did not try to argue that at all, so I was clarifying my opinion. Nobody will stop you if you choose to judge him based on that allegation, I am choosing to wait on that due to the fact that it will get figured out (with actual evidence either way) in court.
- tptacek 9y agoI don't think I wrote this clearly and so I don't blame you for misunderstanding what I'm saying. Judge guilty, judge innocent, don't judge at all: all of those are reasonable options open to you. The only option I am pushing back on is the one that says the only reasonable way to frame somebody is in terms of the good thing they're best known for. Because, of course, it is in the nature of criminal conspiracies to work hard not to be known for them.