3 ms·

> Someone running at you with a knife? Where the hell does public opinion come into it? Look, you decided to build your entire argument on this extreme form of

> Someone running at you with a knife? Where the hell does public opinion come into it? Look, you decided to build your entire argument on this extreme form of innocent-until-proven-guilty-nonsense. So I took an extreme example to demonstrate to you that your position was too strong. Let me try to explain in more detail: if you must assume that "everyone is innocent" until they are proven guilty in a court of law, then clearly you would assume that the man charging at you with a knife has no intention of committing a crime, right? Since you assume that they are entirely innocent, then there is no risk of being murdered, so you would not try to run away, right? Can you see how that doesn't make sense? Clearly you would try to run away from someone running at you with a knife, and that's because you have no obligation (legal or otherwise) to assume that everyone is innocent. It's okay to assign probabilities to different events, including crimes that people may or may not commit. If you didn't take the extreme position to begin with, we wouldn't have to go over extreme examples to demonstrate why your extreme position was wrong. Anyway, I'm going to assume that we both now agree that there is no obligation to assume people are innocent until proven guilty. If you still disagree, please explain how this obligation should work out in the context of the knifeman attack. > ...the same way a literal alarm clock splayed out in a box became a national scandal... ...but this was not an alarm clock. This was ammonium nitrate (among other stuff). Ammonium nitrate is used for fertilizer and explosives. Was he a farmer? No. So either he was intending to use it for explosives, or he was running some chemistry experiments or something. Can you see how this is different from the possession of an alarm clock? For what it's worth, I think the most likely explanation for the stuff found is that he was geeking out some harmless experiments. I think the second most likely explanation is that he was going to build bombs and blow stuff up in the forest for fun. I don't think it's likely that he intended to hurt people in bombs, because it's extremely rare for people outside warzones to hurt other people with bombs. But it's definitely within the realm of possibility, and it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. > Someone asking for money for thousands of hours of free work that they've done after their apartment burns down and they're left homeless? I'm not calling for any fundraisers to be shut down, and I'm not admonishing people for donating money. Even if he intended to hurt people with bombs (which he probably didn't), I think the world is going to be a better place if people donate money and help him get on his feet. Let's hope that the investigation can clear him innocent of any suspicions, and that this doesn't loom over his job search in the future.

BoorishBears 6y ago
> Look, you decided to build your entire argument on this extreme form of innocent-until-proven-guilty-nonsense. This is complete and utter nonsense. In your own damn comment you're saying: "For what it's worth, I think the most likely explanation for the stuff found is that he was geeking out some harmless experiments." In your own goddamn comment you're saying your primary thought is this was innocent experimentation. When someone is running at you with a knife is the thought "this person is going to harm me" a tertiary thought? You realize it's not illegal to own any of the materials he had or to experiment with them? The reckless endangerment charge is not just for having them but for having a box catch fire after storing it near a stove? Your entire comment is essentially "I have no objection to anything you actually said I said but I still want to build a strawman to tear down" I mean > This was ammonium nitrate (among other stuff). Ammonium nitrate is used for fertilizer and explosives. Where the HELL did you see him have Ammonium Nitrate? Don't tell me you read POTASSIUM Nitrate... literally saltpeter you can order of Amazon right now with next day shipping... and thought it was AN. It'd just drive home how precious little you know of the topic and hand and how your serious of comments literally is just concern-baiting that we're jumping way too quickly to treat an innocent person as innocent...
- baobabKoodaa 6y ago
  > Your entire comment is essentially "I have no objection to anything you actually said I said but I still want to build a strawman to tear down" I laid out very specific objections to very specific claims made by you. In particular, I used the knife attack example to demonstrate that - contrary to what you claimed - "innocent until proven guilty" is not an obligation that people must apply to their thoughts and opinions. And I very specifically asked "If you still disagree, please explain how this obligation should work out in the context of the knifeman attack." Based on your tone I get the impression you're still holding on to your extreme belief about "innocent until proven guilty", but you're not willing to reconcile it with this example. Instead, you're trying to weasel out with vague claims about strawmanning. You know, if someone actually was strawmanning, you would be able to point out how the strawman is different from the actual argument presented. In this case you don't even attempt to do that, because there is no strawman, you were very clear that people have an obligation to assume everyone is innocent until proven guilty (in their thoughts and opinions, at all times). Since you're not willing to address the claim you made in the context of my example which clearly demonstrates that your claim was nonsensical, there's no point in continuing this conversation beyond this.

BoorishBears 6y ago

> Look, you decided to build your entire argument on this extreme form of innocent-until-proven-guilty-nonsense. This is complete and utter nonsense. In your own damn comment you're saying: "For what it's worth, I think the most likely explanation for the stuff found is that he was geeking out some harmless experiments." In your own goddamn comment you're saying your primary thought is this was innocent experimentation. When someone is running at you with a knife is the thought "this person is going to harm me" a tertiary thought? You realize it's not illegal to own any of the materials he had or to experiment with them? The reckless endangerment charge is not just for having them but for having a box catch fire after storing it near a stove? Your entire comment is essentially "I have no objection to anything you actually said I said but I still want to build a strawman to tear down" I mean > This was ammonium nitrate (among other stuff). Ammonium nitrate is used for fertilizer and explosives. Where the HELL did you see him have Ammonium Nitrate? Don't tell me you read POTASSIUM Nitrate... literally saltpeter you can order of Amazon right now with next day shipping... and thought it was AN. It'd just drive home how precious little you know of the topic and hand and how your serious of comments literally is just concern-baiting that we're jumping way too quickly to treat an innocent person as innocent...

baobabKoodaa 6y ago
> Your entire comment is essentially "I have no objection to anything you actually said I said but I still want to build a strawman to tear down" I laid out very specific objections to very specific claims made by you. In particular, I used the knife attack example to demonstrate that - contrary to what you claimed - "innocent until proven guilty" is not an obligation that people must apply to their thoughts and opinions. And I very specifically asked "If you still disagree, please explain how this obligation should work out in the context of the knifeman attack." Based on your tone I get the impression you're still holding on to your extreme belief about "innocent until proven guilty", but you're not willing to reconcile it with this example. Instead, you're trying to weasel out with vague claims about strawmanning. You know, if someone actually was strawmanning, you would be able to point out how the strawman is different from the actual argument presented. In this case you don't even attempt to do that, because there is no strawman, you were very clear that people have an obligation to assume everyone is innocent until proven guilty (in their thoughts and opinions, at all times). Since you're not willing to address the claim you made in the context of my example which clearly demonstrates that your claim was nonsensical, there's no point in continuing this conversation beyond this.