4 ms·
I have no proof, just like you have no proof. I was talking about a possible state conspiracy, with the university being complicit in this particular case. Just
by dahart 5y ago
I have no proof, just like you have no proof. I was talking about a possible state conspiracy, with the university being complicit in this particular case. Just because the university allowed it before doesn’t mean that the state hasn’t abused it’s power here, and that the university is too afraid to stand up to it.
- endisneigh 5y agoProof of what? I didn't make any claim that can actually be proven. My point is that the Smith in the article has been denied per UF's process, and has been approved twice by the same process to testify against the state. There's no evidence of a conspiracy. There's no systematic approval or denial.
- dahart 5y ago> I didn’t make any claim that can actually be proven. Correct, your claim “There’s no conspiracy here” is something you don’t know and can’t prove, therefore is an unjustifiable claim.
- endisneigh 5y agoSaying there's no conspiracy is not a claim, that's the default position. Look up "null hypothesis" and "burden of proof."
- dahart 5y ago> Saying there’s no conspiracy is not a claim You fooled me. I’m fine with your later “there’s no evidence of a conspiracy.” But saying “there’s no conspiracy” is indeed a claim in casual speech. The potential evidence of a conspiracy is that the professors were denied permission to testify, when, as you point out, they’ve been allowed in the past. What changed?
- endisneigh 5y agoWe'll have to see what the result of the lawsuit is and the ensuing discovery to know.