3 ms·
> If they're not clearly explained, it's natural to assume they're damning. Guilty until proven innocent. Edit: But downvoted... although we all have the righ
by buro9 13y ago
> If they're not clearly explained, it's natural to assume they're damning.
Guilty until proven innocent.
Edit: But downvoted... although we all have the right to remain silent without it inferring guilt. And my point is that whilst it may be natural to judge we should refrain from doing so. We knew the details in the Eich case as he made a donation that was public record, and we knew the details in this case as he pled guilty to two charges.
I wouldn't presume any guilt just because someone didn't explain something. But downvotes suggest I'm in the minority on that.
- jmount 13y agoObviously I (and most people here) are not privy to the the truth (and you can't find the truth by sharing opinions or taking opposition to opinions). But he hasn't been "silent." He pled guilty to related charges, he claims the woman took photos for him to help prove his innocence, he said the woman "was having un-proteced sex for money" (which is a clever way of publicly calling her a whore).
- foolrush 13y agoCaught on video hitting someone 117 times[1]. This apologetic idea that when men are accused of violence or sexism the “innocent until proven guilty” roll out rubbish is part of the problem. “Guilty until proven innocent” in light of documented video evidence, has an implicit assumption that the other, here a woman, is lying. Junk ideology. Junk ethics. There is rampant discrimination, violence, and bias toward the “other” in the culture. Given the patriarchy of technology with its absolutely warped gender statistics, we could do less with peddling the status quo, doubly so when it concerns a sociopathic violent act. [1]http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5201334 http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5201334