4 ms·

You've given me no reason to believe that you're not exaggerating, nor have you given me a reason to believe that your friend's friend didn't actually rape some

by sebular 12y ago

You've given me no reason to believe that you're not exaggerating, nor have you given me a reason to believe that your friend's friend didn't actually rape someone.

Aqueous 12y ago
"nor have you given me a reason to believe that your friend's friend didn't actually rape someone." - so it's guilty until proven innocent now?
- dllthomas 12y ago
  There is a difference between what we should assume when meting out punishment and what we should assume when producing examples for an argument.
  - Aqueous 12y ago
    No - I think the presumption of innocence applies in both cases, ethically and legally. That's why it has been codified into law - because it a sturdy principle that preserves a free society where someone isn't guilty merely because they can be arbitrarily accused. Believing in the presumption of innnocence socially as well as legally protects us from the government and it protects us from each other.
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      You are confusing the distinction I was making (determining whether to punish an individual versus more general reasoning) with another (a judicial setting versus a more general social one). Social reactions can still be punishment, and when they are they certainly still deserve some measure of presumption of innocence. Adhering to a presumption of innocence when trying to determine facts about the world more generally is obviously nonsense.
      - Aqueous 12y ago
        I think the world would be a lot better place, with many fewer religious wars, if people remained skeptical and agnostic about a claim until given actual, firm evidence. I don't think that's obviously nonsense.
        dllthomas 12y ago
        That is presuming nothing. That is an entirely different matter than presuming innocence. As I read it, the comment you initially replied to basically said (in a manner not entirely clear or sympathetic) "you are assuming facts not in evidence." I was not advocating presuming guilt in any context - that would be even more nonsensical.
        Aqueous 12y ago
        If you believe that people are born in a state of innocence, meaning they have not committed a crime, as I do, then you believe they are innocent until they have been shown to be guilty. In this case a presumption of innocence means "things are the same as I understand them to be based on previous evidence until I am shown that they are now different." You are not born guilty so you must remain in a state of innocence until you commit a crime. And because that crime must be proven you are innocent until proven guilty. In this case neutrality is the same thing as believing in someone's innocence. This is fundamentally different than, for example, the distinction between a lack of a belief of God and a belief that there is no God - because we know something about people, all people, from experience, whereas we know nothing about God.
        dllthomas 12y ago
        Let's unpack a few things here. If you interpret "presumption of innocence" as purely a check against the base rate fallacy, then sure - it applies anywhere humans are doing reasoning. I think that it serves other important roles in regard to punishment in particular, and those other roles are harmful in situations where you are seeking truth as opposed to asking whether to punish. In particular, consider the obviously fallaceous: "Should we put more resources toward investigating rape allegations? Well, in each of those cases where we have not put enough resources to determine the veracity of the allegations, we need to assume the innocence of the accused. By that reasoning, we can conclude that 100% of uninvestigated allegations are false, so we clearly should not spend any more resources on them."

by sebular 12y ago

You've given me no reason to believe that you're not exaggerating, nor have you given me a reason to believe that your friend's friend didn't actually rape someone.

Aqueous 12y ago

"nor have you given me a reason to believe that your friend's friend didn't actually rape someone." - so it's guilty until proven innocent now?

dllthomas 12y ago
There is a difference between what we should assume when meting out punishment and what we should assume when producing examples for an argument.
- Aqueous 12y ago
  No - I think the presumption of innocence applies in both cases, ethically and legally. That's why it has been codified into law - because it a sturdy principle that preserves a free society where someone isn't guilty merely because they can be arbitrarily accused. Believing in the presumption of innnocence socially as well as legally protects us from the government and it protects us from each other.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    You are confusing the distinction I was making (determining whether to punish an individual versus more general reasoning) with another (a judicial setting versus a more general social one). Social reactions can still be punishment, and when they are they certainly still deserve some measure of presumption of innocence. Adhering to a presumption of innocence when trying to determine facts about the world more generally is obviously nonsense.
    - Aqueous 12y ago
      I think the world would be a lot better place, with many fewer religious wars, if people remained skeptical and agnostic about a claim until given actual, firm evidence. I don't think that's obviously nonsense.
      - dllthomas 12y ago
        That is presuming nothing. That is an entirely different matter than presuming innocence. As I read it, the comment you initially replied to basically said (in a manner not entirely clear or sympathetic) "you are assuming facts not in evidence." I was not advocating presuming guilt in any context - that would be even more nonsensical.
        Aqueous 12y ago
        If you believe that people are born in a state of innocence, meaning they have not committed a crime, as I do, then you believe they are innocent until they have been shown to be guilty. In this case a presumption of innocence means "things are the same as I understand them to be based on previous evidence until I am shown that they are now different." You are not born guilty so you must remain in a state of innocence until you commit a crime. And because that crime must be proven you are innocent until proven guilty. In this case neutrality is the same thing as believing in someone's innocence. This is fundamentally different than, for example, the distinction between a lack of a belief of God and a belief that there is no God - because we know something about people, all people, from experience, whereas we know nothing about God.
        dllthomas 12y ago
        Let's unpack a few things here. If you interpret "presumption of innocence" as purely a check against the base rate fallacy, then sure - it applies anywhere humans are doing reasoning. I think that it serves other important roles in regard to punishment in particular, and those other roles are harmful in situations where you are seeking truth as opposed to asking whether to punish. In particular, consider the obviously fallaceous: "Should we put more resources toward investigating rape allegations? Well, in each of those cases where we have not put enough resources to determine the veracity of the allegations, we need to assume the innocence of the accused. By that reasoning, we can conclude that 100% of uninvestigated allegations are false, so we clearly should not spend any more resources on them."