REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The nature of evidence

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Sunday, April 28, 2019 16:45
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1059
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, April 28, 2019 12:52 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I know I've adressed this several times in the past, but it seems like it needs to be repeated every now and again because many of you think that something happened just because someone said so.

But in order to separate accusation from actuality, you need to look beyond bare accusation to the evidence itself, whatever is available.

Jussie Smollett is a case in point. In this case, he had people manufacture evidence, but this evidence (rope, chemical, bruises) was contradicted by other evidence (confessions, recorded money transfers) which made the accusation fall apart. Still, many people were immediately and emotionally enraged by Smollett's faked "hate crime" without waiting for evidence to be gathered, sifted, weighed.

Iraq WMD is another case of accusation without evidence. All of the "evidence" brought forward ... aluminum tubes, yellowcake contract, terrorist training camps, grainy photos of nondescript desert buildings ... were shown to be either fakes (the yellowcake contract), technologically impossible (aluminum tubes did not meet centrifuge specs), questionably sourced ("Curveball" as source of "terrorist training camps), irrelevant (photos) or sheer fabrication ("east, west, north, south somewhat of Baghdad", "mushroom cloud"). The whole Iraq WMD episode also demonstrated the LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY OF PROVING A NEGATIVE. You can not prove that something DIDN'T happen. This is why the Founding Fathers, who were far smarter than we are (apparently) put the onus on the PROSECUTION to make its case beyond a REASONABLE doubt, and did not require the accused to prove his/her innocence. That is the source of Innocent until proven guilty ... a legal protection which many liberaloids seem anxious to throw away.

More later

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 28, 2019 1:01 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I know I've adressed this several times in the past, but it seems like it needs to be repeated every now and again because many of you think that something happened just because someone said so.

But in order to separate accusation from actuality, you need to look beyond bare accusation to the evidence itself, whatever is available.

Jussie Smollett is a case in point. In this case, he had people manufacture evidence, but this evidence (rope, chemical, bruises) was contradicted by other evidence (confessions, recorded money transfers) which made the accusation fall apart. Still, many people were immediately and emotionally enraged by Smollett's faked "hate crime" without waiting for evidence to be gathered, sifted, weighed.

Iraq WMD is another case of accusation without evidence. All of the "evidence" brought forward ... aluminum tubes, yellowcake contract, terrorist training camps, grainy photos of nondescript desert buildings ... were shown to be either fakes (the yellowcake contract), technologically impossible (aluminum tubes did not meet centrifuge specs), questionably sourced ("Curveball" as source of "terrorist training camps), irrelevant (photos) or sheer fabrication ("east, west, north, south somewhat of Baghdad", "mushroom cloud"). The whole Iraq WMD episode also demonstrated the LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY OF PROVING A NEGATIVE. You can not prove that something DIDN'T happen. This is why the Founding Fathers, who were far smarter than we are (apparently) put the onus on the PROSECUTION to make its case beyond a REASONABLE doubt, and did not require the accused to prove his/her innocence. That is the source of Innocent until proven guilty ... a legal protection which many liberaloids seem anxious to throw away.

More later

It's too bad the Founders did not allow Proof of Innocence to be a Defense, which SCOTUS has rejected.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 28, 2019 1:41 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I know I've adressed this several times in the past, but it seems like it needs to be repeated every now and again because many of you think that something happened just because someone said so.

But in order to separate accusation from actuality, you need to look beyond bare accusation to the evidence itself, whatever is available.

Jussie Smollett is a case in point. In this case, he had people manufacture evidence, but this evidence (rope, chemical, bruises) was contradicted by other evidence (confessions, recorded money transfers) which made the accusation fall apart. Still, many people were immediately and emotionally enraged by Smollett's faked "hate crime" without waiting for evidence to be gathered, sifted, weighed.

Iraq WMD is another case of accusation without evidence. All of the "evidence" brought forward ... aluminum tubes, yellowcake contract, terrorist training camps, grainy photos of nondescript desert buildings ... were shown to be either fakes (the yellowcake contract), technologically impossible (aluminum tubes did not meet centrifuge specs), questionably sourced ("Curveball" as source of "terrorist training camps), irrelevant (photos) or sheer fabrication ("east, west, north, south somewhat of Baghdad", "mushroom cloud"). The whole Iraq WMD episode also demonstrated the LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY OF PROVING A NEGATIVE. You can not prove that something DIDN'T happen. This is why the Founding Fathers, who were far smarter than we are (apparently) put the onus on the PROSECUTION to make its case beyond a REASONABLE doubt, and did not require the accused to prove his/her innocence. That is the source of Innocent until proven guilty ... a legal protection which many liberaloids seem anxious to throw away.

More later

It's too bad the Founders did not allow Proof of Innocence to be a Defense, which SCOTUS has rejected.

What is "proof of innocence"? Do you have any links to this concept, or SCOTUS rulings?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Do you feel like the winds of change are blowing today too?
Mon, June 9, 2025 11:48 - 2236 posts
Are cities lost to an economic Crime Apocalypse, how to fix them?
Mon, June 9, 2025 09:58 - 97 posts
Nearly One-Quarter Of U.S. Public School Enrollment Could Be Anchor Babies
Mon, June 9, 2025 09:52 - 2 posts
Senile Moron Brags of Selling Fictional Planes to Norway
Mon, June 9, 2025 09:48 - 47 posts
The parallel internet is coming
Mon, June 9, 2025 09:31 - 228 posts
Romanticization of the Civil War
Mon, June 9, 2025 08:13 - 123 posts
The Honeymoon is Over
Mon, June 9, 2025 08:09 - 383 posts
A thread for Democrats Only
Mon, June 9, 2025 07:59 - 7042 posts
The limits of free speech
Mon, June 9, 2025 07:50 - 62 posts
It’s Time To Start Treating Mexico Like A Hostile Foreign Power
Mon, June 9, 2025 07:22 - 19 posts
Trump orders troops to Los Angeles to combat violent protests against immigration enforcement
Mon, June 9, 2025 07:20 - 3 posts
NBC News: The questions raised by the new charges against Kilmar Abrego Garcia
Mon, June 9, 2025 07:17 - 3 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL