TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 3 of 16 FirstFirst 1234567813 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 380

Thread: Guilty Until Proven Innocent

  1. #51
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2002
    Location: I think I've been here
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    While a company cannot fire you without proof (such as testimony from your colleagues), nobody is obligated to hire you or to renew your contract.

    I think by this point you can decide yourself if them basing this decision on uncorroborated statements is a good thing.

  2. #52
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post

    Finally, neither I nor anyone else in this thread has suggested that the accusers should be blindly believed. All anyone has asked is that they should be taken seriously.
    Time for a reread. You're wrong

  3. #53
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    If multiple unrelated women accuse someone of masturbating in front of them, yeah, I think that's a pretty good sign to not hire that guy.

  4. #54
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2002
    Location: I think I've been here
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    But that's the point. We are not in a court of law. These are examples of how we don't live our lives as if we were in a courtroom.
    The point I'm making is that we should, because the moral principles apply whether a judge is present or not.

  5. #55
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    So, let's take the babysitter example. If several people told you that a babysitter has mistreated their children, would you hire that babysitter? Moreover, if you did hire them, would you treat them as if they were innocent and not check up on them?

  6. #56
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Also, the court is not necessarily the place where the morality of things like these is decided. You can make decisions and form opinions yourself based on the evidence available to you. For an extreme example, if you saw someone murder a person, you do not have to wait for a verdict to consider them a murderer. And OJ Simpson may have been found not guilty, but that doesn't mean you're morally wrong if you are convinced of his guilt despite what was decided in court.

    Courts are what we rely on for arbitration and judicial decisions and punishments, not for how we should live our lives or what to think.

  7. #57
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    A good example you give there. Word of mouth and TV reporting gave the slant that he was guilty despite the actual evidence not corroborating that, but by public opinion he was guilty. But was he?

  8. #58
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Or maybe he wasn't guilty until the civil trial and was guilty after that? The same evidence can lead to different conclusions. In criminal court, the evidence was deemed to be not sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil court, the evidence was enough. And every person can look up the evidence presented and make up their own mind based on that.

  9. #59
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2010
    Location: A Former Orange Grove
    It seems there is some disagreement here based upon cultural and national norms. It is in fact a crime in the USA to whip it out and fap away in front of someone - at least in a public space (i.e. a store, movie theatre, under a bridge, in an alley, etc.) If you invite someone into your office, then whip it out, then you have likely violated a corporate or company policy (albeit not a state violation, just a contractual one). If a woman follows you to your home, enters, and then you whip it out and she is not happy with that? She should just leave. If the guy tries to stop her with force or coercion, that is different matter. However, if you "nude up” in your own home in front of someone, you have not committed any crime. If they try to leave and you stop them, that is a potential crime, depending on the severity of the “stop". Then again, you may work for a company that has a moral terpitude clause, so you may have to answer for your actions at a civil level.

    In the USA, it is illegal to grab “tits” intentionally without consent. It gets very grey here... That consent can be non-verbal and worse yet misinterpreted. “Oh Maude... I so wish to squeeze your ample womanhood!” In her eyes he viewed a big YES! So he went for it. Little did he know, Maude really wanted him to fondle another womanly part and was offended he misinterpreted her non-verbal queues. She got pissed off and decided to report him to the local authorities as a masher. Oh yes, alcohol was involved... quite a great deal of it. Maybe even a little green.

    As for “innocent until proven guilty”... That is not universal for all the “free world”. Check out the countries and one state that still use the Napoleonic Code (France, Louisiana, etc.) - at least in part. Back in the 80s going to college, I took a course on Fascism, Communism, and Democracy. The professor asked the class what are some of the features of a democracy. I proudly answered, “Innocent until proven guilty!” I was shot down like a WWII German fighter over the English channel. IUPG is shared by more “free” societies, but it is not a prerequisite to being a democratic/republican society.

  10. #60
    Moderator
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: Wales
    Quote Originally Posted by faetal View Post
    . . . I barely come to CommChat anymore . . .
    More's the pity. CommChat is the poorer for it.

  11. #61
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Landahn
    Do we really need yet another (terrible) thread on this topic? Why doesn’t this get merged with the older thread?

  12. #62
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Because the other one got closed. Things got too toxic.

  13. #63
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: The Land of Make Believe
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    So, let's take the babysitter example. If several people told you that a babysitter has mistreated their children, would you hire that babysitter? Moreover, if you did hire them, would you treat them as if they were innocent and not check up on them?
    An excellent question. Don't expect any of the innocence fundamentalists to answer it.

  14. #64
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    In criminal court, the evidence was deemed to be not sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil court, the evidence was enough.
    There's a different standard for determining culpability, isn't there?

    Anyway Starker, I get your point. It's true - anyone can come to their own conclusion and your opinion is yours. No problem.

    People also shouldn't have a problem if people think they're dumb or arseholes for holding certain opinions though. I think it's very uncharitable and uncompassionate to not recognise the plight of wrongfully accused men in these situations. I know mothers of young men who are pretty terrified of these situations. I guess it's lucky that uni students, in the UK at least, drink much less than they did in my day (the 90s) so there's probably going to be less waking up with someone you wouldn't have slept with sober.

    I'm just vocal when I think someone's opinion is silly, and I thought SDs was pretty harsh. If it happened to him, a close family member or friend he'd change his tune. These people do, like racists who accidentally end up mates with someone of the race they hated.

  15. #65
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    Re: the babysitter (cuz SD and I x-posted).

    This is a different situation to losing your proper job. If it were a proper job you'd have a contract and you'd be dismissed with a clear case for it.

    The babysitter example is no different to the kid who mows the lawns. You hear from your neighbours that he does a bad job and mows the rose garden so you don't hire him.

  16. #66
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: The Land of Make Believe
    Quote Originally Posted by SubJeff View Post
    The babysitter example is no different to the kid who mows the lawns. You hear from your neighbours that he does a bad job and mows the rose garden so you don't hire him.
    But he hasn't been found guilty in a court of law of doing a bad job.

    I hope you are able to live with yourself

  17. #67
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Damn, SD. I know you and Sub have your differences, but still. Think you could tone down the antagonism a bit?

  18. #68
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    It doesn't ruin his live though SD, and that's the fundamental thing you seem unable to grasp.

    You know what's interesting - this article is being discussed at another forum I go on, which is why I brought it here. The attitudes there are completely different. Most people think it shocking that these cases occur and there are far more female members in that forum. It's interesting to see the difference. Enlightening even.

  19. #69
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    On the babysitter question. Say you were that babysitter and hadn't actually done anything, and was wrongly accused for whatever reason (the other person having a mental disability, really hating you / wanting to destroy you etc etc).

    What you do once proven innocent (hopefully) is take the company that fired you to court and sue their asses.

    To use a non-related completely different situation as an example (of false slander and sueing them). Rebel Wilson of Pitch Perfect fame was falsely accused of lying about her entire life and the company responsible (a magazine company) tried to ruin her life. All the movie companies believed the lies and she stopped getting roles. Career ruined. Why? Who knows. They apparently knew it was lies they were telling but did it anyway to ruin her.

    Long story short. She took those responsible to court, won, and luckily her careers back on track. So its not even just singular persons out to ruin a person for no good reason at all but also large companies.

    What can a person hope to do if wrongly accused? Sue and thats about it. Your only other choice is either:
    * Live in a cave for the rest of your life
    * Accept the label you've been given and actually be that kinda person (fuck that).
    Or
    * Commit suicide
    Last edited by icemann; 17th Dec 2017 at 14:50.

  20. #70
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    You could move to another city/country/continent.

    Or just say, stuff happens, get over it and get on with life.

  21. #71
    Cuddly little misanthropic hate machine
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Location: someplace better than this
    So am I still ruining TTLG?

  22. #72
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Vertigo, DragonSand, Xeen
    What the...

    dethtoll!

  23. #73
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    Quote Originally Posted by dethtoll View Post
    So am I still ruining TTLG?
    You never were.

  24. #74
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2002
    Location: I think I've been here
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    So, let's take the babysitter example. If several people told you that a babysitter has mistreated their children, would you hire that babysitter? Moreover, if you did hire them, would you treat them as if they were innocent and not check up on them?
    This analogy is just as flawed. You and I are not the employers. And those film companies are not ending actor careers because someone of ill repute might mistreat their baby. You are forgetting the 3rd party here that is yourself and the role you are playing in the actual events.
    You're part of the public who believes any awful story and thereby puts pressure on those film companies to dump their money horses without waiting for due process. They wouldn't do it without you. How does that fit into your babysitter story?

  25. #75
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    The babysitter example is just to show that we don't live our lives by the principles that courts follow. You can make up your own mind about someone without relying on a court decision. I wasn't making the example as an analogy of the situation.

    Also, I'm not someone who believes just about any awful story, like you are insinuating. The Weinstein story, for example, had lots of evidence and witnesses speaking out. It's not like just some random accuser made an anonymous comment on Twitter -- this story was well researched and corroborated with multiple sources.

    As for film companies, how do you know that they haven't had problems with an actor's behaviour before? They have a better idea how people behave on set than the public does. Yes, public scandals do force their hand, but you're assuming that the companies are basing their decisions on nothing more than hearsay.
    Last edited by Starker; 17th Dec 2017 at 21:59.

Page 3 of 16 FirstFirst 1234567813 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •