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

---

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.

---