Home

Moderation on the Politics forum
  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> In the News -> Politics

View latest: 24h 48h 72h


Jeanette




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Dec 02 2019, 10:10 am
wiki wrote:
In America, a person cannot be punished by the force of the law without being found guilty according to the standards of evidence in the court of law.

But the public is welcome to judge the actions of others based on the evidence at hand. And there are countless examples of the public doing this, for figures on all ends of the political spectrum. We consider figures in the news to be murderers, liars, adulterers, and innocent people without waiting for a jury or judge to rule on these matters.

The press will be careful to use terms like "alleged" about these titles, but there is nothing wrong with the public making personal judgment based on known evidence. That's accepted standard practice, I think.


In another thread people were outraged that people are being set free before trial if they can't afford bail, and those people were only accused, not convicted. So locking people up for months without a trial is fine, but holding the president accountable for his words is not. Double standard?
Back to top

Fox




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Dec 02 2019, 11:42 am
There still seem to be quite a few Imamothers who don't understand the rhetorical leap.

No one -- absolutely no one -- said, "Eh, you know, I don't think s-xual assault is such a big deal. I mean, as long as nobody winds up in the hospital, who cares?"

Now, I happen to be a bit of a free speech and argumentation absolutist, and even if someone had said such a thing, I would oppose name-calling, etc. Even if I believed the epithets and negative attributions to be true, I would avoid it because it's an ineffective way to persuade people.

But in this case, we have someone who merely said, and I paraphrase, "I don't believe the cases we're discussing meet the definition or standard for s-xual assault."

That's it. She simply raised the reasonable possibility that consent had been conveyed and that however distasteful we might find it, the incidents did not consitute s-xual assault.

Disagreeing about whether a specific case meets either a legal or moral definition is not the same as defending the behavior in general or even in specific. In fact, that's one of the tasks our court systems are set up to do. Prosecutors don't walk in and tell judges and juries, "If you find this defendant innocent, then you are personally saying that you think armed robbery is perfectly okay."

If you believe that Trump's self-acknowledged behavior rose to the level of s-xual assault, you are free to persuade us of that. But telling people that they are "defending" and "promoting" s-xual assault if they disagree is considerably more destructive, IMHO, than mildly derogatory nicknames applied to public figures.
Back to top

Laiya




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Dec 02 2019, 1:43 pm
wiki wrote:
In America, a person cannot be punished by the force of the law without being found guilty according to the standards of evidence in the court of law.

But the public is welcome to judge the actions of others based on the evidence at hand. And there are countless examples of the public doing this, for figures on all ends of the political spectrum. We consider figures in the news to be murderers, liars, adulterers, and innocent people without waiting for a jury or judge to rule on these matters.

The press will be careful to use terms like "alleged" about these titles, but there is nothing wrong with the public making personal judgment based on known evidence. That's accepted standard practice, I think.


What Fox said. We're always free to judge and form our own opinions. But it's misleading, misrepresentative, and frankly intellectually dishonest to pretend that one's personal opinion is somehow the equivalent of a factual finding issued by a court--and then to level accusations of personal moral deficiencies premised upon that intentional conflation of two non-comparable sets of facts [one who is accused vs one who has been found guilty]

To parse it some more, the poster wrote,

roses wrote:
And how about we add some Imamother rules;
Let's start with, it is not permitted to;

Defend s-xual assault
Excuse s-x offender behavior
Defend child rape
Defend adult rape
Blame victims of s-xual assault
Imply victims of s-xual assault "wanted it"

Once we have that baseline, we won't need to teach people basic principles of morality. And we won't have people being attacked when they call out posters for above mentioned disgusting behavior


I'm pretty confident that few, if any, frum ladies on this site would defend the criminal behavior of a public figure who has actually been convicted of rape or zxual assault. This wouldn't even be a discussion.

It's the attempt to gain the appearance of a moral high ground by intentionally conflating issues, that's troubling.
Back to top

#BestBubby




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Dec 02 2019, 4:16 pm
Jeanette wrote:
In another thread people were outraged that people are being set free before trial if they can't afford bail, and those people were only accused, not convicted. So locking people up for months without a trial is fine, but holding the president accountable for his words is not. Double standard?


You criticize Trump but refuse to criticize Hillary for viciously attacking the victims of her husband's s-xual assaults or for getting a Child Rapist off by attacking the 12 year old victim on the stand.

Double Standard much, Jeanette?
Back to top

small bean




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Dec 02 2019, 4:22 pm
What would you like us to do in regards to trump words? Not vote for him? Because than biden and hillary are out to.

The reason those comments did not hurt trump is because everyone knows trump is gross. No one elelecte him as a standard for morality.
Back to top
  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Recent Topics

Page 9 of 9 View latest: 24h 48h 72h


Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> In the News -> Politics

Related Topics Replies Last Post
Pinned: New Guidelines for Politics
by Yael
21 Fri, Dec 06 2019, 9:19 am View last post
[ Poll ] Time to Vote on Moderation style
by Yael
190 Thu, Dec 05 2019, 5:26 pm View last post
New Moderation Guidelines 48 Thu, Dec 05 2019, 3:21 pm View last post
by Yael
Split from moderation thread to discuss Trump 227 Wed, Dec 04 2019, 9:11 pm View last post
Should there be an exercise forum not about weight loss?
by amother
2 Tue, Nov 19 2019, 4:37 pm View last post
by Yael

Jump to: