By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sundin13 on 02 October 2018
Edit Thread
Rêveur said:
sundin13 said:

I don't believe that is an accurate representation of my argument, mostly because I am not stating that he should have to prove his innocence, but instead stating that the arguments for and against should be weighted against each other. This is different than a court system because it places the burden on both individuals instead of on one. As I've stated in other posts, I think this is important because under either "presumption" (presumption of innocence or presumption of guilt), someone is wronged, be it the victim of assault or the victim of a false accusation (and you could argue that "Presumption of innocence" also applies to presuming the accuser is not perjuring themselves). 

Because of that, what should be done in my opinion is that both arguments and both possibilities should be weighed and a determination should be made from that point based on the context in which we are speaking about someone.

I feel like you are attempting to take a neutral stance and be reasonable but it just feels like a cop-out, like a way to avoid having to make a decision, perhaps out of fear of making the wrong one or fear it makes you be on the "wrong" side. I still don't know what you think should be done concretely. You keep talking about some sort of "middle-ground" that is supposedly attainable by giving weight to both sides. Unfortunately, there are only two options - confirm Kavanaugh or drop him. There's no nuanced, middle-ground, or compromise course of action possible.

I can't speak for all those who want to see Kavanaugh confirmed, but in my case, it's not necessarily that I believe Kavanugh and that I believe Ford's a liar. I simply do not see proof of what she is accusing, and as I've said in my past post, I still stand by the principle of the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof being solely on the accuser. In cases where there is no proof going either way, the only course of action I find acceptable is to accord the benefit of the doubt to the accused.

It's not a testimony of belief in one person or lack of belief in another, but simply belief in a principle that irrefutable proof be required to ruin a person and deny him an honor. I guess my last question to you would simply be, of the two opions - confirm or drop - what do you think should be done?

Again, when speaking about the two sides, I am speaking about presumption of innocence vs presumption of guilt. I say we presume neither. Weigh the two sides and determine a likelihood of guilt and use that to determine a statistical score for how qualified an individual is for the job.

I personally believe that the likelihood of guilt (meaning that he either committed sexual assault or perjured himself under oath) is somewhere around 60%, so using the calculations I described earlier, I do not believe he should be confirmed. I think that everyone (meaning all of the senators) should do this to determine where they believe the likelihood of guilt lies and whether they believe that he is adequately qualified taking the two possibilities into account.