• sanpedropeddler@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Its just a phrase, I never implied this has anything to do with law. “Guilty” and “innocent” are not purely legal terms. You said you can assume they are real. If you are going to assume anything, you should have evidence. I’m not assuming anything, I don’t need evidence. You are assuming they are real, you need evidence. There is no evidence either way, as I have already said, and you ignored. So your assumption is baseless. I can’t break it down any further for you. My original argument was that the messages could be fake, yes. But that doesn’t mean I have to provide evidence. If there was evidence I wouldn’t say “could”. I was literally saying I don’t know, and it is impossible to know. But its stupid to assume its real when you can’t possibly know, just based off of your views of him in general.

    • hoodatninja@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Its just a phrase, I never implied this has anything to do with law. “Guilty” and “innocent” are not purely legal terms.

      Oh come now. That doesn’t even make sense if I believed it, which I don’t. “Innocent until proven guilty“ is exclusive to the court of law. I don’t need to have an investigation and mount evidence to say somebody is a piece of garbage. I can use whatever I deem appropriate and you are welcome to disagree. But that is not what you did. You attempted to hide behind phony legalese and make me look like I am on some sort of witchhunt/don’t care about rights.

      My original argument was that the messages could be fake, yes. But that doesn’t mean I have to provide evidence. If there was evidence I wouldn’t say “could”. I was literally saying I don’t know, and it is impossible to know.

      Nonsense. You tried to cast doubt on the authenticity. Nothing you have written indicates you were just trying to be reasonable or whatever you are making yourself out to be.

      Stop talking out both sides of your mouth. We all know what you said and meant.

      • sanpedropeddler@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You know morals were a thing before law right? Innocent before proven guilty is a phrase used in law, but that doesn’t mean its only applicable in law. You aren’t making an argument you’re just complaining because you associate the phrase with law. Maybe you don’t need evidence to claim he’s guilty, but you do if you don’t want to seem like a fucking idiot to anyone with half a brain. What I wrote says it could be fake. I didn’t say it was, I said it could be. “Stop talking out both sides of your mouth” what does that even mean? Ive been saying exactly the same thing the whole time. If you still don’t get it then you need to work on your reading comprehension. I’ve done everything I can to simplify it short of drawing a fucking diagram. I’m done. Good luck figuring it out.

        • hoodatninja@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You know morals were a thing before law right?

          Stopped reading. This has become far too esoteric even for me. Have a good one man, we are clearly well past the point of productivity.

          • sanpedropeddler@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I applaud your ability to make yourself look better by ignoring all of my arguments and saying random bullshit instead. I wasn’t going to respond further, but wow you are a self righteous ignorant prick. I have never met a single person in my life that is as good at evading logic as you are, I’m sure you do it a lot.