you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

The burden of proof works the exact opposite way. You make a claim, then you need to support verifiable and damnable evidence. Not the other way around.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 50 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)
  • [+] -6 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    This isn't a court trial tbh

    So just because it's not a court trial means we should throw out innocent until proven guilty? The burden of proof is non-negotiable. These ideas have existed for centuries, they aren't a purely legal framework.

    what has come forth from Madison's side

    Which is, to be perfectly fair, limited to he-said-she-said which isn't evidence. It's just an allegation and very little can be decided from that alone.

    At this point there is exactly zero useful information to actually derive any real decision from.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago

    So just because it’s not a court trial means we should throw out innocent until proven guilty? The burden of proof is non-negotiable. These ideas have existed for centuries, they aren’t a purely legal framework.

    I'm under no obligation to give LMG the benefit of the doubt, if I choose to abstain from watching their content due to the allegations, then that is my prerogative. My choosing to make a decision without proof either way doesn't harm LMG further than the loss of ad revenue, etc.

    That's the difference.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -6 points 2 years ago

    Oh, sure, I mean, you are definitely free to do and think as you wish. Just pointing out how the burden of proof works, since a lot of people (not necessarily you) do not get how it works. Bertrand Russel, everyone!

  • source
  • parent