What's in the news?

[TheVillain]

The funniest part to me is that her opponent thought all the campaigning he had to do was to occasionally point out that she used to be a dude with a cheap commercial, while she went out and actually did the shaking of hands and kissing of babies.

Nope. HA!

[Beorning]

Two news bits from Poland I don't have English-language links for, unfortunately:

1. Serial grave robber arrested in Poland. A man in his 50s has been raiding graves, stealing bodies and holing them up in a forest. No comments yet as for what his motives were.

2. Polish government launches a pro-procreation campaign that can be summed up as "Let's breed like rabbits". Seriously. The campaign uses rabbits as its central motive. *facepalms*

[WindFish]

The Republican candidate in the Alabama special election is accused of sexual harassment and misconduct by at least four women:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/09/politics/roy-moore-sexual-encounter-alabama/index.html

This should be an automatic disqualifier for any political candidate, but in the world of Trump (remember that he's had multiple allegations from dozens of women and openly bragged about sexual assault), it seems that people will make excuses for this shit as long as it's for someone that they like.

[Sara Nilsson]

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2017/11/alabama-republican-just-defended-accused-child-molester-roy-moore-invoking-scripture/

Oh they defend him alright.

“Take the Bible. Zachariah and Elizabeth for instance. Zachariah was extremely old to marry Elizabeth and they became the parents of John the Baptist. Also take Joseph and Mary. Mary was a teenager and Joseph was an adult carpenter. They became parents of Jesus.”

“There’s just nothing immoral or illegal here,” Ziegler said. “Maybe just a little bit unusual.”

[Lustful Bride]

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2017/11/alabama-republican-just-defended-accused-child-molester-roy-moore-invoking-scripture/

Oh they defend him alright.

..........I cant decided at what level of volume I want to scream the word "Heresy" to him. But full on 'Exterminatus' sounds about right.

------------

In other news, Puerto Rico continues to suffer. :(

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/puerto-rico-suffers-another-major-power-outage/ar-BBEMnMw?li=BBnbcA1&ocid=HPCOMMDHP15

[Vergil Tanner]

The Republican candidate in the Alabama special election is accused of sexual harassment and misconduct by at least four women:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/09/politics/roy-moore-sexual-encounter-alabama/index.html

This should be an automatic disqualifier for any political candidate, but in the world of Trump (remember that he's had multiple allegations from dozens of women and openly bragged about sexual assault), it seems that people will make excuses for this shit as long as it's for someone that they like.

What should disqualify them? Being accused? Last I checked, it was innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. It's why I don't agree with people losing their jobs over allegations; people can make shit up, or be wrong. Or are you suggesting that false rape / sexual harassment allegations don't exist?

In this case, he probably did it...but saying "You've been accused, therefore you're being fired and are never going to be hired again" is the complete opposite of how the Justice System should work. It turns it into a "You are guilty until you can prove otherwise," which is just barbaric and is a dangerous precedent to set.

[Regina Minx]

What should disqualify them? Being accused? Last I checked, it was innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. It's why I don't agree with people losing their jobs over allegations; people can make shit up, or be wrong. Or are you suggesting that false rape / sexual harassment allegations don't exist?

In this case, he probably did it...but saying "You've been accused, therefore you're being fired and are never going to be hired again" is the complete opposite of how the Justice System should work. It turns it into a "You are guilty until you can prove otherwise," which is just barbaric and is a dangerous precedent to set.

You said 'he probably did it.' How did you come to that conclusion? Unless you have special access to information that the rest of us don't, you based that conclusion on the Washington Post article with its accusations by the four women and the thirty corroborating sources. That's kind of a lot. You can't simultaneously be personally convinced of his probable guilt while saying that we need to wait for him to have his day in court and get a verdict by a jury before we can say that Roy Moore sexually assaulted a 14-year-old girl.

There's enough evidence out there that convinced you, Vergil Tanner, that Roy Moore probably sexually assaulted a 14-year-old girl. We both agree with that. Now why is it inappropriate to say that a man who probably sexually assaulted a 14-year-old girl shouldn't run for Senate? Why is it inappropriate to say "We as a political party can't support the nomination of a man who probably sexually assaulted a 14-year-old girl." Why is it wrong for voters to say, "I don't want to vote for someone who probably sexually assaulted a 14-year-old girl?"

If your answer to any of the above is that it's not inappropriate to say any of those things...what's the problem with saying that credible allegations that a man who probably sexually assaulted a 14-year-old girl should be disqualified from running for office?

I can only conclude that you are generalizing beyond Roy Moore here. "Yes it may be justified in this case to say that Roy Moore should be disqualified, but NOT ALL MEN ACCUSED PROBABLY DID IT." That's a non-sequitur. It doesn't matter within the context of this conversation unless you think that Windfish or Sara or I are trying to extrapolate some kind of overall principle from the Roy Moore case. I'm genuinely interested in the answer to the question I put in the paragraph above this one. If you personally are convinced that he probably did it, why can't we then make the case that a man who probably sexually assaulted a 14-year-old-girl should be automatically disqualified from running for office? If your response contains any shade of 'innocent until proven guilty,' then I'm sorry to say that you're violating your own principle here.

Censure and removal from office, either by formal process or willing resignation, almost always precedes any kind of formal legal declaration. Rod Blagojevich was removed from office well before being found guilty of bribery and corruption. Robert Bentley, the governor of Alabama, resigned before he could be impeached and later plead guilty to the crimes he was accused of, said accusations leading to calls for his resignation.  Kevin Garn resigned after being accused of inappropriate conduct with a minor girl and was never charged with any crime. More examples too numerous to list bear out the typical pattern of politicians usually face political consequences for their accused misdeeds well before legal consequences.

[Vergil Tanner]

You said 'he probably did it.' How did you come to that conclusion? Unless you have special access to information that the rest of us don't, you based that conclusion on the Washington Post article with its accusations by the four women and the thirty corroborating sources. That's kind of a lot. You can't simultaneously be personally convinced of his probable guilt while saying that we need to wait for him to have his day in court and get a verdict by a jury before we can say that Roy Moore sexually assaulted a 14-year-old girl.

Jesus Fuck, Regina. That was the throwaway comment of my post, and not the point at all. I probably misspoke when I said that he probably did it; what I meant was that given what I know about the individual in question and the nature of Politics and people in positions of power, I can believe it. Not that he probably did it. That was a misstep on my part, but in my defense, I am doing several things at once.

Now why is it inappropriate to say that a man who probably sexually assaulted a 14-year-old girl shouldn't run for Senate?

Because we don't KNOW that he did it, and until he's been CONVICTED of it, saying "Well, they accused you so we're gonna fire you" is completely disregarding the fact that he might NOT have done it, in which case you are punishing an innocent man and jumping straight to "Guilty Until Proven Innocent" which is wrong.

Why is it inappropriate to say "We as a political party can't support the nomination of a man who probably sexually assaulted a 14-year-old girl."

Because I misspoke earlier. Even if you think he COULD have done it, until you have the evidence that he DID do it, you risk punishing an innocent person and ruining an innocent persons life on allegations that have not been demonstrated to be true. Do YOU think that everybody who is accused of a crime should be fired? if so, why not just put them on the sex offenders register right now and save the money of a public trial, since he's obviously guilty, no need to collect evidence.
Are you honestly arguing for somebody who has merely been accused and not convicted to be treated as if he did actually commit the crime before a court has ruled on the matter?

Why is it wrong for voters to say, "I don't want to vote for someone who probably sexually assaulted a 14-year-old girl?"

I think it's premature since we don't KNOW, but that is entirely within their right. However, as you will notice, that is NOT what Windfish said. Windfish said:

This should be an automatic disqualifier for any political candidate

Which suggests that if you are ACCUSED, there should be a law or policy in place that means "Oh hey, you were accused, so you can't stand for office." That is ENTIRELY different, Regina, and you well know it. I hate to employ the slippery slope argument here, but can you imagine the kind of abuse that that kind of rule would be open to? "Oh hey, the politician I want to get elected is losing, but there's this rule...if I accuse him of this thing, then my candidate wins by default!" Not only does it make a mockery of the concept of "If you are accused, your accuser has to prove that you did it before you get punished for it," it also makes a mockery of the entire concept of democracy if people can get the people they want elected into power just by sabotaging somebody else by filing trumped up or entirely invented charges. An extreme example, yes, but there are people who would do that sorta shit.

If your answer to any of the above is that it's not inappropriate to say any of those things...what's the problem with saying that credible allegations that a man who probably sexually assaulted a 14-year-old girl should be disqualified from running for office?

Already covered this above.

I can only conclude that you are generalizing beyond Roy Moore here. "Yes it may be justified in this case to say that Roy Moore should be disqualified, but NOT ALL MEN ACCUSED PROBABLY DID IT." That's a non-sequitur.

Not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that even if I personally think that he probably did it (I don't think that, I meant that I can believe that he did it, but that's my fault for misspeaking), he shouldn't face repercussions as if he DID do it until he has been demonstrated to be guilty and convicted. The courts and the concept of "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" exist for a reason, after all. I would rather let a guilty man go free than punish an innocent man for something he didn't do.

It doesn't matter within the context of this conversation unless you think that Windfish or Sara or I are trying to extrapolate some kind of overall principle from the Roy Moore case.

Well, considering that Windfish stated that an ACCUSATION should be grounds to fire somebody...yeah. I think I can extrapolate a larger principle from it, and it's a principle that I find repulsing as an example of ignoring due process and the possibility that the accuser is either lying or wrong.

I'm genuinely interested in the answer to the question I put in the paragraph above this one. If you personally are convinced that he probably did it, why can't we then make the case that a man who probably sexually assaulted a 14-year-old-girl should be automatically disqualified from running for office? If your response contains any shade of 'innocent until proven guilty,' then I'm sorry to say that you're violating your own principle here.

No. That is a non sequitur. Hypothetically if I was convinced that he did it, not wanting him disqualified until proven guilty is NOT violating my principle, and I thank you not to imply that I'm being intellectually dishonest.

I, personally, can be convinced that he did it. However, I recognise that as a human being, I can be wrong. I can recognise that I don't know all of the facts and that there might be circumstances or details that I do not know about. I can recognise that I am not qualified to make those decisions on an official scale, and I am open to being proven wrong...which is the point of a trial. I can be convinced that he did it, but not want him to be punished until he has been convicted because a trial is how you work out if you - as a bystander - are missing information. It isn't perfect, but I can recognise that just saying "I think he's guilty, therefore he must be guilty and be punished absent a fair trial" is bordering on Mob Justice, and since that is not how I would want to be treated in that situation, I can recognise that it is unfair and unjust to be subjected to such stupid standards of Justice.

Given what I've just said, how exactly am I violating my own principles here? Do you disagree that a wo/man should not be punished for a crime until they have been demonstrated to be guilty of said crime?

Censure and removal from office, either by formal process or willing resignation, almost always precedes any kind of formal legal declaration. Rod Blagojevich was removed from office well before being found guilty of bribery and corruption. Robert Bentley, the governor of Alabama, resigned before he could be impeached and later plead guilty to the crimes he was accused of, said accusations leading to calls for his resignation.  Kevin Garn resigned after being accused of inappropriate conduct with a minor girl and was never charged with any crime. More examples too numerous to list bear out the typical pattern of politicians usually face political consequences for their accused misdeeds well before legal consequences.

So? Just because it happened before doesn't make it Just or Fair. So what, precisely is your point? That it's happened before, so nah, it's fine. People should definitely be punished for crimes they have not yet been found guilty of! It's cool, there's a history of it happening so it can't be bad!
I mean, that's an exaggeration, obviously. But I honestly don't understand why this point is in any way relevant because just because something has happened before doesn't mean that you have to agree with it, and it doesn't mean that it's right.

[Trieste]

Some good news on the education front, Betsy DeVos may actually resign from her post at the Department of Education: https://www.rawstory.com/2017/11/education-officials-expect-ineffective-betsy-devos-to-step-down-as-her-agenda-collapses-report/

I'm torn between "Oh please ohplease ohprettyprettyplease" and "great, that will give him a chance to put someone capable of more damage in the job". *facepalm*



The word of the day is "biopesticide".

[Lustful Bride]

The word of the day is "biopesticide".

Hmmm...I honestly don't know how to feel about this. :/  are we sure it will work how we want it to?

[Oniya]

I have some biopesticides in my back yard.  At least in summer.  In winter there aren't as many pests to -cide.

[Trieste]

Hmmm...I honestly don't know how to feel about this. :/  are we sure it will work how we want it to?

I would say there is reasonable surety in general, worldwide. 'Reasonable surety' as a standard is pretty common. It's not perfect (e.g. africanized bees, thalidomide) but there is every reason to believe that it will work the way it's intended to, without eliminating mosquitoes entirely from the food chain (which is also bad juju).

[Trieste]

Sorry for double-post; forgot the link I was going to include. It's an industry source, so mind the bias, but background info.

I have some biopesticides in my back yard.  At least in summer.  In winter there aren't as many pests to -cide.

<3!

[Regina Minx]

No. That is a non sequitur. Hypothetically if I was convinced that he did it, not wanting him disqualified until proven guilty is NOT violating my principle, and I thank you not to imply that I'm being intellectually dishonest.

Having argued with you before, you will perhaps remember that one of the principles I hold is that I always make a fortiori assumptions about the motivations of the people I’m arguing against. It is not equivalent to say “I believe your logic is flawed” as it is to say “You’re being intellectually dishonest.” I thought the former, that perhaps you had not thought through what you were saying and didn’t see the contradiction. You assumed, with no basis in anything I said or did, that I meant the latter. That you came to that conclusion says more about you than it does about me.

People of good will and good intent are allowed to be wrong. And people of good will and good intent are allowed to point out when they think that other people are being wrong without accusing them of being dishonest.

Jesus Fuck, Regina. That was the throwaway comment of my post, and not the point at all. I probably misspoke when I said that he probably did it; what I meant was that given what I know about the individual in question and the nature of Politics and people in positions of power, I can believe it. Not that he probably did it.

Great. We’ve identified the area of disagreement. Let me ask you this, then. What evidence would convince you? Specifically, what kind of evidence, and how strong would that evidence need to be? We have four accusers and 30 corroborating sources referenced in the Washington Post article. As I mentioned earlier, that’s kind of a lot. If you are not convinced by that that it is more likely than not that Ron Moore sexually assaulted a 14-year-old girl, what would convince you?

Could you be convinced by accusations alone? Please note that I am not asking if you could find it certain on accusation alone. Just whether or not you could be convinced about something being probably true, or very likely to be true, on accusation alone? If the answer is yes, what is it about the accusations in this case that you fail to find compelling? If the answer is no, why not? I realize that you have already stated that false accusations are a possibility, but the possibility of deception is a factor in every decision you make based on information you obtain from someone else, and you don’t let the epistemic probability of deception stop you from coming to conclusions about things that people tell you all the time. (If you are, though, I would find that indescribably bizarre).

More technical than the conversation needs to be, but the beauty of arguing something in Bayesian terms is that any disagreement ultimately comes down to a conversation about three numbers. P(e|h.b), P(h|b), P(e|∼h.b). The reason I’m convinced that it’s likely Roy Moore did it is because I attach a high value to P(h|b) and a relatively lower value to P(e|~h.b) compared to P(e|h.b). That means that, even though I have not assigned numbers to my reasoning at all, the flowchart demanded by reasoning in this way forces me to accept a high P(h|e.b).

Here is the probability tree of my reasoning in this case:



I just think it’s neat.

[Vergil Tanner]

Great. We’ve identified the area of disagreement. Let me ask you this, then. What evidence would convince you? Specifically, what kind of evidence, and how strong would that evidence need to be? We have four accusers and 30 corroborating sources referenced in the Washington Post article. As I mentioned earlier, that’s kind of a lot. If you are not convinced by that that it is more likely than not that Ron Moore sexually assaulted a 14-year-old girl, what would convince you?

Could you be convinced by accusations alone? Please note that I am not asking if you could find it certain on accusation alone. Just whether or not you could be convinced about something being probably true, or very likely to be true, on accusation alone? If the answer is yes, what is it about the accusations in this case that you fail to find compelling? If the answer is no, why not? I realize that you have already stated that false accusations are a possibility, but the possibility of deception is a factor in every decision you make based on information you obtain from someone else, and you don’t let the epistemic probability of deception stop you from coming to conclusions about things that people tell you all the time. (If you are, though, I would find that indescribably bizarre).

More technical than the conversation needs to be, but the beauty of arguing something in Bayesian terms is that any disagreement ultimately comes down to a conversation about three numbers. P(e|h.b), P(h|b), P(e|∼h.b). The reason I’m convinced that it’s likely Roy Moore did it is because I attach a high value to P(h|b) and a relatively lower value to P(e|~h.b) compared to P(e|h.b). That means that, even though I have not assigned numbers to my reasoning at all, the flowchart demanded by reasoning in this way forces me to accept a high P(h|e.b).

Here is the probability tree of my reasoning in this case:

None of that is the point, Regina. It's utterly irrelevant whether I'm convinced he did it or not.

The point is that until he's convicted, he shouldn't face punishment for wrongdoing since that's the point of being convicted. If he's going to be punished regardless of whether he's found Guilty or Not Guilty, then why even bother with the trial since it obviously doesn't matter?

Now that isn't to say that an Internal Investigation might turn up a different result than the Courts, since II's tend to have a lower standard of evidence. But until such formal procedures have been followed, he shouldn't be punished absent a formal conviction since that defeats the point of the Justice System as a whole.

[Regina Minx]

None of that is the point, Regina. It's utterly irrelevant whether I'm convinced he did it or not.

The point is that until he's convicted, he shouldn't face punishment for wrongdoing since that's the point of being convicted. If he's going to be punished regardless of whether he's found Guilty or Not Guilty, then why even bother with the trial since it obviously doesn't matter?

It is highly relevant. Not only because I asked (because I'm genuinely curious) but because not everything reported in the story is a prosecutable crime. The age of consent in Alabama is 16, and three of the four people in the story were above that age when they encountered Moore. The court of public opinion is the one and only court that will hear that case. And for the woman that was 14 when she says Moore assaulted her, there are issues such as the statue of limitations and prosecutorial discretion that may well see to it that this never sees the inside of a courtroom.

Not everything alleged in the story was a crime, and it's no guarantee that the things that were crime will be tried in a court of law. Now, assuming that you don't wait for a jury of 12 people to decide each and every thing that you believe is likely to be true, all I'm asking you to do is to apply that same standard in this case and tell me if you think it's probable that he did it.

If, of course, you decline to answer, then that's fine. We're done here. I'm not interested in discussing whether the accusation of a crime is or should be a disqualifier from political office, and you're not interested in talking about whether or not you believe this thing about Roy Moore. Since you want to talk about the former and I'm interested in the latter, the conversation itself becomes a bit pointless.

[Vergil Tanner]

I agree. The fact is, I don't know enough about the case to make a judgement either way and I'm too busy to look it up at this time to my satisfaction.

My original point was that an allegation on its own should not be enough to punish somebody for what they are accused of, since that defeats the point of the Justice System.

I will say this; if they were 16 or above and consented, then he shouldn't be punished. Age of consent in The UK is 16 as well. If it was under duress or non consensual? Then it's rape, plain and simple. As I said above, however, I do not know enough about the specifics of the case to make a judgement either way. I was reacting to Windfishes comment.

Since we're interested in different conversations, I agree; the conversation is going nowhere.

[WindFish]

Well, considering that Windfish stated that an ACCUSATION should be grounds to fire somebody...yeah. I think I can extrapolate a larger principle from it, and it's a principle that I find repulsing as an example of ignoring due process and the possibility that the accuser is either lying or wrong.

Don't put words in my mouth. I did not say that anyone should be fired because of accusations - that would be unfair and chaotic. I said it should disqualify a political candidate. I for one like to hold politicians to a higher standard than the average civilian. These allegations, which I don't think were made lightly or with any kind of motive in mind, are quite serious and disturbing, and this behavior is frankly unbecoming of anyone holding public office or wanting to hold public office.

If you're going to twist my words and be outright dishonest about what I said, then we're done here.

[Vergil Tanner]

I did no such thing. You stated that these allegations should disqualify somebody from public office, and I disagreed on the grounds that accusations aren't always true and saying that people who are accused of something shouldn't be allowed to hold public office is unjust and unreasonable. Now if you meant that you wouldn't vote for somebody who was accused, that's different and I apologise for misinterpreting your post, but the way it reads is that you think there should be an actual rule that an accused individual should not be allowed to hold office...which is the same thing as saying that they should be fired, especially if they already hold said office when the allegations are made.

Again, it's possible I misinterpreted what you said, and if so then I apologise. But your phrasing was not entirely clear.

If however Interpreted you correctly in that you think there should be an actual rule to that effect...then I stand by my objection, because that is functionally what you are saying.

[Regina Minx]

Because we don't KNOW that he did it, and until he's been CONVICTED of it, saying "Well, they accused you so we're gonna fire you" is completely disregarding the fact that he might NOT have done it, in which case you are punishing an innocent man and jumping straight to "Guilty Until Proven Innocent" which is wrong.

Having now had a good night's sleep, this is a point I'm interested in discussing.

You are, if I am not mistaken, arguing that the standard that holds in a court of law, that a person is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, is the standard for how we should behave civilly towards people. That's the position I understand you as having...

That being said, I disagree with this premise. The court of law has a high standard of proof, and it has that high standard for a good reason. The penalties that can be levelled against a person criminally are serious and usually irrevocable. A wrongly convicted person can't get back the years they are going to spend in prison, therefore, the court that says that it will not send someone to prison until their guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt is trying to keep from convicting as many innocent people as possible. As a general rule, the degree of proof we require depends on the rights we're thinking about taking away. The right in a criminal case is freedom, one of the most highly-regarded rights in the American and British criminal justice systems.

But is that what we're thinking about taking away from Roy Moore? No...not at this time. Not on this evidence. So, to use your words, how are we thinking about 'punishing' Roy Moore based on these allegations? I'll just kind of broadly sweep them together. Unlike freedom, no one has a right to friendship, admiration, good public opinion, or a vote for high office. The level of proof and the degree of certainty required is up to the person being asked for friendship, admiration, good opinion, or a vote for high office. That is entirely appropriate in a free society.

The electorate of Alabama and the regards of public opinion isn't a court of law and it shouldn't be. We are absolutely free to have lower standards than the high-for-a-reason standards of criminal justice. If we wait until we have evidence for people to go to jail based on our decisions made about them in a civic or personal arena, then my argument is that we're using too high a burden of proof. Windfish is essentially saying (Windfish please correct me if I'm wrong) that a person accused of sexual misconduct should not be voted into office, especially if multiple accusations are levied against them.

Let me capture my thinking here with a hypothetical. If someone interviewed with you for a job they met the written qualifications for (education, previous experience, etc.), and then you had four references state that the person interviewed had stolen, would you hire them? Would you hire them if there was another applicant for the job equally qualified in all other ways, just without the baggage of four accusations of theft attached to them?

[Vergil Tanner]

None of that has any bearing on what I've stated my position to be in any way, shape or form. In fact, several of what you just wrote acts as if I have not clarified my positions in ways that I can go back and quote myself as having said. That's fine, though, people can be wrong or forget certain details.

You are, if I am not mistaken, arguing that the standard that holds in a court of law, that a person is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, is the standard for how we should behave civilly towards people. That's the position I understand you as having...

Then you're wrong. I never said anything about Civility, and I have no idea where you got that from. Personally speaking, I want to be reasonably certain that somebody did something before treating them as if they have in fact done it, but my personal standards on a civil basis are much lower than that of a court of law...however, I'm not about to pillory somebody based on hearsay, but that isn't relevant to the current discussion.

That being said, I disagree with this premise. The court of law has a high standard of proof, and it has that high standard for a good reason. The penalties that can be levelled against a person criminally are serious and usually irrevocable. A wrongly convicted person can't get back the years they are going to spend in prison, therefore, the court that says that it will not send someone to prison until their guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt is trying to keep from convicting as many innocent people as possible. As a general rule, the degree of proof we require depends on the rights we're thinking about taking away. The right in a criminal case is freedom, one of the most highly-regarded rights in the American and British criminal justice systems.

I agree. If you go back and reread my posts, I never said that he had to be convicted in court. I'm saying that in order to be fired or "Banned" from taking a certain job, it has to be on more than just accusations. I specifically mentioned an "Internal Investigation" as an example, like a Tribunal. Their standards of evidence would be lower - which, again, I did say - but that it would at least follow some degree of due process rather than "Welp, somebody has accused you, so...fuck you." Because whatever you say, disallowing him from a career can indeed affect him greatly, not just financially and stably, but also after the fact if he attempts to find another career. As you so rightly point out below...who's going to hire somebody who was fired from his previous job over sexual misconduct claims? Which is WHY if you're about to lose your job / career prospects, there should be an investigation with SOME standards of evidence, at least, in order to ascertain whether it's likely or not that you're guilty.

Although I will also state this: Yes, freedom is one of the highest rights in society, but nobody is entitled to esteem, respect from their peers or friendship. However, false allegations - and I'm not saying these allegations are false, I don't know, I'm saying it in general - tend to have the same societal impact of true allegations. You might be cleared, but if you've been accused of rape, for example, it's a good chance that you'll be ostracised anyway. There are numerous accounts of people who have been falsely accused of rape, and yet people in their community still treat them like an outcast, cross the street to avoid them, friends don't talk to them anymore...etc etc. So what do we do when a false allegation has ruined somebodies life beyond repair? How do we fix that? Well, to a certain degree we can't, but we can at least try to minimise the impact on their lives if they end up being innocent. And one way of doing that is not saying "Allegations are enough to automatically disqualify you for a job."

Unlike freedom, no one has a right to friendship, admiration, good public opinion, or a vote for high office. The level of proof and the degree of certainty required is up to the person being asked for friendship, admiration, good opinion, or a vote for high office. That is entirely appropriate in a free society.

Again, please point me to the place where I stated that he should be allowed friendship, admiration, good opinion or somebodies vote? Please? I'm not being snarky here, but it feels like you don't really remember what I wrote. I'm staring at the bit now where I specifically stated that if people want to withhold their vote from him over these allegations, that is entirely their right. He's not entitled to anybodies esteem, friendship, admiration or support, regardless of whether he's guilty or innocent. But he should be allowed to try regardless, since they are currently allegations and not a conviction.

If we wait until we have evidence for people to go to jail based on our decisions made about them in a civic or personal arena, then my argument is that we're using too high a burden of proof. Windfish is essentially saying (Windfish please correct me if I'm wrong) that a person accused of sexual misconduct should not be voted into office, especially if multiple accusations are levied against them.

See, if Windfish is simply saying that he won't be voting for them based on these allegations, then fine. I get it. No problem. I might have misinterpreted him, as was discussed above.
But his exact wording made it seem to me, at least, that he was stating that anybody with this kind of allegation should be automatically disqualified...the wording of which - disqualify - suggests a ruling. That is, a specific rule or law in place that anybody with these allegations standing against them should not even be allowed to run for public office. Again, I might have misinterpreted him, but it was that position that I was arguing against; I am stating that what you do with your own vote for whatever reasons is up to you. But there should NOT be a law or rule in place that states that you are ineligible to even stand for office if you are accused of something, because that sorta shit is unjust and open to abuse from unscrupulous third parties.

Let me capture my thinking here with a hypothetical. If someone interviewed with you for a job they met the written qualifications for (education, previous experience, etc.), and then you had four references state that the person interviewed had stolen, would you hire them? Would you hire them if there was another applicant for the job equally qualified in all other ways, just without the baggage of four accusations of theft attached to them?

It would depend entirely on the nature of the references. If they were to the standard of "My mate down the pub said," I would look at them extremely skeptically. If they were from the police or previous employers, then I would look at them more seriously. But as I stated above, you are completely misunderstanding my position; as an employer, I am within my right to turn him down. What I am saying is not ok is that simply having the allegations put against him should mean that he isn't even allowed to submit an application.

Has this cleared up my position on the matter? Because a lot of this post seemed to be arguing against a position that I don't hold and never argued in favour of. An honest mistake, I'm certain, and one I hope has been cleared up.

[Regina Minx]

I agree. If you go back and reread my posts, I never said that he had to be convicted in court.

Actually, you did.

The point is that until he's convicted, he shouldn't face punishment for wrongdoing since that's the point of being convicted. If he's going to be punished regardless of whether he's found Guilty or Not Guilty, then why even bother with the trial since it obviously doesn't matter?

The only context in which you DEFINED what you meant when you said that he shouldn't face punishment was to talk about how people shouldn't lose their jobs based on allegations. Since that doesn't apply in this case (Roy Moore doesn't have a job in the US Senate, he is applying for a job through the electoral process and the hiring managers are the electorate of Alabama), it's left unclear in what context you think that Moore shouldn't be punished. I mean, no one on this thread was making the case that Roy Moore should be thrown in jail based on the Washington Post story. The only thing we can really be certain of is that you don't mean that we shouldn't punish him in a criminal context. But that whatever context, we should wait until Roy Moore is convicted IN a criminal before 'punishing' him in any way.

Windfish said that allegations of child abuse should be disqualified from a person seeking high office. You then introduced the word 'punishment' into this conversation. The natural inference one can draw from this is that you are applying the word punishment to what Windfish described as 'disqualification from holding office.' If you are using punishment ONLY in a legal context, then this entire line of conversation makes no sense outside of some bizarre misinterpretation of what Windfish said. "People shouldn't be criminally punished until convicted!" Yes. I agree with that. But since we're not talking about punishing him criminally, the post I made prior to this is germane.

So...to sum up. I think right now the most important question I have is: You said that no one should be punished until convicted. In what context do you mean punishment? Because if you mean punishment in any context, then you're applying the high standards of courtroom proceedings outside of that context to, for instance, whether or not Windfish or Regina Minx thinks that a man accused of molesting a 14-year-old-girl should not be considered for high office.

...however, I'm not about to pillory somebody based on hearsay, but that isn't relevant to the current discussion.

It's double irrelevant here because what we have is not hearsay. Hearsay is when you're repeating what you were told by a third party. These are accusers of misdeeds directly reporting what they say happened to them. Normally I wouldn't parse the meanings of words so closely, especially in an admitted tangent to the main point, but the degree of "no that's not what I meant when I said the thing" in this conversation is making me ill-disposed to ignore any slop in the language.

It would depend entirely on the nature of the references. If they were to the standard of "My mate down the pub said," I would look at them extremely skeptically. If they were from the police or previous employers, then I would look at them more seriously. But as I stated above, you are completely misunderstanding my position; as an employer, I am within my right to turn him down. What I am saying is not ok is that simply having the allegations put against him should mean that he isn't even allowed to submit an application.

What does 'isn't even allowed to submit an application' mean in this context? We have a man running for Senate. His name on the ballot is his application, and the campaign is the interview. Where exactly is Roy Moore being deprived of the opportunity to apply and interview for the job? Windfish said that this should be disqualifying.

[Vergil Tanner]

Actually, you did.

The only context in which you DEFINED what you meant when you said that he shouldn't face punishment was to talk about how people shouldn't lose their jobs based on allegations. Since that doesn't apply in this case (Roy Moore doesn't have a job in the US Senate, he is applying for a job through the electoral process and the hiring managers are the electorate of Alabama), it's left unclear in what context you think that Moore shouldn't be punished. I mean, no one on this thread was making the case that Roy Moore should be thrown in jail based on the Washington Post story. The only thing we can really be certain of is that you don't mean that we shouldn't punish him in a criminal context. But that whatever context, we should wait until Roy Moore is convicted IN a criminal before 'punishing' him in any way.

Well, I'll clear it up then.
- I don't think he should be criminally punished until he's convicted in court.
- I don't think he should be professionally disciplined until he's been in front of a Tribunal or similar investigation. At a lower level than a Court, yes, but still Due Process.
- I don't think he should be banned from applying when he hasn't been investigated or convicted in any form, whether it's a Tribunal or a Court.

Windfish said that allegations of child abuse should be disqualified from a person seeking high office. You then introduced the word 'punishment' into this conversation. The natural inference one can draw from this is that you are applying the word punishment to what Windfish described as 'disqualification from holding office.' If you are using punishment ONLY in a legal context, then this entire line of conversation makes no sense outside of some bizarre misinterpretation of what Windfish said. "People shouldn't be criminally punished until convicted!" Yes. I agree with that. But since we're not talking about punishing him criminally, the post I made prior to this is germane.

So...to sum up. I think right now the most important question I have is: You said that no one should be punished until convicted. In what context do you mean punishment? Because if you mean punishment in any context, then you're applying the high standards of courtroom proceedings outside of that context to, for instance, whether or not Windfish or Regina Minx thinks that a man accused of molesting a 14-year-old-girl should not be considered for high office.

Actually, my original reply never said anything about Punishment. My original reply was that he should not be legally disqualified - that is, not physically allowed to put his name on the ballot - from applying. Withhold your vote, that's fine. But him not being allowed to run AT ALL because he was ACCUSED of something is unjust and is acting as if he's guilty without any kind of investigation or trial, tribunal or review involved.
That was what I took Windfishes response to mean, and that was what I was arguing against.
I've repeated this several times now. By "Disqualify" I mean "legally prevented from doing so."

What does 'isn't even allowed to submit an application' mean in this context? We have a man running for Senate. His name on the ballot is his application, and the campaign is the interview. Where exactly is Roy Moore being deprived of the opportunity to apply and interview for the job? Windfish said that this should be disqualifying.

I shall repeat it one more time.

Windfish stated that the allegations should disqualify him. I took it to mean that he should be legally prevented from running for office over allegations, and I stated that I disagree with that because it feels too much like "We're going to take things away from you even though you haven't been demonstrated to be guilty." That was my original objection with what Windfish said.


Also:

Yes, I know it's irrelevant because it's not JUST hearsay and there's other evidence. That's WHY I said that it was irrelevant.

[Regina Minx]

Well, I'll clear it up then.
- I don't think he should be criminally punished until he's convicted in court.
- I don't think he should be professionally disciplined until he's been in front of a Tribunal or similar investigation. At a lower level than a Court, yes, but still Due Process.
I don't think he should be banned from applying when he hasn't been investigated or convicted in any form, whether it's a Tribunal or a Court.

OK, but since no one on this thread is talking about putting him in jail without the benefit of the trial, disbarring him from the legal profession, or anything related to a formal discipline process in either a professional or criminal context, your entire line of objection to what’s been said is a non-sequitur.

I shall repeat it one more time.

That was what I took Windfishes response to mean, and that was what I was arguing against.
I've repeated this several times now. By "Disqualify" I mean "legally prevented from doing so."

Windfish stated that the allegations should disqualify him. I took it to mean that he should be legally prevented from running for office over allegations, and I stated that I disagree with that because it feels too much like "We're going to take things away from you even though you haven't been demonstrated to be guilty." That was my original objection with what Windfish said.

That is kind of the least reasonable and least generous way to interpret what Windfish said. Windfish’s original comment was “This should be an automatic disqualifier for any political candidate.” You have to go past several degrees of reasonable interpretation to arrive at the conclusion that Windfish is saying “There is or should be some mechanism to remove him from the ballot and legally prevent him from running for office.”

In a political context, almost all politicians are described as unqualified to hold office at some point or another. Usually by their opponents, frequently by pundits, and sometimes by People on the Street interviews. That’s because it’s a convenient shorthand for saying “I don’t think candidate X is suitable for the job for reason Y.” Attaching a novel interpretation to an often-used phrase and then arguing about how their claim, which you are interpreting in this unusual way, is kind of…well. It just doesn’t look like you’re arguing in good faith.

[Vergil Tanner]

My entire line of objection is not a non sequitur, since I was responding to what I believed Windfish to be saying at the time. That is not a non sequitur, that's just a reaction based on a misinterpretation.

Well, at the time, that's what I thought he meant. As it stands, I think the conversation has reached its logical conclusion, and we have derailed the thread enough as it is.

Though I will say, "Unqualified" does not mean the same thing, nor is it used in the same way as "disqualified." Disqualified usually has certain official connotations to it, as if being disbarred or ejected by the authority in charge (EG, a team being disqualified from a tournament from cheating, thereby not being allowed to compete anymore).

Anyway. I have to say that my objection has been clarified, and since I don't believe that you are disagreeing with me on what I'm actually saying, I think the end of the conversation has been reached. Besides, it's late where I am and I have a long weekend of moving house ahead of me...so it's best that I retire now. I bid you all goodnight!