Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Science vs. Scruples

12346»

Replies

  • snowflake954
    snowflake954 Posts: 8,399 Member
    johnslater461 wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    aokoye wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    @tbright1965 The post you quoted said everyone should be involved in the conversation, but those who haven't experienced sexual harassment should be receptive to listening to those who have. And your response was to accuse her of saying those who weren't harassed aren't allowed to speak. Of course you can find examples of false accusations and incidents where certain people unfairly declared the subject off limits for some. As we could find a history books worth of women whose lives have been destroyed, whose careers have been burned to the ground, who have ended up mentally ill or committing suicide due to sexual harassment and assault. That's not what we are talking about.

    What I find fascinating about the turn this thread is taking is that those concerned about the public condemnation seem to be replying without actually responding to what is being written. It's as if men's emotions have taken over.

    Aragon isn't being drawn and quartered in the town square, his public career is taking a hit because of something he made public himself.
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    johnslater461 wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    pinuplove wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Nony_Mouse wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Nony_Mouse wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    aokoye wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Lets put it this way. With the internet and social media and aggregation sites and things like wiki's we really would if we wanted to be able to enact a criminal system whereby cases were brought to the public's attention and then the general public could decide whether someone was guilty or not based on what was entered into the Wiki page about that particular case and then after assessing guilt they could decide how to punish that person, be it a shame campaign or getting them fired or just generally harassing them for what they had done. It could be run like wikipedia or 4chan or something.

    Would that be a good system? Is that a system we prefer over the flawed criminal justice system? In my opinion no, that is far far worse than the flawed criminal justice system. So why are we accepting of it when someone gets their life destroyed with zero actual criminal proceedings or court assessment of guilt?

    Ironically, what you're talking about primarily happens to people who try to do things like report harassment. Think gamergate and the doxing that occured and continues to occur. The primary targets of said doxing are women. This crap doesn't typically happen to cis men. Especially cis white men.

    I was thinking the same thing, that this often happens to women who speak up, on a smaller scale. They are blacklisted and ostracized from a community or company. Not to mention, revenge porn is a thing.
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »

    Would that be a good system? Is that a system we prefer over the flawed criminal justice system? In my opinion no, that is far far worse than the flawed criminal justice system. So why are we accepting of it when someone gets their life destroyed with zero actual criminal proceedings or court assessment of guilt?

    I think part of the problem is that it isn't practical to say all sexual harassment/intimidation/assault is illegal and should be prosecuted by the law. There are degrees involved. What officers, courts, and juries are going to handle all the incidents that sit at the level of this situation with AA? When we are talking about inappropriate remarks and touching, workplace propositioning with the threat of repercussions, subtle shaming of women to make them fear for their jobs or status centered around their appearance and what they are willing to put up with. If this behavior is pervasive, what part of the legal system is equipped to deal with that kind of volume?

    Society and public opinion has always dealt with behavior that is inappropriate but does not rise to the level of taking up the time/space of the justice system. The process is often messy and wrongheaded, but honestly so is the justice system. There are people sitting in jail right now who will spend the rest of their lives as an ex-con with a scarlet letter on their record and credit who were wrongly convicted. There are many instances where the justice system is heavily weighted against the poor and minorities. There are women serving time for killing their abusers who never spent a day in jail for habitually attacking them. In criminal and civil litigation, your ability to pay a lawyer can have a profound affect on how your case goes. Prosecutors and police chiefs are often motivated to charge and build a case against the first schmuck they can so they look tough on crime, railroading that individual into a conviction to close the case. Corporations threaten to financially destroy individuals who dare to take them to court and waste their time and money to head that sort of thing off before it starts. I don't think it's cut and dry that the legal system is more fair than society, just more fair to certain individuals.

    I don't think it's as simple as you are making it out to be. Do you know how long it takes to get a court date? How hard it is to get the authorities to intervene already in cases of stalking or domestic abuse? How expensive legal representation is, especially if a big company is supporting the harasser with a fancy legal team and you could end up losing? It's just not practical. So what's the alternative?

    So you feel like there is a level of misbehavior that is not deserving of being called a crime but is deserving of social media based punishment that really has no standards or control over how damaging the effect is on that persons life? I'd argue if the offense is not criminal does it really deserve a

    She didn't say it wasn't deserving, she said it wasn't practical. And the reason it isn't practical is because it's so *kitten* pervasive. And if the men (mostly) doing the harassing and assaulting aren't happy about the damage to their lives from THEIR choice, then maybe they might want to think about not doing it in the first place.

    But I guess it's okay if women (and sometimes men) suffer often quite traumatic and damaging effects on their lives as a result of sexual harassment while the perpetrator carries on with no consequences...

    Again, my issue isn't with punishment of the guilty...it is with guilt being assessed by the general public rather than a court and punishment not having a set standard that is connected to the nature of the crime. Your statement suggests that anyone who is accused is guilty...that is clearly not going to be true 100% of the time, which is why we have courts and why the public trying to exact punishment on anyone who is accused is dangerous.

    My feeling applies to any situation, not just male sexual harassment of women. I would say the same thing about someone being accused of vandalism and rather than being charged with a crime the story being passed around on social media until the person loses their job. There is no situation where I feel that publicly decided guilt and punishment is appropriate regardless of the type of crime or wrongdoing and regardless of guilt. I'd make the same statement about literally anything. It is unjust to assume guilt from accusation without trial.

    Nope, I was actually talking about situations where the person in question is guilty, as is the case here.

    Oh I hadn't realized he was tried and convicted...I mean if someone is found guilty of a crime and then suffers additional social consequences as a result that is life. I just dont like the idea that one is assessing guilt of a person solely based on what they read about them online. Online accounts are not reliable and I would never assume guilt of someone solely based on what was reported by media.

    I was under the impression he admitted to it.

    Was that impression derived from things you read online?

    Full description of the events here (including screenshots of his admission of guilt and half hearted nonapology)

    https://amp.reddit.com/r/leangains/comments/9b1n54/alan_aragon_turns_out_to_be_a_serial_sexual/

    I think this just underlines how much we are speaking past one another.

    I am only saying this one more time just as I have said it many times before then I am going to leave.

    My issue is I dont think it is appropriate for the public to assess guilt on the basis of media. Your response to this is to send me, a member of the public, media and then ask me to assess guilt. I really think you aren't hearing what I am saying. You come back at me by requesting that I do exactly what I said I dont think is appropriate. I am not going to judge someone's guilt or innocence by reading online media....that was my entire point.

    Yes, we clearly are all talking past each other, because Aragon admitted he did this himself. It wasn't just reported, it wasn't someone else saying he did something. He posted online that he did this. Alan Aragon publicly stated that he did what he is accused of. Are we not allowed to make decisions about what he said he did unless a judge and jury rubber stamps it because he chose social media to announce his guilt and then try to make excuses for it? Seriously?

    I do understand the bolded part here. However if a person goes to the police and confesses to a crime they aren't just assumed to be guilty and immediately punished their claims are investigated, evidence collected and then they are brought to a court and tried. How would you feel if confession to police resulted in just immediate punishment skipping all due process? Why does it being in the public make due process jo longer important or necessary?
    A criminal conviction, as in one made by a legal system, is completely different to what you seem to be thinking is or might end up happening here. You also keep ignoring the fact that for various reasons not everyone has the resources to go to the police (money, time, knowledge of how the system works, etc), that the police won't always actually work with the alleged victim of a crime, or that there are often statutes of limitations.

    Why shouldn't I believe that the person I know who raped someone but wasn't convicted raped her. He said it on camera. Heck what if there was a video of someone raping or otherwise assaulting someone? Should we just not believe it because there hasn't been a criminal conviction?

    When is it okay to ignore due process. Can you give a straight answer to that?

    Also I'm not referring only to criminal court but also civil court. In court there is transperancy on decisions through documentation, a chance for arbitration and appeal and severity of punishment is tied to severity of crime. In social media the only transparency is what people choose to claim, there is no documentation of proceedings because there is no process, no arbitration no chance for appeal and the severity of punishment is not tied to severity of the crime it is tied to the game or social media presence of the accused and or accuser.

    Yeah it is harder to file in court than it is to accuse someone of a misdeed on social media....I'm not convinced that is a bad thing.

    When one's livelihood and reputation is built via social media, it can be lost the same way.

    What the interwebs giveth, the interwebs taketh away.

    This^^^ AA built his reputation and fame via internet, I think it's fair that internet takes it away. Internet has changed things for women. Before, you had no choice but to go to the police, and through the court system with all the horrors that entailed. The majority of women just had to suck it up or be humiliated. Internet has given them power--like it or not. That's not going to go away either. Internet is considered progress by many, but we're finding it impossible to harness. Interesting, all you can do is pull the plug--there is still that option.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    @tbright1965 The post you quoted said everyone should be involved in the conversation, but those who haven't experienced sexual harassment should be receptive to listening to those who have. And your response was to accuse her of saying those who weren't harassed aren't allowed to speak. Of course you can find examples of false accusations and incidents where certain people unfairly declared the subject off limits for some. As we could find a history books worth of women whose lives have been destroyed, whose careers have been burned to the ground, who have ended up mentally ill or committing suicide due to sexual harassment and assault. That's not what we are talking about.

    What I find fascinating about the turn this thread is taking is that those concerned about the public condemnation seem to be replying without actually responding to what is being written. It's as if men's emotions have taken over.

    Aragon isn't being drawn and quartered in the town square, his public career is taking a hit because of something he made public himself.
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    johnslater461 wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    pinuplove wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Nony_Mouse wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Nony_Mouse wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    aokoye wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Lets put it this way. With the internet and social media and aggregation sites and things like wiki's we really would if we wanted to be able to enact a criminal system whereby cases were brought to the public's attention and then the general public could decide whether someone was guilty or not based on what was entered into the Wiki page about that particular case and then after assessing guilt they could decide how to punish that person, be it a shame campaign or getting them fired or just generally harassing them for what they had done. It could be run like wikipedia or 4chan or something.

    Would that be a good system? Is that a system we prefer over the flawed criminal justice system? In my opinion no, that is far far worse than the flawed criminal justice system. So why are we accepting of it when someone gets their life destroyed with zero actual criminal proceedings or court assessment of guilt?

    Ironically, what you're talking about primarily happens to people who try to do things like report harassment. Think gamergate and the doxing that occured and continues to occur. The primary targets of said doxing are women. This crap doesn't typically happen to cis men. Especially cis white men.

    I was thinking the same thing, that this often happens to women who speak up, on a smaller scale. They are blacklisted and ostracized from a community or company. Not to mention, revenge porn is a thing.
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »

    Would that be a good system? Is that a system we prefer over the flawed criminal justice system? In my opinion no, that is far far worse than the flawed criminal justice system. So why are we accepting of it when someone gets their life destroyed with zero actual criminal proceedings or court assessment of guilt?

    I think part of the problem is that it isn't practical to say all sexual harassment/intimidation/assault is illegal and should be prosecuted by the law. There are degrees involved. What officers, courts, and juries are going to handle all the incidents that sit at the level of this situation with AA? When we are talking about inappropriate remarks and touching, workplace propositioning with the threat of repercussions, subtle shaming of women to make them fear for their jobs or status centered around their appearance and what they are willing to put up with. If this behavior is pervasive, what part of the legal system is equipped to deal with that kind of volume?

    Society and public opinion has always dealt with behavior that is inappropriate but does not rise to the level of taking up the time/space of the justice system. The process is often messy and wrongheaded, but honestly so is the justice system. There are people sitting in jail right now who will spend the rest of their lives as an ex-con with a scarlet letter on their record and credit who were wrongly convicted. There are many instances where the justice system is heavily weighted against the poor and minorities. There are women serving time for killing their abusers who never spent a day in jail for habitually attacking them. In criminal and civil litigation, your ability to pay a lawyer can have a profound affect on how your case goes. Prosecutors and police chiefs are often motivated to charge and build a case against the first schmuck they can so they look tough on crime, railroading that individual into a conviction to close the case. Corporations threaten to financially destroy individuals who dare to take them to court and waste their time and money to head that sort of thing off before it starts. I don't think it's cut and dry that the legal system is more fair than society, just more fair to certain individuals.

    I don't think it's as simple as you are making it out to be. Do you know how long it takes to get a court date? How hard it is to get the authorities to intervene already in cases of stalking or domestic abuse? How expensive legal representation is, especially if a big company is supporting the harasser with a fancy legal team and you could end up losing? It's just not practical. So what's the alternative?

    So you feel like there is a level of misbehavior that is not deserving of being called a crime but is deserving of social media based punishment that really has no standards or control over how damaging the effect is on that persons life? I'd argue if the offense is not criminal does it really deserve a

    She didn't say it wasn't deserving, she said it wasn't practical. And the reason it isn't practical is because it's so *kitten* pervasive. And if the men (mostly) doing the harassing and assaulting aren't happy about the damage to their lives from THEIR choice, then maybe they might want to think about not doing it in the first place.

    But I guess it's okay if women (and sometimes men) suffer often quite traumatic and damaging effects on their lives as a result of sexual harassment while the perpetrator carries on with no consequences...

    Again, my issue isn't with punishment of the guilty...it is with guilt being assessed by the general public rather than a court and punishment not having a set standard that is connected to the nature of the crime. Your statement suggests that anyone who is accused is guilty...that is clearly not going to be true 100% of the time, which is why we have courts and why the public trying to exact punishment on anyone who is accused is dangerous.

    My feeling applies to any situation, not just male sexual harassment of women. I would say the same thing about someone being accused of vandalism and rather than being charged with a crime the story being passed around on social media until the person loses their job. There is no situation where I feel that publicly decided guilt and punishment is appropriate regardless of the type of crime or wrongdoing and regardless of guilt. I'd make the same statement about literally anything. It is unjust to assume guilt from accusation without trial.

    Nope, I was actually talking about situations where the person in question is guilty, as is the case here.

    Oh I hadn't realized he was tried and convicted...I mean if someone is found guilty of a crime and then suffers additional social consequences as a result that is life. I just dont like the idea that one is assessing guilt of a person solely based on what they read about them online. Online accounts are not reliable and I would never assume guilt of someone solely based on what was reported by media.

    I was under the impression he admitted to it.

    Was that impression derived from things you read online?

    Full description of the events here (including screenshots of his admission of guilt and half hearted nonapology)

    https://amp.reddit.com/r/leangains/comments/9b1n54/alan_aragon_turns_out_to_be_a_serial_sexual/

    I think this just underlines how much we are speaking past one another.

    I am only saying this one more time just as I have said it many times before then I am going to leave.

    My issue is I dont think it is appropriate for the public to assess guilt on the basis of media. Your response to this is to send me, a member of the public, media and then ask me to assess guilt. I really think you aren't hearing what I am saying. You come back at me by requesting that I do exactly what I said I dont think is appropriate. I am not going to judge someone's guilt or innocence by reading online media....that was my entire point.

    Yes, we clearly are all talking past each other, because Aragon admitted he did this himself. It wasn't just reported, it wasn't someone else saying he did something. He posted online that he did this. Alan Aragon publicly stated that he did what he is accused of. Are we not allowed to make decisions about what he said he did unless a judge and jury rubber stamps it because he chose social media to announce his guilt and then try to make excuses for it? Seriously?

    If the argument is that we shouldn't allow what we know of someone's behavior to possibly act as a guide when we're deciding who to associate with or support with our money and attention . . . I don't get that.

    Most of us can think of behavior that isn't necessarily illegal, but that we don't wish to condone. There is nothing wrong with deciding what types of behavior we don't wish to condone either personally or professionally.

    We're not talking about sending people to jail. As members of the general public, we don't even have the authority to do that. I don't understand when people make the leap from "As an private individual, I no longer wish to support this person" to "This is an official assessment of legal guilt."
  • NovusDies
    NovusDies Posts: 8,940 Member
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    If the argument is that we shouldn't allow what we know of someone's behavior to possibly act as a guide when we're deciding who to associate with or support with our money and attention . . . I don't get that.

    Most of us can think of behavior that isn't necessarily illegal, but that we don't wish to condone. There is nothing wrong with deciding what types of behavior we don't wish to condone either personally or professionally.

    We're not talking about sending people to jail. As members of the general public, we don't even have the authority to do that. I don't understand when people make the leap from "As an private individual, I no longer wish to support this person" to "This is an official assessment of legal guilt."

    The other question is should we get rid of the reverse? Should we be allowed to pass personal judgment that a person or organization is very good and worthy of social media praise and financial support? You can't say there is no potential downside because if you pick Company A for their charitable work or other criteria over Company B that may not even be profitable at the moment you could be furthering Company B's problems and their failure.

    It has been my experience in life that most things that are considered blessings also can be a curse in some situations. Freedom of speech is one of those things. With that said, I do not see a problem with how the AA situation has unfolded.
  • jjpptt2
    jjpptt2 Posts: 5,650 Member
    I guess, at least for me, the only "right" answer in all of this is that people can and will do what's right for them. Where you draw the line on morality, ethics, science, professionalism, etc is up to you. Where I draw that line is up to me. If you choose to subscribe to his newsletter, fine. If you choose to start a FB group dedicated to drawing attention to what's happened and preventing him from being booked for seminars, coaching, etc, then that's also fine.

    Because there is no clear absolute in this discussion, how does someone prove/persuade that their position is more right than someone else's? I don't think they do/can... they can only decide what's right for them and explain why it's right for them. It's then up to everyone else to decide to what extent, if at all, they agree.
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,011 Member
    johnslater461 wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    aokoye wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    @tbright1965 The post you quoted said everyone should be involved in the conversation, but those who haven't experienced sexual harassment should be receptive to listening to those who have. And your response was to accuse her of saying those who weren't harassed aren't allowed to speak. Of course you can find examples of false accusations and incidents where certain people unfairly declared the subject off limits for some. As we could find a history books worth of women whose lives have been destroyed, whose careers have been burned to the ground, who have ended up mentally ill or committing suicide due to sexual harassment and assault. That's not what we are talking about.

    What I find fascinating about the turn this thread is taking is that those concerned about the public condemnation seem to be replying without actually responding to what is being written. It's as if men's emotions have taken over.

    Aragon isn't being drawn and quartered in the town square, his public career is taking a hit because of something he made public himself.
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    johnslater461 wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    pinuplove wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Nony_Mouse wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Nony_Mouse wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    aokoye wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Lets put it this way. With the internet and social media and aggregation sites and things like wiki's we really would if we wanted to be able to enact a criminal system whereby cases were brought to the public's attention and then the general public could decide whether someone was guilty or not based on what was entered into the Wiki page about that particular case and then after assessing guilt they could decide how to punish that person, be it a shame campaign or getting them fired or just generally harassing them for what they had done. It could be run like wikipedia or 4chan or something.

    Would that be a good system? Is that a system we prefer over the flawed criminal justice system? In my opinion no, that is far far worse than the flawed criminal justice system. So why are we accepting of it when someone gets their life destroyed with zero actual criminal proceedings or court assessment of guilt?

    Ironically, what you're talking about primarily happens to people who try to do things like report harassment. Think gamergate and the doxing that occured and continues to occur. The primary targets of said doxing are women. This crap doesn't typically happen to cis men. Especially cis white men.

    I was thinking the same thing, that this often happens to women who speak up, on a smaller scale. They are blacklisted and ostracized from a community or company. Not to mention, revenge porn is a thing.
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »

    Would that be a good system? Is that a system we prefer over the flawed criminal justice system? In my opinion no, that is far far worse than the flawed criminal justice system. So why are we accepting of it when someone gets their life destroyed with zero actual criminal proceedings or court assessment of guilt?

    I think part of the problem is that it isn't practical to say all sexual harassment/intimidation/assault is illegal and should be prosecuted by the law. There are degrees involved. What officers, courts, and juries are going to handle all the incidents that sit at the level of this situation with AA? When we are talking about inappropriate remarks and touching, workplace propositioning with the threat of repercussions, subtle shaming of women to make them fear for their jobs or status centered around their appearance and what they are willing to put up with. If this behavior is pervasive, what part of the legal system is equipped to deal with that kind of volume?

    Society and public opinion has always dealt with behavior that is inappropriate but does not rise to the level of taking up the time/space of the justice system. The process is often messy and wrongheaded, but honestly so is the justice system. There are people sitting in jail right now who will spend the rest of their lives as an ex-con with a scarlet letter on their record and credit who were wrongly convicted. There are many instances where the justice system is heavily weighted against the poor and minorities. There are women serving time for killing their abusers who never spent a day in jail for habitually attacking them. In criminal and civil litigation, your ability to pay a lawyer can have a profound affect on how your case goes. Prosecutors and police chiefs are often motivated to charge and build a case against the first schmuck they can so they look tough on crime, railroading that individual into a conviction to close the case. Corporations threaten to financially destroy individuals who dare to take them to court and waste their time and money to head that sort of thing off before it starts. I don't think it's cut and dry that the legal system is more fair than society, just more fair to certain individuals.

    I don't think it's as simple as you are making it out to be. Do you know how long it takes to get a court date? How hard it is to get the authorities to intervene already in cases of stalking or domestic abuse? How expensive legal representation is, especially if a big company is supporting the harasser with a fancy legal team and you could end up losing? It's just not practical. So what's the alternative?

    So you feel like there is a level of misbehavior that is not deserving of being called a crime but is deserving of social media based punishment that really has no standards or control over how damaging the effect is on that persons life? I'd argue if the offense is not criminal does it really deserve a

    She didn't say it wasn't deserving, she said it wasn't practical. And the reason it isn't practical is because it's so *kitten* pervasive. And if the men (mostly) doing the harassing and assaulting aren't happy about the damage to their lives from THEIR choice, then maybe they might want to think about not doing it in the first place.

    But I guess it's okay if women (and sometimes men) suffer often quite traumatic and damaging effects on their lives as a result of sexual harassment while the perpetrator carries on with no consequences...

    Again, my issue isn't with punishment of the guilty...it is with guilt being assessed by the general public rather than a court and punishment not having a set standard that is connected to the nature of the crime. Your statement suggests that anyone who is accused is guilty...that is clearly not going to be true 100% of the time, which is why we have courts and why the public trying to exact punishment on anyone who is accused is dangerous.

    My feeling applies to any situation, not just male sexual harassment of women. I would say the same thing about someone being accused of vandalism and rather than being charged with a crime the story being passed around on social media until the person loses their job. There is no situation where I feel that publicly decided guilt and punishment is appropriate regardless of the type of crime or wrongdoing and regardless of guilt. I'd make the same statement about literally anything. It is unjust to assume guilt from accusation without trial.

    Nope, I was actually talking about situations where the person in question is guilty, as is the case here.

    Oh I hadn't realized he was tried and convicted...I mean if someone is found guilty of a crime and then suffers additional social consequences as a result that is life. I just dont like the idea that one is assessing guilt of a person solely based on what they read about them online. Online accounts are not reliable and I would never assume guilt of someone solely based on what was reported by media.

    I was under the impression he admitted to it.

    Was that impression derived from things you read online?

    Full description of the events here (including screenshots of his admission of guilt and half hearted nonapology)

    https://amp.reddit.com/r/leangains/comments/9b1n54/alan_aragon_turns_out_to_be_a_serial_sexual/

    I think this just underlines how much we are speaking past one another.

    I am only saying this one more time just as I have said it many times before then I am going to leave.

    My issue is I dont think it is appropriate for the public to assess guilt on the basis of media. Your response to this is to send me, a member of the public, media and then ask me to assess guilt. I really think you aren't hearing what I am saying. You come back at me by requesting that I do exactly what I said I dont think is appropriate. I am not going to judge someone's guilt or innocence by reading online media....that was my entire point.

    Yes, we clearly are all talking past each other, because Aragon admitted he did this himself. It wasn't just reported, it wasn't someone else saying he did something. He posted online that he did this. Alan Aragon publicly stated that he did what he is accused of. Are we not allowed to make decisions about what he said he did unless a judge and jury rubber stamps it because he chose social media to announce his guilt and then try to make excuses for it? Seriously?

    I do understand the bolded part here. However if a person goes to the police and confesses to a crime they aren't just assumed to be guilty and immediately punished their claims are investigated, evidence collected and then they are brought to a court and tried. How would you feel if confession to police resulted in just immediate punishment skipping all due process? Why does it being in the public make due process jo longer important or necessary?
    A criminal conviction, as in one made by a legal system, is completely different to what you seem to be thinking is or might end up happening here. You also keep ignoring the fact that for various reasons not everyone has the resources to go to the police (money, time, knowledge of how the system works, etc), that the police won't always actually work with the alleged victim of a crime, or that there are often statutes of limitations.

    Why shouldn't I believe that the person I know who raped someone but wasn't convicted raped her. He said it on camera. Heck what if there was a video of someone raping or otherwise assaulting someone? Should we just not believe it because there hasn't been a criminal conviction?

    When is it okay to ignore due process. Can you give a straight answer to that?

    Also I'm not referring only to criminal court but also civil court. In court there is transperancy on decisions through documentation, a chance for arbitration and appeal and severity of punishment is tied to severity of crime. In social media the only transparency is what people choose to claim, there is no documentation of proceedings because there is no process, no arbitration no chance for appeal and the severity of punishment is not tied to severity of the crime it is tied to the game or social media presence of the accused and or accuser.

    Yeah it is harder to file in court than it is to accuse someone of a misdeed on social media....I'm not convinced that is a bad thing.

    When one's livelihood and reputation is built via social media, it can be lost the same way.

    What the interwebs giveth, the interwebs taketh away.

    As theoretical as this thread has gotten, I think this is the best argument of all. If you make your living through social media, public interest, and a bit of celebrity, there is a downside - you can lose it that way too. And public opinion is fickle. Regardless of his policy of not "selling" stuff, I'm sure he's made more money and been invited to be a paid speaker far more due to his social media presence and lower level "celebrity" status. So now he'll have to go back to being low profile. <shrug> I'll go out on a limb and predict that 5 years from now, he will be supporting himself just fine and probably still occasionally getting plastered and handsy.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories