• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Alex Jones Accused of Sexual Harassament

Saladin4 said:
Alex Jones seems more like the type that would molest little boys.....not grown woman
Click to expand...

Alex Jones is, indeed, a bit of a whack-o.
However I find the depths of the gutter this poster is willing to go to, even more disturbing.
 
Mr Person said:
Allow me to explain again: if an accusation leads to a criminal trial, the accusers testimony IS EVIDENCE.

In fact, you can be convicted on witness testimony alone, even just from the one witness.




This whole "accusations aren't proof" nonsense is just that. It's some evidence. How much evidence it counts as depends on all the other evidence available. But it's more than nothing.

The only sense in which "accusations aren't proof" is valid is in the context of a criminal trial. There, the fact that someone has been indicted or charged by complaint is not evidence, and the jury is told as much. But that's different than an accuser speaking under oath.

And besides, as we all know, when we're talking about public discourse and not a criminal trial, the whole "accusations aren't proof" thing tends to be applied rather unevenly.......
Click to expand...

Word against word is not not enough proof.... it's pretty much equivalent of no proof at all...

So I don't think it's inaccurate to say.
 
Mr Person said:
Allow me to explain again: if an accusation leads to a criminal trial, the accusers testimony IS EVIDENCE.

In fact, you can be convicted on witness testimony alone, even just from the one witness.




This whole "accusations aren't proof" nonsense is just that. It's some evidence. How much evidence it counts as depends on all the other evidence available. But it's more than nothing.

The only sense in which "accusations aren't proof" is valid is in the context of a criminal trial. There, the fact that someone has been indicted or charged by complaint is not evidence, and the jury is told as much. But that's different than an accuser speaking under oath.

And besides, as we all know, when we're talking about public discourse and not a criminal trial, the whole "accusations aren't proof" thing tends to be applied rather unevenly.......
Click to expand...

CLAX1911 said:
I would disagree they are not evidence. You can accuse anyone of anything that doesn't make it evidence.
Click to expand...

celticwar17 said:
Word against word is not not enough proof.... it's pretty much equivalent of no proof at all...

So I don't think it's inaccurate to say.
Click to expand...


It really doesn't matter if you disagree. I know for a fact that at a criminal trial, a defendant can be convicted upon the testimony of a single witness.

:shrug:


There's no reason to completely discount accusations in the realm of public discourse, as you are, unless perhaps someone has a political reason for wanting to completely reject an accusation.

They are something to consider.
 
Mr Person said:
It really doesn't matter if you disagree. I know for a fact that at a criminal trial, a defendant can be convicted upon the testimony of a single witness.

:shrug:


There's no reason to completely discount accusations in the realm of public discourse, as you are, unless perhaps someone has a political reason for wanting to completely reject an accusation.

They are something to consider.
Click to expand...

I think you are going out of your way to try prove a meaningless point. Doesn't matter if it's technically "proof" or not.... it's not enough proof to be worth to convict anyone.
 
I would like him to be placed in a locked room with the fathers of the kids shot at Sandy Hook. And his testimony that he is an entertainer that he purposely attempts to rile people up....is humerous. If you still watch him or get any info from him you are a MORAN.
 
celticwar17 said:
I think you are going out of your way to try prove a meaningless point. Doesn't matter if it's technically "proof" or not.... it's not enough proof to be worth to convict anyone.
Click to expand...

a witness to a murder would not be found sufficient evidence leading to the conviction of the perpetrator

absurd
 
Mr Person said:
It really doesn't matter if you disagree. I know for a fact that at a criminal trial, a defendant can be convicted upon the testimony of a single witness.

:shrug:


There's no reason to completely discount accusations in the realm of public discourse, as you are, unless perhaps someone has a political reason for wanting to completely reject an accusation.

They are something to consider.
Click to expand...

celticwar17 said:
I think you are going out of your way to try prove a meaningless point. Doesn't matter if it's technically "proof" or not.... it's not enough proof to be worth to convict anyone.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. In the context of a criminal trial, the testimony of a single witness (ie, the accuser) can provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

We're not talking Deuteronomy here, 19:15 or otherwise.




Now, a public accusation in a public forum may not be the same as a witness testifying under oath, but there's no logical reason to act as if the public accusation is nothing.
 
justabubba said:
a witness to a murder would not be found sufficient evidence leading to the conviction of the perpetrator

absurd
Click to expand...

We aren't talking about murder here, where there is ton of physical evidence. We are talking about word against word...

Keep arguing a pointless argument lol
 
I believe women should stop claiming harassment and get their girl friends who may be complaining they aren't getting used enough, involved.
 
Mr Person said:
It really doesn't matter if you disagree. I know for a fact that at a criminal trial, a defendant can be convicted upon the testimony of a single witness.
Click to expand...
But not on accusations.

:shrug:


There's no reason to completely discount accusations in the realm of public discourse, as you are, unless perhaps someone has a political reason for wanting to completely reject an accusation.

They are something to consider.
Click to expand...
I am not completely discounting accusations I didn't say they were nothing I just said they weren't evidence.
 
CLAX1911 said:
But not on accusations.

:shrug:



I am not completely discounting accusations I didn't say they were nothing I just said they weren't evidence.
Click to expand...

And I am talking about the two ways they are evidence.

Criminal trial: if the accusation is in testimony.

Public theatre: if the accusation is made by someone who thereby exposes themselves to public scrutiny.





Different standards of proof are in play and there aren't any rules of evidence in one of them, but what I'm taking aim at is the idea that if something is said to be "just an accusation" in the public arena, that doesn't mean it's nothing. One judges it within the context as best one can. Automatic and complete dismissal is wrong.

If you or I stand up and say "Politician X raped me", we know that we're going to invite a swarm of media. We're going to be scrutinized. We're going to catch praise and condemnation, alternately.

Now, that's not to say that the fact of making the public accusation would entitle us to be believed 100%. I'm saying that if we did such a thing, we should not be disbelieved automatically.
 
Mr Person said:
And I am talking about the two ways they are evidence.
Click to expand...
they aren't. They are only accusations

Criminal trial: if the accusation is in testimony.
Click to expand...
it's only evidence if it's credible.

Public theatre: if the accusation is made by someone who thereby exposes themselves to public scrutiny.
Click to expand...
so you're making the claim that it's evidence in the court of public opinion?





Different standards of proof are in play and there aren't any rules of evidence in one of them, but what I'm taking aim at is the idea that if something is said to be "just an accusation" in the public arena, that doesn't mean it's nothing.
Click to expand...
for the second time I didn't say it was nothing.

One judges it within the context as best one can. Automatic and complete dismissal is wrong.
Click to expand...
in the case of Alex Jones I'm willing to bet people are basing it based on how much they approve of Alex Jones and his News Network. Alex Jones is a red faced bloviating conspiracy nut that sells water filters and supplements two people who are just as taken in by his conspiracy theories. None of that has any bearing on whether or not he would actually assault somebody.

But I'm willing to bet that's what people base their opinion on.

If you or I stand up and say "Politician X raped me", we know that we're going to invite a swarm of media. We're going to be scrutinized. We're going to catch praise and condemnation, alternately.
Click to expand...
so I could be accusing someone of it just for that.

Now, that's not to say that the fact of making the public accusation would entitle us to be believed 100%. I'm saying that if we did such a thing, we should not be disbelieved automatically.
Click to expand...

Belief or disbelief should not be relevant.
 
CLAX1911 said:
they aren't. They are only accusations

it's only evidence if it's credible.

so you're making the claim that it's evidence in the court of public opinion?

for the second time I didn't say it was nothing.

in the case of Alex Jones I'm willing to bet people are basing it based on how much they approve of Alex Jones and his News Network. Alex Jones is a red faced bloviating conspiracy nut that sells water filters and supplements two people who are just as taken in by his conspiracy theories. None of that has any bearing on whether or not he would actually assault somebody.

But I'm willing to bet that's what people base their opinion on.

so I could be accusing someone of it just for that.

Belief or disbelief should not be relevant.
Click to expand...

Massively chopped up responses are annoying, dude.

I stick by what I said. I'm not going to automatically reject an accusation in the public realm just because it's an accusation. As I said, I'll judge it in context and give it what weight I feel appropriate in that context. If you are going to automatically reject it as nothing then I suspect we're not going to get any further in this exchange.

I'm not sure what you mean in reference to "belief" unless I was unclear. In referring to it, I meant that the weight accorded the public accusation should depend on the circumstances and total context (that is "weight accorded" = degree to which the words are to be believed).
 
Mr Person said:
Massively chopped up responses are annoying, dude.
Click to expand...
Not my problem.

I find it annoying to keep telling you that i didn't say accusations are nothing. You don't stop doing that.

I stick by what I said. I'm not going to automatically reject an accusation in the public realm just because it's an accusation.
Click to expand...
For me it depends on who it is being accused and what they are being accused of.

As I said, I'll judge it in context and give it what weight I feel appropriate in that context. If you are going to automatically reject it as nothing then I suspect we're not going to get any further in this exchange.
Click to expand...
If you want to make up your own strawmen and slay them no we aren't.

I'm not sure what you mean in reference to "belief" unless I was unclear. In referring to it, I meant that the weight accorded the public accusation should depend on the circumstances and total context (that is "weight accorded" = degree to which the words are to be believed).
Click to expand...
You are placing circumstances over belief. So I think you agree.
 
celticwar17 said:
We aren't talking about murder here, where there is ton of physical evidence. We are talking about word against word...

Keep arguing a pointless argument lol
Click to expand...

and so am i. the word of the murderer versus that of the witness to the murder
you insist the witness' testimony is inadequate to convict
THAT is absurd
 
Mr Person said:
It really doesn't matter if you disagree. I know for a fact that at a criminal trial, a defendant can be convicted upon the testimony of a single witness.

:shrug:


There's no reason to completely discount accusations in the realm of public discourse, as you are, unless perhaps someone has a political reason for wanting to completely reject an accusation.

They are something to consider.
Click to expand...
Absolutely amazing. You cite the law. They claim their personal opinion supersedes the law. I swear it's some form of alternate reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom