International thread 2

[Heartofice]

5 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I tend to err on the side of, unless it's rockets being lobbed into Israel from the West Bank or Gaza or a suicide bomber, it's probably the Israeli military / police that are using excessive violence for the situation.

I'm willing to be shown that the context demonstrates the IDF / police actions were justified and proportionate, but guilty until proven innocent is my default. So I don't ask "but what if the kid was being a dick?" I ask, "What the hell? explain yourself Israel!" and if they offer a reasonable explanation I say "OK, fair enough". What I'm not going to do is offer a vague explanation for why they might not be the bully in the situation that has less basis in fact than the image or video in question. 

Even with Israel's past use of brutal tactics I'm still going to be coming into situations like this with 'innocent until proven guilty', because you know.. thats how our justice system is constructed. I don't see how it's a good idea to do anything other than that/. I'd say that most of the abuse I've had on other threads have come about because I didn't tend to just jump in with 'guilty until proven innocent' and tend to run along the lines of:

OP: Look at this terrible incident, it must be utterly condemned by everyone, immediately!
HOI: Yeah but maybe its not as clear cut as you are making out... 
Entire board: NAAAAAAZZZII!!!!!!

Especially in this case because there have been plenty of videos being used as political propaganda like this in this conflict by both sides and so its very unwise to jump to conclusions about anything you see. 
 

[mormont]

2 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Even with Israel's past use of brutal tactics I'm still going to be coming into situations like this with 'innocent until proven guilty', because you know.. thats how our justice system is constructed.

OK, this is firstly nonsense, because we are not in a court of law and that rule exists only for courts of law, for a very specific purpose, and is not necessarily even a good guideline for situations like this. And second this is inconsistent, because you have been happy to suggest the kid was guilty of attempted murder on the basis of no evidence at all. 'Innocent until proven guilty' isn't very persuasive when your main line is to question the innocence of the victim.

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, mormont said:

OK, this is firstly nonsense, because we are not in a court of law and that rule exists only for courts of law, for a very specific purpose, and is not necessarily even a good guideline for situations like this. And second this is inconsistent, because you have been happy to suggest the kid was guilty of attempted murder on the basis of no evidence at all. 'Innocent until proven guilty' isn't very persuasive when your main line is to question the innocence of the victim.

I didn't suggest that at all. I put forward the possiblity that he wasn't totally innocent, and if asked the OP if their opinion would be different if he had been a terrorist. Thats very different.

And yes, this is a video on the internet, amongst many untrustworthy videos on the internet. It would be very silly indeed to start by assuming guilt in these situations without even trying to find out more. I can't believe I even have to state something so fundamentally simple.

[mormont]

8 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I didn't suggest that at all.

 

20 hours ago, Heartofice said:

So if this kid who is , I dunno how old, had just killed some Israelis or tried to, having a dog grab his pants is the thing that is worrying you?

Did you directly accuse him? No. Did you suggest it? Yes. 

As I said, your main argument from the start - and you admit this - has been to question this kid's innocence. That makes an utter nonsense of your claim to be concerned with the presumption of innocence. More, it suggests that you see that principle as applying only to certain people.

[Heartofice]

2 minutes ago, mormont said:

 

Did you directly accuse him? No. Did you suggest it? Yes. 

As I said, your main argument from the start - and you admit this - has been to question this kid's innocence. That makes an utter nonsense of your claim to be concerned with the presumption of innocence. More, it suggests that you see that principle as applying only to certain people.

Nope i was referring to use of dogs, and trying to work out when it might be appropriate from the OP. It was a question in order to dissern their position. I wasn’t assuming anything about the kid, because the video gave no information about that. 

[mormont]

15 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Nope i was referring to use of dogs, and trying to work out when it might be appropriate from the OP. It was a question in order to dissern their position. I wasn’t assuming anything about the kid, because the video gave no information about that. 

What you said is there and black and white (well, depending on the skin you're using). It's clear what you were doing and it is in no way consistent with this high principle of 'presumption of innocence' you're trying to use as a noble white steed.

[Darth Richard II]

Well he has largely proclaimed Roseanne’s innocence before, so...

[Heartofice]

9 minutes ago, mormont said:

What you said is there and black and white (well, depending on the skin you're using). It's clear what you were doing and it is in no way consistent with this high principle of 'presumption of innocence' you're trying to use as a noble white steed.

It is actually very clear what I was doing, if you want to read something into it that isn’t there then go ahead. If it is unclear then ask me and I will clarify. Don’t jump to conclusions.. which is what I’d also suggest when it comes to videos people outrage tweet.

[mormont]

Again, it is not unclear and I am not reading into it anything that isn't there. And again, you have already admitted that you are questioning the kid's innocence:

22 hours ago, Heartofice said:

What is the context of this video? Where was it taken and what was the kid doing previously to this?

12 hours ago, Heartofice said:

I’m no defender of Israel’s tactics in general, but it’s also widely known that Hamas often uses children for a variety of purposes, and being 16 doesn’t make that kid a total innocent.

12 hours ago, Heartofice said:

But we also need to be conscious of the context in which these events happen

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

I put forward the possiblity that he wasn't totally innocent

And so on and so on. 

I know. You're just asking questions. Just raising the possibility. It's just a hypothetical. I didn't mean nothing by it. When others do it, they're assuming guilt, but you're just being intellectually rigorous. Perish the thought that you might be suggesting anything. 

[Heartofice]

27 minutes ago, mormont said:

Again, it is not unclear and I am not reading into it anything that isn't there. And again, you have already admitted that you are questioning the kid's innocence:

And so on and so on. 

I know. You're just asking questions. Just raising the possibility. It's just a hypothetical. I didn't mean nothing by it. When others do it, they're assuming guilt, but you're just being intellectually rigorous. Perish the thought that you might be suggesting anything. 

I’m suggesting that the video might not be as clear cut as was suggested and that I’m not making any judgements till there is full information. 

You do seem to be rather confused about my meaning, so how about just asking me for clarification instead of trying to drag meaning from between the lines. It would make things much easier. 

Your method of arguing in constant bad faith in every conversation makes discussion almost pointlesss

[Which Tyler]

39 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Your method of arguing in constant bad faith in every conversation makes discussion almost pointlesss

 

[mormont]

41 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

You do seem to be rather confused about my meaning

I'm absolutely not, and I absolutely don't seem so. Why would I be? Your meaning is clear. In fact, I can't understand why you think we disagree about it. We don't. We both understand your meaning: you are questioning the assumption that the kid is innocent. In fact you did it again:

51 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I’m suggesting that the video might not be as clear cut as was suggested

Where we disagree, the only place we disagree, is that you think doing so is laudable and neutral, and I don't. I think that raising this possibility over and over again as your main or only talking point is rather more pertinent to the intention, and certainly the effect, of your words than a pro forma disclaimer. And I can't understand why you think doing this isn't related to your high-minded words about the sanctity of the presumption of innocence. Guess there's none so blind, etc.