|
|
Post by wildknight on Feb 20, 2014 19:08:15 GMT -5
Again, there is a lot more than hearsay in play with the Woody Allen case. There is a well established pattern of behavior, and some pretty damning evidence. It's not about labeling someone "evil" so much as it is about being honest with ourselves as a culture to protect future victims. Protecting victims by ensuring that anyone remotely accused of a horrid crime is labelled as guilty for life, regardless of truth isn't really a good way of protecting future victims. ... yeah, you're right. Why should I trust all of the psychological information, witnesses, and notes from his own therapists. I should just assume he's innocent until the courts get around to stopping him. |
|
|
|
Post by monkeywool on Feb 21, 2014 13:42:59 GMT -5
That sort of stuff that is mostly confidential and people shouldn't know about? It's hard to trust therapists and psychologists when they break confidentiality laws for the media.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Feb 21, 2014 13:45:52 GMT -5
That sort of stuff that is mostly confidential and people shouldn't know about? It's hard to trust therapists and psychologists when they break confidentiality laws for the media. ... except it wasn't broken for the media. There is no "confidentiality" when the therapist believes a crime might be committed, and every patient is made aware of this ahead of time. Even if it was, I think it's pretty blatant that you're desperately reaching. |
|
|
|
Post by monkeywool on Feb 21, 2014 13:49:00 GMT -5
Ok, so the therapist said a crime has been committed, how come the dude has not actually been put away for it then?
Oh right, because he either was exonerated in the court or the police didn't pursue charges.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Feb 21, 2014 13:53:31 GMT -5
Ok, so the therapist said a crime has been committed, how come the dude has not actually been put away for it then? Oh right, because he either was exonerated in the court or the police didn't pursue charges. No, the therapist did as he was required and reported that he was concerned that a crime might be committed. Also, I find it hilarious that your response is "welp, there wasn't enough evidence, he MUST be innocent." I'm sorry dude, but your attitude about this is eyerollingly ridiculous, and the fact that you're attempting to play at moral superiority with your fence sitting makes it all that much more obnoxious. We've done the "pretend it's not real and it'll go away" thing with pedophilia for ages. We're done with it. It's time to educate the public and start calling a spade a spade. |
|
|
|
Post by monkeywool on Feb 21, 2014 13:56:41 GMT -5
Ok, so the therapist said a crime has been committed, how come the dude has not actually been put away for it then? Oh right, because he either was exonerated in the court or the police didn't pursue charges. No, the therapist did as he was required and reported that he was concerned that a crime might be committed. Also, I find it hilarious that your response is "welp, there wasn't enough evidence, he MUST be innocent." I'm sorry dude, but your attitude about this is eyerollingly ridiculous, and the fact that you're attempting to play at moral superiority with your fence sitting makes it all that much more obnoxious. We've done the "pretend it's not real and it'll go away" thing with pedophilia for ages. We're done with it. It's time to educate the public and start calling a spade a spade. Nope, my response is "there wasn't enough evidence, so he isn't guilty" no court of law would prosecute someone in any democratic society without solid 100% hard evidence. To assume guilt when there isn't enough evidence is a bad problem in society, a really bad problem. |
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Feb 21, 2014 13:58:14 GMT -5
No, the therapist did as he was required and reported that he was concerned that a crime might be committed. Also, I find it hilarious that your response is "welp, there wasn't enough evidence, he MUST be innocent." I'm sorry dude, but your attitude about this is eyerollingly ridiculous, and the fact that you're attempting to play at moral superiority with your fence sitting makes it all that much more obnoxious. We've done the "pretend it's not real and it'll go away" thing with pedophilia for ages. We're done with it. It's time to educate the public and start calling a spade a spade. Nope, my response is "there wasn't enough evidence, so he isn't guilty" no court of law would prosecute someone in any democratic society without solid 100% hard evidence. To assume guilt when there isn't enough evidence is a bad problem in society, a really bad problem. No, the assumption that the courts (and the government in general) are getting everything right is the problem. Talk about "believing despite a lack of evidence." |
|
|
|
Post by miketheratguy on Feb 21, 2014 14:01:36 GMT -5
Look, you guys are both right. Knight is saying that Allen has exhibited abnormal behavior that's been corroborated by others. As such, it's reasonable to be suspicious of him and consider him a likely criminal offender. If the signs are there, the signs are there. Meanwhile Wool is arguing that in an American court of law every person is innocent until proven guilty and should not be branded a criminal until the time at which it's been conclusively established by by the system that a crime has, in fact, occurred. I think we can all agree that every person has a right to a fair trial, but all it takes is a little common sense to realize that we don't want Woody Allen anywhere near our children.  |
|
|
|
Post by monkeywool on Feb 21, 2014 14:01:41 GMT -5
Another problem right there, you can't just assume the courts and police get everything right or wrong. You have to trust them though, otherwise why the hell do any of us follow laws?
|
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Feb 21, 2014 14:08:11 GMT -5
Another problem right there, you can't just assume the courts and police get everything right or wrong. You have to trust them though, otherwise why the hell do any of us follow laws? I follow laws so that I don't get in the way of the court system. I certainly don't trust them. |
|
