We've spent our week of introspection asking hard questions of ourselves and each other. We're ready to share what we've learned.Links Referenced in the Vide...
The burden of proof works the exact opposite way. You make a claim, then you need to support verifiable and damnable evidence. Not the other way around.
This isn’t a court trial tbh, and what has come forth from Madison’s side (testimonies, recording, consistency) is more than enough for me to put the ball entirely on LMG’s side.
No reason to keep giving businesses the benefit of the doubt when in many cases they have every advantage over the situation.
So just because it’s not a court trial means we should throw out innocent until proven guilty? The burden of proof is non-negotiable. These ideas have existed for centuries, they aren’t a purely legal framework.
what has come forth from Madison’s side
Which is, to be perfectly fair, limited to he-said-she-said which isn’t evidence. It’s just an allegation and very little can be decided from that alone.
At this point there is exactly zero useful information to actually derive any real decision from.
So just because it’s not a court trial means we should throw out innocent until proven guilty? The burden of proof is non-negotiable. These ideas have existed for centuries, they aren’t a purely legal framework.
I’m under no obligation to give LMG the benefit of the doubt, if I choose to abstain from watching their content due to the allegations, then that is my prerogative. My choosing to make a decision without proof either way doesn’t harm LMG further than the loss of ad revenue, etc.
Oh, sure, I mean, you are definitely free to do and think as you wish. Just pointing out how the burden of proof works, since a lot of people (not necessarily you) do not get how it works. Bertrand Russel, everyone!
The burden of proof works the exact opposite way. You make a claim, then you need to support verifiable and damnable evidence. Not the other way around.
This isn’t a court trial tbh, and what has come forth from Madison’s side (testimonies, recording, consistency) is more than enough for me to put the ball entirely on LMG’s side.
No reason to keep giving businesses the benefit of the doubt when in many cases they have every advantage over the situation.
So just because it’s not a court trial means we should throw out innocent until proven guilty? The burden of proof is non-negotiable. These ideas have existed for centuries, they aren’t a purely legal framework.
Which is, to be perfectly fair, limited to he-said-she-said which isn’t evidence. It’s just an allegation and very little can be decided from that alone.
At this point there is exactly zero useful information to actually derive any real decision from.
I’m under no obligation to give LMG the benefit of the doubt, if I choose to abstain from watching their content due to the allegations, then that is my prerogative. My choosing to make a decision without proof either way doesn’t harm LMG further than the loss of ad revenue, etc.
That’s the difference.
Oh, sure, I mean, you are definitely free to do and think as you wish. Just pointing out how the burden of proof works, since a lot of people (not necessarily you) do not get how it works. Bertrand Russel, everyone!
deleted by creator
Good thing that person’s personal “court system” has no bearing on LMG’s ability to do or not do anything.
deleted by creator