LogFAQs > #909378223

darkknight109 posted...

What this is is a job application. Kavanaugh is, in essence, applying for a new job with lifetime tenure and an extreme level of power and responsibility. He is entitled to an assumption of innocence, but only to a point; if credible allegations arise against him, the burden is on him to disprove those allegations to the satisfaction of his interviewers and the people he represents.

I totally see where you are coming from, and I appreciate you wording much better than other people on this thread have.

However, there is still something very....instinctively?...wrong with that kind of logic that many people are starting to subscribe to:

The impossible task of needing to prove a negative.

So he is entitled to an assumption of innocence, to a point.....but the burden still falls onto him to prove that he didn't do something?

I mean...that kinda contradicts itself, doesn't it?

How about the accuser and/or investigators prove he did something first, before squealing to the media about it? Just seems more....honest. Otherwise that's a case of pure slander.

And the whole idea of proving a negative is what Liberals have relied on for years when debating people. They accuse someone of being racist or sexist (with absolutely no evidence of the person being either) just to dismiss their arguments. And the person immediately needs to go on defense to somehow prove they AREN'T racist or sexist.

How does one, exactly, prove they aren't racist or sexist? "I have black friends." "I love my wife."....just makes you look like an idiot. You can have people vouch for you, sure. But it's pathetic that you even need to be put into that position now just because some little asshat accused you of being racist or sexist.

It's the ACCUSER'S job to PROVE you are racist or sexist first.

Strange world we live in.
---

~Gamefaqs logic: Q: If it's so obviously a troll topic...why are you responding to it? A: "Because I have to tell them it's a troll topic!" *facepalm*