Bunny Trails: Politics

[GaryK]

I'm not sure why you should need to make assumptions and assign motives but it seems to happen quite frequently.

Actually, I think you are the person who is turning this into a discussion of assumptions and motives.

Yes, I am, because this is what you said.

If people are charged with serious crimes and facing trial, is that different from someone who has not been charged with a crime at all? I think it is. And if we talk as though these differences don't matter, I think it makes criminals really, really happy and makes it easier for them to get away with things.

I find it telling that you have not denied making assumptions and assigning motives in this post.

Also, I started this thread and thought surely I could post in it as I like.

[GaryK]

For instance, here's a question for you: Over in a Trump thread, you were concerned that I might think that Trump is guilty before he was convicted of a crime. Personally, I think that nobody should go to trial without strong evidence of a possible crime. I also think defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty in our justice system. How do you see that? In this thread, would it be wrong to think that Hunter Biden might be guilty and deserving of a trial?

Can you point me to the post where I was concerned that you might think Trump is guilty before he was convicted. I have no idea which Trump thread you are referring to.

[Bootstrap]

For instance, here's a question for you: Over in a Trump thread, you were concerned that I might think that Trump is guilty before he was convicted of a crime. Personally, I think that nobody should go to trial without strong evidence of a possible crime. I also think defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty in our justice system. How do you see that? In this thread, would it be wrong to think that Hunter Biden might be guilty and deserving of a trial?

Can you point me to the post where I was concerned that you might think Trump is guilty before he was convicted. I have no idea which Trump thread you are referring to.

I'll find that post and link to it here. Today or tomorrow.

[Bootstrap]

For instance, here's a question for you: Over in a Trump thread, you were concerned that I might think that Trump is guilty before he was convicted of a crime. Personally, I think that nobody should go to trial without strong evidence of a possible crime. I also think defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty in our justice system. How do you see that? In this thread, would it be wrong to think that Hunter Biden might be guilty and deserving of a trial?

Can you point me to the post where I was concerned that you might think Trump is guilty before he was convicted. I have no idea which Trump thread you are referring to.

This post:

viewtopic.php?p=212092#p212092

Why keep opining away about Donald Trump and all the evidence against him if he hasn't yet been found guilty of things related to election investigations? You seem to want everyone else to wait for the justice system to run it's course rather than offering their opinions about things. Why not do the same?

The obvious answer to your question is what I said above: people were saying it is a travesty that the evidence against Trump might be heard in court.

In this thread, which you started, several people are saying it would be a travesty if the charges against Hunter Biden are not heard in court.

To me, these seem more similar than different. If there were really no credible evidence in either case, it would be wrong to have show trials. But it does look like there is good evidence against both men. Still, they should each have their day in court. Both cases are intensely political, both cases are going to be politicized in the coming election, but I don't think that means that they should get off scott free.

To me, the guidelines in the first paragraph in this post are helpful.

How do you approach it? What guidelines do you use to try to be fair in cases that involve people you may like or dislike if you choose to speak about them on forums? What approach do you take to evidence?

[Bootstrap]

I'm not sure why you should need to make assumptions and assign motives but it seems to happen quite frequently.

Actually, I think you are the person who is turning this into a discussion of assumptions and motives.

Yes, I am, because this is what you said.

If people are charged with serious crimes and facing trial, is that different from someone who has not been charged with a crime at all? I think it is. And if we talk as though these differences don't matter, I think it makes criminals really, really happy and makes it easier for them to get away with things.

I find it telling that you have not denied making assumptions and assigning motives in this post.

You use that "I find it telling" line a lot, you know. Here, you find it telling that I will not change the subject to motives and assumptions about people, and that's often the case when you use this line. You seem to be trying to telegraph that there's something wrong or suspicious or dishonest about me - precisely what you accuse me of. Worth thinking about, perhaps.

Read the paragraph - it does not make assumptions about specific people. It does not assign motives. I suggest some ways through the fog with all the politicized "news" we are wading through. You may agree with my principles or disagree, and perhaps you could say more about how you approach it. I have asked a set of questions that are precisely about these things. They kind of rhyme with what I said here in another thread:

But I think I am basically saying that:

1. Caesar should treat both parties the same way.
2. Christians should not have political enmities. We should not want "them" to be destroyed.

We should want fair processes for both "us" and "them", but "us" should mean us, Christians who follow Jesus, not some political faction. We love "them", they are our neighbors, Jesus died for them, they are our mission field.

Could we perhaps discuss those questions? Or not discuss them, if you aren't interested in that?

[GaryK]

For instance, here's a question for you: Over in a Trump thread, you were concerned that I might think that Trump is guilty before he was convicted of a crime. Personally, I think that nobody should go to trial without strong evidence of a possible crime. I also think defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty in our justice system. How do you see that? In this thread, would it be wrong to think that Hunter Biden might be guilty and deserving of a trial?

Can you point me to the post where I was concerned that you might think Trump is guilty before he was convicted. I have no idea which Trump thread you are referring to.

This post:

viewtopic.php?p=212092#p212092

Why keep opining away about Donald Trump and all the evidence against him if he hasn't yet been found guilty of things related to election investigations? You seem to want everyone else to wait for the justice system to run it's course rather than offering their opinions about things. Why not do the same?

And you took from this post that the point I was making was that I was concerned you might think Trump is guilty before he is convicted???

If my post is still not clear to you, I was making the point that you were doing exactly what you don't like in others.

I could care less if you think Trump is guilty or not before his trials. What gets old is to see you constantly admonishing others to not offer their opinions about political matters without evidence only to see you do that very thing.

[Bootstrap]

Can you point me to the post where I was concerned that you might think Trump is guilty before he was convicted. I have no idea which Trump thread you are referring to.

This post:

viewtopic.php?p=212092#p212092

Why keep opining away about Donald Trump and all the evidence against him if he hasn't yet been found guilty of things related to election investigations? You seem to want everyone else to wait for the justice system to run it's course rather than offering their opinions about things. Why not do the same?

And you took from this post that the point I was making was that I was concerned you might think Trump is guilty before he is convicted???

If my post is still not clear to you, I was making the point that you were doing exactly what you don't like in others.

If the following paragraph is your summary, then I don't think I am. I think I am encouraging others to do things that I consider important values if we are going to talk about these things at all.

I could care less if you think Trump is guilty or not before his trials. What gets old is to see you constantly admonishing others to not offer their opinions about political matters without evidence only to see you do that very thing.

I'm not against giving opinions about political matters - after all, abortion, homosexuality, warfare, and all kinds of other things we care about deeply are also political matters. The only way to avoid all political discussion is to avoid discussing societal values at all. But I do think we should address them as Christians. That affects both our identity and the way we talk with each other about these things.

In that thread, I think I was providing evidence. And I was saying precisely that Donald Trump should have his day in court, just like Hunter Biden. Of course, even taking someone to court without evidence is also injustice, which is why the evidence for the indictment also matters. If these are things we are going to discuss here, I think we should use critical thinking skills and focus on the evidence.

All of this is best done without pretending that we are the experts on the thoughts and motivations of others. I think I try to do that. Studiously, sometimes. I'm sure I get that wrong sometimes too, but it's certainly something I am trying to do.

[GaryK]

Actually, I think you are the person who is turning this into a discussion of assumptions and motives.

Yes, I am, because this is what you said.

If people are charged with serious crimes and facing trial, is that different from someone who has not been charged with a crime at all? I think it is. And if we talk as though these differences don't matter, I think it makes criminals really, really happy and makes it easier for them to get away with things.

I find it telling that you have not denied making assumptions and assigning motives in this post.

You use that "I find it telling" line a lot, you know. Here, you find it telling that I will not change the subject to motives and assumptions about people, and that's often the case when you use this line.

This is flat out false. Please stop doing this. I said absolutely nothing about finding it telling that you will not change the subject to motives and assumptions...

Read the paragraph - it does not make assumptions about specific people.

Were you making assumptions about posts and posters on MN when you said this?

And if we talk as though these differences don't matter, I think it makes criminals really, really happy and makes it easier for them to get away with things.

[GaryK]

The obvious answer to your question is what I said above: people were saying it is a travesty that the evidence against Trump might be heard in court.

In this thread, which you started, several people are saying it would be a travesty if the charges against Hunter Biden are not heard in court.

Here you are making some definitive statements about what people on MN were and are saying. Please provide us with the posts so that we can see for ourselves if that is what they are saying. This goes to the heart of the assumptions and motives issue I brought up.

[Bootstrap]

You use that "I find it telling" line a lot, you know. Here, you find it telling that I will not change the subject to motives and assumptions about people, and that's often the case when you use this line.

This is flat out false. Please stop doing this. I said absolutely nothing about finding it telling that you will not change the subject to motives and assumptions...

Actually, you did. When you said this:

I find it telling that you have not denied making assumptions and assigning motives in this post.

And when you keep switching the topic to that over and over again, while ignoring the content of my post. And when you use phrases like "I find it telling".

So if you want me to stop pointing it out, please stop doing these things. And perhaps respond to the actual content of my posts.