tommytrump, lbb didn't say you couldn't make the judgement -- only that you can't claim moral superiority over those who have made the opposite judgement. Either you're reserving judgement until all the facts are known, or you're not. Some people are claiming that we must assume that the victim is a liar, because the Dukies haven't been proven guilty in a court of law. bperk -- I'll give T$ the benefit of the doubt and assume that he would have made the same comment if the stripper in question was poor and white. Or poor and latina. Or poor and native American. Just as long as she was poor, you understand.
When the judicial system says, "We presume they're innocent," that means, "We haven't (yet) seen proof that they're guilty, " not, "We have seen evidence that they are innocent." When an individual (or a group, in this case) states that they believe someone to be innocent, that is exactly what it means. It is a judgment, and unless they were there and have evidence to support this, it is an unsupported judgment. Agreed, LBB. I was trying to summarise the point. Interestingly, Scottish law includes a verdict of 'not proven'. Which might suit the more 'earthly' logic of real life. Aye, those canny wee Scots. However, there are value judgements across all of this. Massive Generalisation Number 457 says that moralists and conservatives tend to view 'not guilty' verdicts as 'they just didn't have enough evidence'. However I've seen enough police fit-ups plus media racism and other prejudice... Remember, if you stand by when innocents are arrested and gaoled, you're not neutral, you're taking the side of the oppressor. I thought I'd throw that in to see what bites.
Sh*t, I've just realised that now it sounds like I'm on the side of the women's lacrosse team. I'm not. They're idiots. The US judicial system is structured to protect the Duke students, not to provide justice for the alleged rape victims. Just so you know I'm not supporting the oppressor here. I blame LBB for confusing me with her faultless logic :-).
LBB, I understand we're not talking about cheerleaders, but there was no womens NFL team to compare to. Perhaps I should have used a WNBA counterpart of an NBA team. Either way I think I made my point. The food stamp comment is questionable. If there is the slightest possiblity that it was racially motivated, it should be removed. I'll give T$ the benefit of the doubt and assume that he would have made the same comment if the stripper in question was poor and white. Or poor and latina. Or poor and native American. Just as long as she was poor, you understand Bullshit, do you have any idea how much money some stripper/dancers make? If it was a racially based comment, I wonder if he is man enough to admit it. what's wrong with making a judgement based on the information we have You would form an opinion about a possible rapist based on some watered-down information you gathered from TV and the internet? How do you determine credibility, by the way the victim/accused looks? Or by their profession? So the white collar (enron CEO type) is always assumed innocent, and the guy with the baggy pants and gold chain is always assumed guilty? I guess that's why the African American stripper couldn't possibly be a victim, because it has already been determined that she definitely collects food stamps, and it's common knowledge that all the less fortunate people in this country are lazy good for nothing liars, right?
I don't know why some people are so excited to give the Dukies the benefit of the doubt and not the stripper. I mean, if I can come from the same zero knowledge launching pad for a moment - I've seen strippers and I've remember the lacrosse team. Those strippers were okay, that lacrosse team was a bunch of assholes. I have little sympathy for the poor reputation of 19-year old underage drinkers who hire adult entertainment.
