Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Concerning the "It's a Job Interview" Defense

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Concerning the "It's a Job Interview" Defense

    During the Kavenaugh Debate, many Kavenaugh supporters and even Kavenaugh neutrals have pressed the issue of burden of proof, and how anti Kavenaugh advocates need to actually establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before acting as if he is guilty or saying that these allegations disqualify him from office. Anti Kavenaugh advocates present the counterpoint that this is a job interview, not a court case, and thus court rules do not apply. The Job Interview Defense – as I will now call it for sake of ease – has become such a common defense that I felt it deserved its own thread and I decided to present the inherent flaws with the Job Interview Defense therein.

    Flaw #1 – Burden of Proof does not only apply in courtrooms.

    The notion that burden of proof and innocent until proven guilty can be set aside since this technically isn’t a court case presuppose that burden of proof standards only apply in court rooms. The truth is that burden of proof standards are constant in multiple settings and universal in all fields requiring empirical thinking. In science it is recognized that critics are not obligated to prove the negative. Any theory purporting “this is so” must demonstrate it’s truthfulness by merits of experimentation and replication, not by demanding that critics prove the notion impossible. Furthermore, in the course of academic debate in general it is also recognized that the proponent must make their case and have that case stand on it’s merits rather than demanding others disprove them. In no empirical field is it ever allowed for that one must prove the negative. In all cases a person saying “this is so” must PROVE that it is so and be willing to be subject to peer review in the course of this claim. This is not just a courtroom precedent.

    Flaw #2 – Presumption of Innocence exists outside of criminal trials.

    The Job Interview Defense is often utilized by people who also treat Ford’s allegations as truth and that these allegations can and should be treated as truth. This sets a dangerous precedent and is also very much NOT a thing outside of DC. If any of our anti Trump members were to apply for a job and I were to send a letter to their employer labeling them as a sex offender in hopes of keeping them out, they would very much be within their rights to sue me for slander and take me to court. During this civil court case, the judge should and would obligate me to prove the horrible accusations I leveled and were I not able to do so, said aggrieved party could take me to the cleaners in compensatory damages, The fact that said individual was not at that very moment on trial for sex crimes in no way shape or form excuses me making baseless accusations against them.

    Flaw #3 – No one has a right against cross examination.

    When it comes to the Bill of Rights, whether or not Kavenaugh is on trial is irrelevant. The freedom of speech grants the right of all Americans to engage in skepticism, to challenge and examine all claims put before them. We are never obligated to accept something at face value. Any person saying “this is so” can be challenged openly by anyone disagreeing, and for any reason. We do not need permission to ask questions. In this regard, claiming the Job Interview Defense is a complete waste of time. Because those who do not hold to the Job Interview Defense are going to keep asking questions whether you like it or not. Kavenaugh opponents are under cross examination in the court of public discourse, no avoiding it. So really, it’s best to just answer them. Establish your evidence and meet the burden of proof. The Job Interview Defense clearly isn’t making them shut up and go away.

    A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X