Quote from: JayJuanGee on December 14, 2019, 08:56:14 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 14, 2019, 08:37:59 AM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on December 14, 2019, 05:33:32 AM

But seems to me that Twitchy has presented evidence and logic to undermine those presumptions of innocence that could allow members to conclude that OGNasty might be guilty of the alleged conduct.

You are largely asserting to stop the investigation because it is a witch hunt. There could be some burden of production and persuasion upon you in that regard, also, but whatever, the evidence is still being presented here and members can decide for themselves whether the evidence is persuasive.

Undermining presumptions of innocence is not proving guilt.

Agreed.

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 14, 2019, 08:37:59 AM

Do you see how you are consistently inverting the burden of proof from the accuser back to me?

No, I don't see that. Seems that you are the one who brought up this idea of burden of proof, and I am just responding to that.

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 14, 2019, 08:37:59 AM

I have no burden of anything.

I would suggest that if you raise an issue, and say: This is a witch hunt, then you have the burden to show that. Of course, you can express that "this is a witch hunt" as an opinion, but if you are trying to persuade someone, then you have the burden, no?

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 14, 2019, 08:37:59 AM

I don't care if anyone believes me.

Why would it matter if anyone believes you about anything. You said that you have no burden, so therefore, you would not be trying to convince anyone of anything, right? Or do you want to have your cake and eat it too?

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 14, 2019, 08:37:59 AM

I do however care if people believe accusations of scamming based on speculation.

Fair enough.

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 14, 2019, 08:37:59 AM

What I am doing is not stopping anyone from presenting evidence. What I am doing is however making rhetorical and sophist persuasion ineffective.

You are attempting to rebutt any evidence (while proclaiming that there is not any evidence, even though there is). Doesn't that seem a bit ridiculous? Cheesy

I brought up the burden of proof, therefore I must prove that the accuser is engaged in a "witch hunt"? What? I never characterized this as a "witch hunt", Twitchy Seal did BTW. Yes, you are in fact inverting the burden of proof from the accuser on to me. I don't have to prove shit. End of story. Twitchy has to prove his accusation, he can not. This is not having my cake and eating it to, it is how burden of proof works. The one presenting the premise (theft) has the burden to prove the accusation. I don't have to prove it is a witch hunt, and your lack of belief in this premise is irrelevant to the fact that the burden of proof has not been met on the accusation of theft. The only thing ridiculous is your continual inversion of the burden of proof.