Belling the Cat

Your Tagline

  • 25th July
    2014
  • 25
  • 24th July
    2014
  • 24
  • 24th July
    2014
  • 24
  • 24th July
    2014
  • 24
  • 24th July
    2014
  • 24
  • 24th July
    2014
  • 24
You've been offered the opportunity to have her identity proven or disproven. Why don't you take it? Or are you actually not interested in whether he's telling the truth or not and just like to yell at straw men?

Asked by: Anonymous

agentsex:

corycideswrites:

agentsex:

delwynmarch:

The burden of proof is on Andy, not me. Andy is the one who has repeatedly lied for 15 years - not me. Andy is the one who has pretended to channel untold numbers of soldiers - not me. Andy is the one who has downright pretended to have been a fighter in the Troubles - not me.

Thus, I’m perfectly justifed in thinking that Andy is just lying one more time, and the burden falls on Andy to prove that for the first time in a bazillion, he’s telling the truth.

I don’t see why *I* should have to so much as raise my little finger to prove that *he* isn’t lying once more. That would not be fair, would it?

Actually, in most countries, the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the person being accused. Those accused are presumed innocent, not presumed guilty. (I don’t know what country you’re from, but I’m pretty sure it has the presumption of innocence.) In other words, if you can’t back up your accusations with proof, we should all disregard them without requiring Andy to raise any defense of his own.

Of course, if you want to try presumed guilt, you’re welcome, but the presumption of innocence is so important that it was included in the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as a fundamental human right. And that sounds pretty important, doesn’t it?

That is a court of law, not in someone’s personal life. Andy has a history of lying, Andy has specifically has a history of lying about/believing he is channelling soldiers. If Andy expects me (not that he does, he has no idea who I am) to believe something he says on that subject then he has to provide proof. The dude once claimed he was a terrorist. It was never a particularly believable claim and he says now it was an RP - but it still undermines his credibility with me on these issues. (I know, I know - I said I was out, but Andy’s whole bad ass terrorist thing always really peeved the hell out of me)


Sure, you’re under no obligation to believe it without proof - and Andy is not obligated to provide it.

He isn’t OBLIGATED to do owt. If he doesn’t want people to go - ‘this looks like another lie’ - though, then proving it is up to him. Apparently he doesn’t want people to think that since he went to the bother of proving it.

Andy doesn’t get presumption of innocence - or call it presumption of verity? Lying online isn’t a crime - in matters we know he has fabricated/fantasised in the past. Not from me anyhow, other people might give it to him.

I, on the other hand, don’t get paragraph breaks in the app. So sorry about the walls of text.

  • 24th July
    2014
  • 24
You've been offered the opportunity to have her identity proven or disproven. Why don't you take it? Or are you actually not interested in whether he's telling the truth or not and just like to yell at straw men?

Asked by: Anonymous

agentsex:

delwynmarch:

The burden of proof is on Andy, not me. Andy is the one who has repeatedly lied for 15 years - not me. Andy is the one who has pretended to channel untold numbers of soldiers - not me. Andy is the one who has downright pretended to have been a fighter in the Troubles - not me.

Thus, I’m perfectly justifed in thinking that Andy is just lying one more time, and the burden falls on Andy to prove that for the first time in a bazillion, he’s telling the truth.

I don’t see why *I* should have to so much as raise my little finger to prove that *he* isn’t lying once more. That would not be fair, would it?

Actually, in most countries, the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the person being accused. Those accused are presumed innocent, not presumed guilty. (I don’t know what country you’re from, but I’m pretty sure it has the presumption of innocence.) In other words, if you can’t back up your accusations with proof, we should all disregard them without requiring Andy to raise any defense of his own.

Of course, if you want to try presumed guilt, you’re welcome, but the presumption of innocence is so important that it was included in the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as a fundamental human right. And that sounds pretty important, doesn’t it?

That is a court of law, not in someone’s personal life. Andy has a history of lying, Andy has specifically has a history of lying about/believing he is channelling soldiers. If Andy expects me (not that he does, he has no idea who I am) to believe something he says on that subject then he has to provide proof. The dude once claimed he was a terrorist. It was never a particularly believable claim and he says now it was an RP - but it still undermines his credibility with me on these issues. (I know, I know - I said I was out, but Andy’s whole bad ass terrorist thing always really peeved the hell out of me)
  • 23rd July
    2014
  • 23
  • 23rd July
    2014
  • 23
  • 22nd July
    2014
  • 22
  • 20th July
    2014
  • 20
  • 20th July
    2014
  • 20
  • 20th July
    2014
  • 20
  • 20th July
    2014
  • 20
  • 20th July
    2014
  • 20