So guilty until proven innocent? I shouldn't have to tell you how backwards and nonsensical that is. What evidence that they are fake are you looking for exactly? How is that supposed to be proven? The point is that it can't be proven either way. So maybe don't make any career-ending assumptions based off of only that.

[–] hoodatninja@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

asdfasdf

[–] sanpedropeddler@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Its just a phrase, I never implied this has anything to do with law. "Guilty" and "innocent" are not purely legal terms. You said you can assume they are real. If you are going to assume anything, you should have evidence. I'm not assuming anything, I don't need evidence. You are assuming they are real, you need evidence. There is no evidence either way, as I have already said, and you ignored. So your assumption is baseless. I can't break it down any further for you. My original argument was that the messages could be fake, yes. But that doesn't mean I have to provide evidence. If there was evidence I wouldn't say "could". I was literally saying I don't know, and it is impossible to know. But its stupid to assume its real when you can't possibly know, just based off of your views of him in general.

[–] hoodatninja@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

asdfasdfsdfsadf

[–] sanpedropeddler@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You know morals were a thing before law right? Innocent before proven guilty is a phrase used in law, but that doesn't mean its only applicable in law. You aren't making an argument you're just complaining because you associate the phrase with law. Maybe you don't need evidence to claim he's guilty, but you do if you don't want to seem like a fucking idiot to anyone with half a brain. What I wrote says it could be fake. I didn't say it was, I said it could be. "Stop talking out both sides of your mouth" what does that even mean? Ive been saying exactly the same thing the whole time. If you still don't get it then you need to work on your reading comprehension. I've done everything I can to simplify it short of drawing a fucking diagram. I'm done. Good luck figuring it out.

[–] hoodatninja@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

asfasfsafafsda

[–] sanpedropeddler@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I applaud your ability to make yourself look better by ignoring all of my arguments and saying random bullshit instead. I wasn't going to respond further, but wow you are a self righteous ignorant prick. I have never met a single person in my life that is as good at evading logic as you are, I'm sure you do it a lot.

[–] hoodatninja@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

asdfasfsdf

[–] cantstopthesignal@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Public opinion is not a court of law. Do you just aimlessly quote slogans you heard to justify whatever dumb shit pops into your brain?

[–] sanpedropeddler@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago

I honestly can not believe people are disagreeing with me. Yeah he's a creep but that doesn't justify making such a life changing assumption based off of that. Slogans have meaning you know. You should read it and figure out what it means. This may not be a court of law but that doesn't justify this whatsoever. Instead of making fun of a phrase I said, you should argue about the actual fucking topic.