On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 05:47:14PM -0500, quiliro wrote: > Matthew Garrett <[email protected]> writes: > > > On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 10:36:03AM -0500, quiliro wrote: > > > >> There is no evidence of any rape. There are anonymous texts only that > >> accuse him of it. Why asume Jake is lying, when he is the only one that > >> is putting his name on it? > > > > Written descriptions of events are literally evidence. > > They are evidence that someone knows how to write, not that someone did > something depicted in that text.
It might not be sufficient evidence to convince you, but that doesn't mean it's not evidence. > >> The person should not prove per is innocent. The accuser does not need > >> to be open. But must show evidence beyond doubt of guilt. > > > > That's the standard held in a court of law. But falsely accusing someone > > of rape is also a crime, and you seem willing to assert that Jake's > > victims are guilty of that. > > I cannot accuse anyone because all of them are aliases. The only one > that has done that openly is you. I am not interested in accusing you. I > am just interested in rescueing the name of a person that has done > good...at least from what I have seen personally. RMS, Assange, > Appelbaum look like victims. I cannot prove it. But they deserve to be > held innocent until proved guilty...in my book. You said that you would treat them as false accusations. That's not merely deciding that Jake is innocent until proven guilty, that's saying that you believe a set of people are guilty of breaking the law. To be clear, it is absolutely your right to believe that Jake's accusers are breaking the law! But you can't simultaneously say that you believe Jake is innocent until proven guilty while also saying that those who accuse him are guilty despite not having been proven so. > >> If you do not want to hang around him because you think it is probable > >> he is guilty, that is understandable. Another thing is dragging others > >> to take suspicions as irrefutable truth. If that was somone's attitude > >> against you, they would think you have a hidden agenda in favour of > >> someone who has interests against Jake. But even if there are thinks > >> that look spooky in your acts, no one has not made that accusation > >> against you because the evidence is not enough. > > > > Daniel has repeatedly suggested that organisations that chose to cut > > ties with Jake acted inappropriately. Is it reasonable to question > > Daniel's motivations? > > It is reasonable to have an opinion about it. His motivations are > clear. He felt that FSFE was under bad leadership. He shows it. What does that have to do with his repeated suggestions that it was inappropriate for Debian to cut ties with Jake? > This thread has reached a point there is no more you have contributed to > this discussion in the last few emails. There is enough evidence to > conclude that you have no proof that a the crime was commited. I will > not discuss any other thing about the topic unless there is credible > evidence. I do not trust the direction you are taking this "yes it is / > no it isn't" conversation. I feel your intentions are not clean and that > you try to act against me. It looks as if you are trying trick me in > several ways. I will not answer any more of your questions. Despite asking you several times, you have failed to say what you would actually need to see in order to conclude that Jake is a rapist. What do you mean by "credible evidence"? -- Matthew Garrett | [email protected] _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
