<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div dir="ltr"><span></span></div><div dir="ltr"><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">On Sep 29, 2018, at 2:55 PM, <<a href="mailto:spike@rainier66.com">spike@rainier66.com</a>> <<a href="mailto:spike@rainier66.com">spike@rainier66.com</a>> wrote:<blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><span>-----Original Message-----</span><br><span>From: extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat-bounces@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat-bounces@lists.extropy.org</a>> On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan</span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span>...Regarding Kavanaugh, though, presuming Ford’s allegations were true...</span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span>...Regards,</span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span>...Dan</span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span></span><br><span>This is the real question: if an accusation without corroborating evidence is presumed true, does not this presume guilt of the accused?</span><br><span></span><br><span>If we presume guilt, we throw out centuries of legal precedent and find ourselves right back where we left off with the witch trials.</span><br></div></blockquote><br><div>Wrong interpretation of my point and of the Kavanaugh hearings. On the former, there are literally thousands of years of arguing an issue by simply presuming for the sake of argument a premise is true and seeing where it leads. Did you even read my entire post? I was responding to judging someone by standards of their time — the time in question being the early 1980s.</div><div><br></div><div>On the hearing itself, it’s not a courtroom where he’s being tried. At best, it’s a job interview. In job interviews — and I’ve been on both sides of the interviewing process — generally the onus is on the interviewee. So it doesn’t analogies to a court trial. (Of course, this doesn’t mean any wild claim should knock an interviewee out, but it’s not a courtroom and he’s not going to jail if he doesn’t get the appointment — just like the people I’ve rejected for hiring didn’t end up in prison.)</div><div><br></div><div>All of this said, let’s presume Kavanaugh is completely innocent and go further to completely disregard Ford and anyone else who might come forward. Kavanaugh should be thrown out as a potential justice because of his stance on the Fourth Amendment — where he seems enthralled with executive power. (In particular, see <a href="https://reason.com/archives/2018/07/18/brett-kavanaughs-fourth-amendment-blind/amp">https://reason.com/archives/2018/07/18/brett-kavanaughs-fourth-amendment-blind/</a> )</div><div><br></div><div><div dir="ltr"><div style="line-height: normal;"><div style="line-height: normal;"><span style="line-height: 20px; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Regards,</span></div><div style="line-height: normal;"><span style="line-height: 20px; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div><div style="line-height: normal;"><span style="line-height: 20px; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Dan</span></div><div style="line-height: normal;"><span style="line-height: 20px; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"> Sample my Kindle books at:</span></div><div style="line-height: normal;"><p style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><a href="http://author.to/DanUst">http://author.to/DanUst</a></span></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></body></html>