• Tangentism
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’m not the one defending paedophiles.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      You are attacking civilized people who are trying to tell you that a lynching crowd is not the society.

      • Tangentism
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        So where’s the lynching crowd aside from in all your imaginations?

      • SUPAVILLAIN@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Y’know, it’s fucking crazy how an innocent Black man’ll get slabbed out by pigs and scores of hordes upon hordes of redditor crackers will all in unison “well, he must’ve done something to deserve it”, “he was no angel”, “he had a drug charge 15 years ago so that makes him free game to outright murder in the street” but as soon as it’s a cracker pedophile so much as getting their name publicized, y’all out here “pwease no lynch mob guise 😢😢😢😢”.

        You peckerwoods sicken me.

      • FunkyStuff [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        If I had to pick which person is exhibiting reddit-logo behavior in a discussion where one side is playing devil’s advocate for a dude who had 2 small children in his hotel room in an area known for kidnapping and child sex abuse, and another is saying the obvious despite not technically having strong evidence beyond the previously stated, my finger’s on the guy that doesn’t understand burden of proof.

          • FunkyStuff [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            countdown

            The proof is the article, the burden of proof to provide a comparable case of someone who happened to be doing the most suspicious thing possible and was crucified by the media, yet turned out to be innocent, is on you.

            • ezchili@iusearchlinux.fyi
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              There’s confusion. I’ve maintained that to me, the goalpost is conviction. I cited an article that’s less damning for sure but I still motivate my goalpost by principles, not examples. It’s simpler to rely on an already established baseline, which is the justice system’s convictions, and I’m okay if that means that sometimes, a very plausibly guilty man benefits from undeserved anonimity

              But you know, every time I say that homeowners should indeed face jailtime for shooting a fleeting burglar in the back I face the same people with the same arguments

              People like to be tough on crime, but I don’t like people who feel the need to do justice themselves

              • Alaskaball [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                2 months ago

                But you know, every time I say that homeowners should indeed face jailtime for shooting a fleeting burglar in the back I face the same people with the same arguments

                Homeowners who murder people should be thrown in jail.

                Pedophiles should be thrown in jail.

                Very easy and simple to say.

                I don’t understand how you gotta keep running defense for pedophiles.

          • Tangentism
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            I understand the burden of proof but the guy isn’t in a court.

            He travelled to an area known for sex trafficking and was caught in a hotel room with 2 children he had no earthly connection to and was arrested by police. He decided to bolt the country knowing what he had done was wrong.

            It amazing how you keep jumping to different arguments defending the guy when you realise just how fucking tenuous your point is.

            Let’s examine something else here: nowhere have you shown one iota of concern for those children. Nothing about living in an area with obvious poverty that they are easily swept up by sex tourists and abused.

            Not anything for the sex workers who are suffering the brunt of the fallout from this with the police chief using it to beat them with.

            You’re only concern is for an American, very likely white collar worker who has travelled overseas to an area known for sex trafficking and has been caught in a hotel with two children.

            That is where your concern lays.

      • Scary le Poo@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        This comment gives me hope. I hate all the reddit kneejerk reactionaries. Sure, he may be a scumbag, but perhaps we should make sure beyond a reasonable doubt first.

        • Tangentism
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Travelling overseas to an area rife with sex trafficking and getting caught in a hotel with 2 children he has absolutely no relation to is to you not beyond a reasonable doubt?

          As I’ve said elsewhere, consider that you’ve said nothing of any concern for those children, about the poverty they very likely live in, nor for the sex workers who are being the brunt of the fallout from this.

          Your concern is all on the paedo sex tourist caught in a hotel with 2 children.