This is a complete re-write of the post that appeared here earlier (Feb. 5, 10:58 pm)
Finish the sentence. "When evidence is ambiguous...," what? "You can't decide," that would be one reasonable way of finishing the sentence. "Get more evidence." Also reasonable, but also a dodge, maybe a misunderstanding: Assume "evidence" means "all the evidence." All the evidence is ambiguous. I think most people would answer "You can't decide."
I will ask now a leading question: What does it mean for a criminal defendant in an American court of law when evidence is ambiguous? (S)he's not guilty. The prosecution has the "burden of proof;" the allegation must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt."
This is how Nicholas D. Kristof finished the sentence, which is, like, his sentence, in his column on Dylan Farrow;
"When evidence is ambiguous, do we really need to leap to our feet and lionize an alleged molester?"
Mr. Kristof is not in a court of law, he need not employ the legal standard for a conviction, none of us employ the legal standard for a conviction in making daily decisions. He employs a standard that would be the opposite for a criminal defendant in an American courtroom. The accused, in this case Woody Allen, does not get the benefit of the doubt. When the evidence is ambiguous, Hollywood should not honor him.
That is unreasonable. That standard is just not reasonable and Mr. Kristof goes beyond employing it himself by suggesting that it be used by others.
On display here also is Kristof's use of the Socratic method of law school professors, asking questions, not directly answering one's own questions. And another method, a forensic tool, exaggerating one's opponent's position to make it look more unreasonable. Did Hollywood leap to its feet literally at the award ceremony? I don't know because I didn't see it. Neither did Allen since he wasn't there either. Did Hollywood figuratively leap to its feet? Like a spontaneous, spur-of-the-moment act? This was a lifetime achievement award and Woody Allen, at 78 years old, is near the end of that lifetime. Kristof characterizes him as an "artistic giant." It does not seem like a figurative leap. It seems like just a forensic tool Kristof used to score points in a contest in which he is personally involved.
Finish the sentence. "When evidence is ambiguous...," what? "You can't decide," that would be one reasonable way of finishing the sentence. "Get more evidence." Also reasonable, but also a dodge, maybe a misunderstanding: Assume "evidence" means "all the evidence." All the evidence is ambiguous. I think most people would answer "You can't decide."
I will ask now a leading question: What does it mean for a criminal defendant in an American court of law when evidence is ambiguous? (S)he's not guilty. The prosecution has the "burden of proof;" the allegation must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt."
This is how Nicholas D. Kristof finished the sentence, which is, like, his sentence, in his column on Dylan Farrow;
"When evidence is ambiguous, do we really need to leap to our feet and lionize an alleged molester?"
Mr. Kristof is not in a court of law, he need not employ the legal standard for a conviction, none of us employ the legal standard for a conviction in making daily decisions. He employs a standard that would be the opposite for a criminal defendant in an American courtroom. The accused, in this case Woody Allen, does not get the benefit of the doubt. When the evidence is ambiguous, Hollywood should not honor him.
That is unreasonable. That standard is just not reasonable and Mr. Kristof goes beyond employing it himself by suggesting that it be used by others.
On display here also is Kristof's use of the Socratic method of law school professors, asking questions, not directly answering one's own questions. And another method, a forensic tool, exaggerating one's opponent's position to make it look more unreasonable. Did Hollywood leap to its feet literally at the award ceremony? I don't know because I didn't see it. Neither did Allen since he wasn't there either. Did Hollywood figuratively leap to its feet? Like a spontaneous, spur-of-the-moment act? This was a lifetime achievement award and Woody Allen, at 78 years old, is near the end of that lifetime. Kristof characterizes him as an "artistic giant." It does not seem like a figurative leap. It seems like just a forensic tool Kristof used to score points in a contest in which he is personally involved.
