/lit/ - Literature

>>6923274
Well, at least you admit where you come from. Nice thread btw.

>>6501872
>So I was wrong about one thing. It wasn't a concept pulled out of your ass. So what?

So you look like a massive tool? I mean, let's not forget, this was after you had "looked at it further", right (I mean, further! FURTHER! Like, after examining the concept MORE CLOSELY than you had up to that point, you THEN concluded it was something I'd made up - to what purpose, who can say; you presumably hadn't looked far enough to puzzle that out)?

>You are being outclassed by me

Oh, honey child.

>It's either not a real distinction or a meaningless one.

At its simplest, it's a distinction between a mental state and a behaviour pattern. You're a mathematician? OK, when you're playing poker and you're deciding whether to call a large raise, you figure the pot odds, correct? Say you have a live inside straight with two cards to come (~11:1 odds). Say your pot odds are 12:1 - this dictates a call, even though 11:1 is a shitty proposition. There's no way you *believe* you're going to hit your straight, right? But because the pot odds dictate that calling is profitable in the long term, you call - despite not believing that you'll hit your straight. That's acceptance.

>We have no reason to "accept," or "assume" (which is all it really means in this context), that a rape accusation is correct, in the way that a scientist might assume, for the same of investigating a hypothesis, that a particular theory is correct. You have failed to show the value in doing such a thing. We assume ("accept") innocence on part of the accused until evidence is shown with good reason, reasons I've already gone into.

The 'reasons' you've 'gone into' are completely - let me emphasise - COMPLETELY irrelevant. This has already been explained, by me and at least one other person, and all you have done is ignore what's been said to you and repeat yourself.

You keep talking about this as though we were discussing a trial. We're not. The structure and rules of a trial are thus wholly irrelevant. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

>I'm not /pol/.

Pic related.

every fucking day

>>5734514

>>5664731

I'm not sure /pol/ are even here, given how frequently suspected /pol/tards deny being /pol/tards. Surely they wouldn't lie.