Made me look it up!
That's right, I am free to do the same. I am also free to say I don't know enough relevant facts at this point to be comfortable making any kind of character judgement. Not as much fun but I have plenty of other fun in my life so I think I'll be fine.
That's why I described it as "inherently weak" instead of "always incorrect." If your goal is to determine whether or not someone is a good person, ad hominem arguments are both unavoidable and appropriate. If your goal is to determine the merits of a legal case, then not so much.
Credibility is a factor that isn’t overlooked in legal disputes.
POA isn’t a courtroom, I’m not sure why you want to force that standard. Sharing opinions and establishing legal standing aren’t the same thing, and everyone here knows it. Do you limit your own opinions to those that would be admissible? People make judgements based on many factors, experience and character included.
Oh now you’re just clowning around.
I'm just expressing my opinions.
So now you know what other people know and what it’s based on.
I think the needs of a society and the individuals in it are best served by drawing logically sound inferences and avoiding illogical inferences. To serve that purpose, requiring strict adherence to court rules in casual discussions would probably be going overboard, but I do think there is a lot that we can learn from studying courtroom methods, especially in regard to such things as not pre-judging things when we don't have all the evidence, and in regard to not jumping to conclusions based on irrelevancies like the size of her shirt and whom she hired as an attorney.
Even in court we will never have "all the evidence". There's no point in talking about anything if you require all evidence before beginning the discussion.
It's entirely possible that my opinions are weak and irrelevant, but no one has yet explained how Allred's reputation proves whether the case has merit or not.So now you know what other people know and what it’s based on.
For someone that Has never even heard of the very well known lawyer involved maybe your opinions are indeed weak and irrelevant, but that’s your problem, you’re still entitled to your choice to remain ignorant and opinion-less. Very few people that have chosen to educate themselves about Allred have a very high opinion of her.
Even Wikipedia has this to say
I can have a bias and still be an impartial juror. I wouldn't hide my opinions, but I would also make it clear I understand they aren't evidence and can't be used in my deliberations.
Stats are pretty useless since settling out of court can and is done even when the plaintiff is not guilty. It would be more meaningful to see how often she even makes it to court, but even that leaves us with assuming a reason for it. There's no way to prove it.
We're always going to disagree on what "a sufficient airing is". By "we", I mean any two of us. We will not all have read the same things, or understood the validity of their source. Etc, etc, etc....
hyperbolic would be more accurate IMO.
Yeah, you only need to disclose your bias during jury selection, but even if you say that it wouldn't influence your decision, the lawyer for the plaintiff would probably say, "We thank and excuse juror number #". You are not sworn in here on POA, nor is it a court.
We will likely never see all the evidence. So trying to treat this like a court is a bit silly IMO
I think they are looking for people who don't have a preconceived notion about the case, and if they do, they need to make a judgment whether or not the person can recognize and put aside this bias to consider only the facts presented. If you want to call that "ignorance", OK. Of course, it also depends which side of the case the particular lawyer is on.
I would have reacted in the same way as the plaintiff's lawyer and not taken the chance with your friend.
And it has been shown that 86% of statistics are made up on the spot.
That certainly would reduce the number of threads on this website by about a factor of 100.
