The actual facts of the case are relevant I’m just pointing out hypocrisy in the comment section.
I have no great love for Trump nor for Kevin Spacey. I’m just saying you can’t be 100% convinced that Trump did it while being unconvinced of Kevin space is acquittal.
Either you trust the legal system or you don’t.
Therefore if you doubt Kevin spacey’s acquittal then you must also doubt Donald Trump’s conviction.
I can trust that there is corruption in the court system for the rich and powerful. Therefore a trial for Trump that seems clearly biased and poorly handled may go in his favor. A trial for some actor may be biased as well, but less in his favor. Additionally if the evidence is strong for one trial and week for another, I’m taking that into account!
The logic is sound. The courts can convict someone as powerful and well connected as Trump, the current (unfortunately) president of the United States that should lend more Credence to spaces acquittal.
Maybe a slightly different example will help understand the logic?
Let’s say NewsCorpA likes Trump and Spacey.
NewsCorpA publishes their usual stuff saying they’re both cool and good, but one day they post an article saying Trump did something bad. Because they have every reason to like Trump it seems more likely to me that the article has a genuine criticism (not to say their reasoning is good. E.g. He’s not racist enough), but that doesn’t have any bearing on the other, usual, articles about Spacey.
In other words it’s kinda the inverse of “if someone hates someone and says something nice about them, it’s probably genuine” so kinda “if someone likes someone and says something bad about them, it’s probably genuine”
The actual facts of the case are relevant I’m just pointing out hypocrisy in the comment section.
I have no great love for Trump nor for Kevin Spacey. I’m just saying you can’t be 100% convinced that Trump did it while being unconvinced of Kevin space is acquittal.
Either you trust the legal system or you don’t.
Therefore if you doubt Kevin spacey’s acquittal then you must also doubt Donald Trump’s conviction.
The logic here is flawed. For example:
I can trust that there is corruption in the court system for the rich and powerful. Therefore a trial for Trump that seems clearly biased and poorly handled may go in his favor. A trial for some actor may be biased as well, but less in his favor. Additionally if the evidence is strong for one trial and week for another, I’m taking that into account!
The logic is sound. The courts can convict someone as powerful and well connected as Trump, the current (unfortunately) president of the United States that should lend more Credence to spaces acquittal.
How does that not make sense?
Maybe a slightly different example will help understand the logic?
Let’s say NewsCorpA likes Trump and Spacey.
NewsCorpA publishes their usual stuff saying they’re both cool and good, but one day they post an article saying Trump did something bad. Because they have every reason to like Trump it seems more likely to me that the article has a genuine criticism (not to say their reasoning is good. E.g. He’s not racist enough), but that doesn’t have any bearing on the other, usual, articles about Spacey.
In other words it’s kinda the inverse of “if someone hates someone and says something nice about them, it’s probably genuine” so kinda “if someone likes someone and says something bad about them, it’s probably genuine”
Of course hypocrisy is almost always present when discussing politics.
I think the main problem here is false equivalence. Separate people, separate cases and in some cases separate legal systems.
I will concede to this there’s definitely false equivalency here you’re absolutely correct.
Kudos for admitting this reflection.