That's an entirely distinct thing. Law is a subset of morality, and application of the law by trial to impose a punishment must be done with a very high burden of proof in favor of the presumption of innocence, because without doing so, you end up being a criminal yourself, which is strictly immoral (because it is aggressive). I did not make any claim implying in any way that this should be removed for NVK. Are you uneducated in law and ethics, stupid, or just dishonest?
Replies (3)
Simply acknowledging that someone is evil (or that they are an aggressor, an even stronger claim) and deciding to ignore them and never give them money again nor any public endorsement of any kind, is a reasonable and perfectly compatible thing to do with grace and with these legal principles.
I just think calling someone "evil" should probably have roughly the same bar as calling someone a criminal. Innocent until proven guilty is how I want people to treat me, so I try to treat other people that way.
By the way, I really love your false trilemma there, it's such a pleasure to converse with nice, rational people like you.
I have verified NVK is what I consider evil. Or maybe you just don't like getting called out when you're wrong and that's the principle you're standing by (along with the Golden Rule - respect for that honestly). But I would prefer to get called out when someone is reasonably sure that I'm being wrong or evil. If you don't embrace that once you've understood this dynamic, then you are effectively choosing to be a worse person. It's not a false trilemma. I'm just correct.
