Rykk wrote:

> > Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> >> Point: people go on and on about what "cannot" be known, but don't
> >> even "know" (or ask) the legal status of the average person for it to
> >> make any practical difference, nor do posters conduct background
> >> checks on random strangers around them regarding their legal status
> >> to "know".
>
> Presumed innocence Eric.  What you are talking about is a violation of
> presumed innocence.

A simple background check is a violation of presumed innocence? Should they
be outlawed, then? Should news identifying parties in criminal cases be
banned? Should all convicted criminals be given new identities or put under
government protection after release because they have served their debt to
society, and do not deserve any of the public stigma and worse, which could
result if they and their crimes were known?

So how is being DELIBERATELY ignorant of what CAN be known (physical
criminal records) any better than allegedly not being able to know the
actual truth, as people directly involved in a criminal case (criminal,
surviving victims, witnesses) may know? Why do you and the two others get
caught up in this "metaphysical" or beyond the senses argument at all?

--
 "I'm on top of the world right now, because everyone's going to know that
I can shove more than three burgers in my mouth!"