Cranky armchair wonk and word nerd.
@Soggy You haven’t answered my question. What is your proposed alternative to “allowing religion to continue to fester”? Some kind of police state? Laws against religion? Who will create and enforce such laws, in a democratic society with many religious people? Or do you propose an armed coup? What?
Removed by mod
@iThinkDifferentThanU Please grow up.
Removed by mod
@Jhex GOP voters: Challenge accepted.
deleted by creator
@teyrnon Something that’s very easy to look up if you have Internet access.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
@wavebeam Are people actually suggesting that?
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
@railway692 ‘More likely than not’ is part of the operant doctrine of a grand jury. An indictment is brought if the grand jury believes that a conviction is possible. In fact, even the grand jury won’t happen unless a prosecutor and DA also believe that.
The standard of evidence for that is less than that required for a conviction, but greater than mere suspicion.
You are trying to argue a case ahead of trial. Your dispute is based on the discrepancy between different standards of evidence.
@railway692 Put another way, it’s about different registers of forensics. What you and I and Snopes can directly verify about this would not be sufficient for conviction, by itself. But a reasonable person would conclude from secondary evidence that it’s LIKELY to be true, and that would be sufficient to indict, for a trial that might produce much more solid evidence than WE’VE seen so far. A grand jury would almost certainly indict based on what we all DO know so far.
@railway692 Not at all. This is about rules of evidence, and I used the OED comparison very deliberately, because they work the same way. OED is scrupulous about verifiable examples in print, and is a very reliable source for that. But it’s much less useful for what many people consult it for: etymology. OED doesn’t do that, but many people think they do, and misinterpret what they read there.
Snopes is solidly driven by verifiable facts. But the full truth is often beyond verifiable facts.
@itsathursday@lemmy.world Your question is actually answered – or at least implied – in the article, if you bothered to read it.
Your comment is like the ones I see from teenagers, “HoW cAn BlInD pEoPle ReAd?” It doesn’t make you sound smart or clever. Very much the opposite.