Legally speaking people are innocent until proven guilty however socially speaking it’s the other way around.

[Clownworldcell]

Legally speaking people are guilty until proven innocent how ever socially speaking it’s the other way around

Legally speaking people are guilty until proven innocent how ever socially speaking it’s the other way around. When you look at it on the baasis of socially speaking people are useally guilty until proven innocent. The legal system is always going to be more fair than the social groups because the legal system will be dictated based on what’s objectively true in terms of with holding a verdict until the case has been proven or disproven.

Socially speaking it can all seem abit unfair because social groups are dictated based on belief more than they are based on the truth. The reason social groups are dictated based on beleif is because people in social
Groups will commonly expect someone in their social group to be honest meaning that if someone has a claim about someone they will be believed straight away because the people in that group are known to take sides of people in their group based on the beleif of their claim.

I find it incredibly unfair how people are guilty until proven innocent when looked at on the basis of social groups it’s what opens the doors for liars to To imply a lie like it’s the truth just to get the falsely accused to be socially excluded from social groups. The guilty until proven innocent logic is some
Thing that’s to easy for liars to exploit for their own personal gain because they know that the concept of beleif can be a bias topic that can get people to take the wrong side.

At the end of the day the objective always matters more than anything that’s subjective the truth is objective and beleif is subjective because everyone will process a topic differently to draw their own conclusions about what is a possibility to place their belief in.

 

[NuclearCel]

Any sense or logic (Legality in this case) is thrown out the window in social settings.

People claim that the world has changed and people themselves have changed for better but its always been the same dog eat dog world that it was way back in the day.

Truth is that, change is very hard for humans. Peoples stupid overly moral beliefs and their "feelings" still drive their actions in most situations when instead, it should be their logic.

The only thing left to say to our fellow earthlings is: Welcome to Clownworld, and we do hope you enjoy your stay.

 

[Clownworldcell]

Any sense or logic (Legality in this case) is thrown out the window in social settings.

People claim that the world has changed and people themselves have changed for better but its always been the same dog eat dog world that it was way back in the day.

Truth is that, change is very hard for humans. Peoples stupid overly moral beliefs and their "feelings" still drive their actions in most situations when instead, it should be their logic.

The only thing left to say to our fellow earthlings is: Welcome to Clownworld, and we do hope you enjoy your stay.

It’s counterproductive how people use their feelings and beliefs to drive their actions because they just end up being slaves to two concepts that can’t always be trusted for the right answer while still being slaves to their feelings and beliefs with out second thought it just opens up the door for the actions to be based on the wrong answer and this is why so many people end up useing mental gymnastics to do what they do based on their feelings and beliefs to imply that doing the wrong thing was actually the right thing. I agree that it should be logic that drives actions because that’s what gives someone a more fair way to process what they deal with while being able to be more clear of what’s right and wrong. The problem is that people won’t bother processing what they deal with if it requires effort so they will use what requires less effort that being a belief or their feelings to trust their being driven the right way when they’re not being driven the right way

 

[Zhou Chang-Xing]

Men are guilty until proven innocent, toilets are innocent even if proven guilty. As a man you can nevER win.

 

[wei#3959]

Murder them

 

[Chang Dragondick]

You being legally proven innocent still doesn't mean you're socially innocent and vice versa. You have a pretty boy who goes and kills a mother and child and you still see foids defending him to this day but meanwhile someone like Rittenhouse who was found innocent on all charges yet they still act like he gunned down an orphanage

 

[Clownworldcell]

You being legally proven innocent still doesn't mean you're socially innocent and vice versa. You have a pretty boy who goes and kills a mother and child and you still see foids defending him to this day but meanwhile someone like Rittenhouse who was found innocent on all charges yet they still act like he gunned down an orphanage

You make an extremely good based point by saying someone being legally proven innocent does not mean someone is socially innocent. When someone is legally proven innocent they avoid jail being in jail yet they still have to face the social consequences of being villainised by people who still want to label the innocent as guilty no matter how much proof they’re is to prove the innocence. The problem that can not be eradicated is that they’re will always be people who follow the narrative based on an absurd beleif while clearly showing a disregard for how import it is to dictate a case based on evidence

 

[Indari]

ugly men are pedophile rapists until proven innocent

 

[Fierycel]

Legally speaking people are guilty until proven innocent how ever socially speaking it’s the other way around

Legally speaking people are guilty until proven innocent how ever socially speaking it’s the other way around. When you look at it on the baasis of socially speaking people are useally guilty until proven innocent. The legal system is always going to be more fair than the social groups because the legal system will be dictated based on what’s objectively true in terms of with holding a verdict until the case has been proven or disproven.

Socially speaking it can all seem abit unfair because social groups are dictated based on belief more than they are based on the truth. The reason social groups are dictated based on beleif is because people in social
Groups will commonly expect someone in their social group to be honest meaning that if someone has a claim about someone they will be believed straight away because the people in that group are known to take sides of people in their group based on the beleif of their claim.

I find it incredibly unfair how people are guilty until proven innocent when looked at on the basis of social groups it’s what opens the doors for liars to To imply a lie like it’s the truth just to get the falsely accused to be socially excluded from social groups. The guilty until proven innocent logic is some
Thing that’s to easy for liars to exploit for their own personal gain because they know that the concept of beleif can be a bias topic that can get people to take the wrong side.

At the end of the day the objective always matters more than anything that’s subjective the truth is objective and beleif is subjective because everyone will process a topic differently to draw their own conclusions about what is a possibility to place their belief in.

awesome thread

 

[mrlunatic]

Should I post this on r/showerthoughts

 

[LeFrenchCel]

High IQ

 

[kek1]

Soycially speaking, you are guilty until they are incinerated into ashes which sets you free

 

[homicidalretard]

Legally speaking people are guilty until proven innocent how ever socially speaking it’s the other way around

Legally speaking people are guilty until proven innocent how ever socially speaking it’s the other way around. When you look at it on the baasis of socially speaking people are useally guilty until proven innocent. The legal system is always going to be more fair than the social groups because the legal system will be dictated based on what’s objectively true in terms of with holding a verdict until the case has been proven or disproven.

Socially speaking it can all seem abit unfair because social groups are dictated based on belief more than they are based on the truth. The reason social groups are dictated based on beleif is because people in social
Groups will commonly expect someone in their social group to be honest meaning that if someone has a claim about someone they will be believed straight away because the people in that group are known to take sides of people in their group based on the beleif of their claim.

I find it incredibly unfair how people are guilty until proven innocent when looked at on the basis of social groups it’s what opens the doors for liars to To imply a lie like it’s the truth just to get the falsely accused to be socially excluded from social groups. The guilty until proven innocent logic is some
Thing that’s to easy for liars to exploit for their own personal gain because they know that the concept of beleif can be a bias topic that can get people to take the wrong side.

At the end of the day the objective always matters more than anything that’s subjective the truth is objective and beleif is subjective because everyone will process a topic differently to draw their own conclusions about what is a possibility to place their belief in.

Should I post this on r/showerthoughts

Honestly it might be interesting to see how normies react to this. They may even agree to an extent if you don’t mention any incel/blackpill related shit.

 

[based_meme]

Good post. Belongs in Lounge.

Some greys can make strong posts. NAG (Not All GrAYcels).

 

[Incedel]

The Court of Opinion only recognizes the Halo law, where the attractive are innocent till proven guilty and uglies are guilty until proven innocent but they are still guilty,