... someone projects a socially unpopular agenda upon someone else simply because they are incapable of imagining a scenario in which that agenda is not the case and an alternative motivation has not been expressly offered, or worse, they can sometimes even flatly disbelieve an alternative motivation when it is offered.
It was flatly denied that it was racially motivated. Why should that have not then been the end of things in the absence of any proof beyond the initial allegation that it was?
Why should that have not then been the end of things in the absence of any proof beyond the initial allegation that it was?
From the article: "Beard was paid about 15 per cent of what he should have received under his agreement with IBM, despite a company policy not to cap sales commissions."
There's an old saying: “When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” To relate this to the situation at hand, it wasn't a contractual issue regarding pay or commission, it wasn't for any other valid reason (or presumably that reason would have been made explicit)
When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
Obviously.
But what the truth may not necessariily be included in the information that you have available, and worse, you may not be aware that you do not have this information, or may disbelieve that there could be additional information. To conclude such a thing, you must have enough information about the matter such that it must be provably impossible for there to be any factors other than th
It may very well be a personal matter, one that they aren't eager to discuss or disclose, but that doesn't mean it was necessarily racism.
I completely agree with your last point but, given the situation i.e. senior professional managers discussing an employee's performance, a 'reluctance' to discuss other potential factors is, to say the least, hard to understand.
In this particular case, I have no additional information. To flip the question, however, what are you seemingly reluctant to consider that it was some other reason, as he said?
As I said, I'm not party to any additional information either. However I thought it was pretty clear that I had considered the possibility of there being another reason, but discounted it because they were reportedly unable or unwilling to state what that reason was. The judgement of
"I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God"
... they were reportedly unable or unwilling to state what that reason was.
Isn't that on you, or the court?
I kind of assumed the court did consider the question, and were 'unsatisfied' by the answers, or lack thereof, they received.
The logical extension of this kind of reasoning is that any accused person, regardless of crime, must be assumed to be guilty by their peers and the courts until evidence has surfaced that can reasonable vindicate them by creating sufficient doubt about their guilt.
Fortunately all cases are considered on their individual merits, in respect of the relevant legislation. I'm generally uncomfortable with overarching 'legal precedence' for precisely this reason, especially as some, historically, seem to run completely counter to the actual law. Courts are not, and were never intended to be, creators of the law, just the interpreters of legislation and how is applied to a specific case - after all, courts are not democratic bodies unlike legislatures.
That said, once we're into the whole issue of courts and legislation... grey areas! Library shelves groan under the weight of treatises on the subject, and I don't intend to analyse or (ignorantly) add to them here.
If a person expressly says under oath that the motive that is being concluded was not relevant...
... then under that oath (ignoring the notion of the 5th for the moment) they should explain it, when asked to. Then the court can consider it.
I don't think this possibility passes the 'sniff test'.
Right.... so if a person smells guilty, then they must be. What a wonderful justice system you endorse there.
I wouldn't take my shorthand vernacular as an explicit endorsement of a particular view of the justice system in general. Innocent until proven guilty is a wonderful basis for a criminal justice system, one that sadly seems lacking in this current day and age of populist outrage.
See my point?
Yes, and it is a fair one. I'm not sure it's completely justified, but I consider it wise to listen to and consider warnings against overreach, when given in good faith.
It's one thing when they don't outright deny the accusation, even if you don't have any logically definitive proof of it, but in a fair justice system, it is imperative that *WHEN* they do, that denial should be considered as at least in equal weight to that of the original accusation itself.
I would say that the available evidence should determine the respective weight of the competing claims, not the mere fact that the claim was made. It is the (apparent) lack of evidence for the claim that there was another reason that presumably was the basis of the court's decision to award damages.
I really object to it when... (Score:2)
It was flatly denied that it was racially motivated. Why should that have not then been the end of things in the absence of any proof beyond the initial allegation that it was?
Re: (Score:2)
Why should that have not then been the end of things in the absence of any proof beyond the initial allegation that it was?
From the article: "Beard was paid about 15 per cent of what he should have received under his agreement with IBM, despite a company policy not to cap sales commissions."
There's an old saying: “When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” To relate this to the situation at hand, it wasn't a contractual issue regarding pay or commission, it wasn't for any other valid reason (or presumably that reason would have been made explicit)
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously.
But what the truth may not necessariily be included in the information that you have available, and worse, you may not be aware that you do not have this information, or may disbelieve that there could be additional information. To conclude such a thing, you must have enough information about the matter such that it must be provably impossible for there to be any factors other than th
Re: (Score:2)
It may very well be a personal matter, one that they aren't eager to discuss or disclose, but that doesn't mean it was necessarily racism.
I completely agree with your last point but, given the situation i.e. senior professional managers discussing an employee's performance, a 'reluctance' to discuss other potential factors is, to say the least, hard to understand.
In this particular case, I have no additional information. To flip the question, however, what are you seemingly reluctant to consider that it was some other reason, as he said?
As I said, I'm not party to any additional information either. However I thought it was pretty clear that I had considered the possibility of there being another reason, but discounted it because they were reportedly unable or unwilling to state what that reason was. The judgement of
Re: (Score:2)
That's a pretty far far from the position of "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever is remaining must be the truth", however.
Isn't that on you, or the court? The logical extension of this kind of reasoning is that any accused person, regardless of crime, must be assumed to
Re:I really object to it when... (Score:2)
"I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God"
... they were reportedly unable or unwilling to state what that reason was.
Isn't that on you, or the court?
I kind of assumed the court did consider the question, and were 'unsatisfied' by the answers, or lack thereof, they received.
The logical extension of this kind of reasoning is that any accused person, regardless of crime, must be assumed to be guilty by their peers and the courts until evidence has surfaced that can reasonable vindicate them by creating sufficient doubt about their guilt.
Fortunately all cases are considered on their individual merits, in respect of the relevant legislation. I'm generally uncomfortable with overarching 'legal precedence' for precisely this reason, especially as some, historically, seem to run completely counter to the actual law. Courts are not, and were never intended to be, creators of the law, just the interpreters of legislation and how is applied to a specific case - after all, courts are not democratic bodies unlike legislatures.
That said, once we're into the whole issue of courts and legislation ... grey areas! Library shelves groan under the weight of treatises on the subject, and I don't intend to analyse or (ignorantly) add to them here.
If a person expressly says under oath that the motive that is being concluded was not relevant...
... then under that oath (ignoring the notion of the 5th for the moment) they should explain it, when asked to. Then the court can consider it.
I don't think this possibility passes the 'sniff test'.
Right.... so if a person smells guilty, then they must be. What a wonderful justice system you endorse there.
I wouldn't take my shorthand vernacular as an explicit endorsement of a particular view of the justice system in general. Innocent until proven guilty is a wonderful basis for a criminal justice system, one that sadly seems lacking in this current day and age of populist outrage.
See my point?
Yes, and it is a fair one. I'm not sure it's completely justified, but I consider it wise to listen to and consider warnings against overreach, when given in good faith.
It's one thing when they don't outright deny the accusation, even if you don't have any logically definitive proof of it, but in a fair justice system, it is imperative that *WHEN* they do, that denial should be considered as at least in equal weight to that of the original accusation itself.
I would say that the available evidence should determine the respective weight of the competing claims, not the mere fact that the claim was made. It is the (apparent) lack of evidence for the claim that there was another reason that presumably was the basis of the court's decision to award damages.