... 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?
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?
Because money. Because it was a Seattle jury trial and the lawyers are smart. All you need to do is convince the jury. Proof is not required.
I have to believe there were other sales of similar size in the same time frame. What were the commissions on them? Was there a white salesman who got "only" $230K for a sale? Way too many unknowns to assume the reason for the difference was based on race.
Lots of criminals flatly deny committing crimes. This is why we have courts and juries, to determine if the person was lying. The whole concept of mens rea in criminal law is about a guilty mind, I.e. What the person was thinking. If we can manage it for criminal law, we can manage it for civil cases too.
Anyway since you didn't quote anything about the case it's clear you have no idea what the evidence was or the legal arguments. You're just reflexively denying racism because it seems you have a vested inte
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
I think you're confusing legal systems here. This article is about a US Civil case, not a US Criminal case. In a Criminal court of law there is a prosecution and defendant. The prosecuting side represents a government and the defendant is whoever stands accused. In a Criminal case the prosecution must prove the elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt to a Jury to obtain a guilty verdict. In a Civil case the Preponderance of Evidence is what usually what decides a case.
Does the mere unawareness of what else the reason might have been really constitute"a preponderance of evidence"?
If a person swears, under oath, that there was some other reason but declines to give what that reason is, the only "preponderance of evidence" that can objectively give rise to the conclusion they are lying is if there is some additional testimony beyond the initial allegation that can give credible reason to be skeptical of their claim. Reasonably, the sworn testimony that it was not racial
If the Jury feels like one side of the litigation has worked to determine what caused the breach of contract and has come to a conclusion that is reasonable, and the other side just denies it without offering any plausible alternatives, then yes. That is a preponderance of evidence because most or all of the evidence points one way, with a plain denial against it, with no supporting evidence. It is an incredibly dumb way to try and defend a lawsuit, but like I said it is entirely possible something else was
Sure, if there is some basis for substantiating that cause of the breach beyond the presentation of facts which can as easily as not be entirely irrelevant.
Consider:
Fact 1. Person X was objectively treated unfairly
Fact 2. Person X has a particular race, particular sex, orientation, etc.
Hypothesis: Fact 2 caused fact 1.
Fact 3: Hypothesis is denied.
Now it stands to reason that at this point you have to raise some doubt to the veracity of the denial to pursue it further. The mere fact that no o
What good is a ticket to the good life, if you can't find the entrance?
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:1)
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?
Because money. Because it was a Seattle jury trial and the lawyers are smart. All you need to do is convince the jury. Proof is not required.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of criminals flatly deny committing crimes. This is why we have courts and juries, to determine if the person was lying. The whole concept of mens rea in criminal law is about a guilty mind, I.e. What the person was thinking. If we can manage it for criminal law, we can manage it for civil cases too.
Anyway since you didn't quote anything about the case it's clear you have no idea what the evidence was or the legal arguments. You're just reflexively denying racism because it seems you have a vested inte
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: (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
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're confusing legal systems here. This article is about a US Civil case, not a US Criminal case. In a Criminal court of law there is a prosecution and defendant. The prosecuting side represents a government and the defendant is whoever stands accused. In a Criminal case the prosecution must prove the elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt to a Jury to obtain a guilty verdict. In a Civil case the Preponderance of Evidence is what usually what decides a case.
Once the accusing party in a Civi
Re: (Score:2)
Does the mere unawareness of what else the reason might have been really constitute"a preponderance of evidence"?
If a person swears, under oath, that there was some other reason but declines to give what that reason is, the only "preponderance of evidence" that can objectively give rise to the conclusion they are lying is if there is some additional testimony beyond the initial allegation that can give credible reason to be skeptical of their claim. Reasonably, the sworn testimony that it was not racial
Re: (Score:2)
If the Jury feels like one side of the litigation has worked to determine what caused the breach of contract and has come to a conclusion that is reasonable, and the other side just denies it without offering any plausible alternatives, then yes. That is a preponderance of evidence because most or all of the evidence points one way, with a plain denial against it, with no supporting evidence. It is an incredibly dumb way to try and defend a lawsuit, but like I said it is entirely possible something else was
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, if there is some basis for substantiating that cause of the breach beyond the presentation of facts which can as easily as not be entirely irrelevant.
Consider:
Fact 1. Person X was objectively treated unfairly
Fact 2. Person X has a particular race, particular sex, orientation, etc.
Hypothesis: Fact 2 caused fact 1.
Fact 3: Hypothesis is denied.
Now it stands to reason that at this point you have to raise some doubt to the veracity of the denial to pursue it further. The mere fact that no o