The evidence that is put forth on an issue is realistically as good as the people are willing to accept. Spencer may put out evidence that disproves the existence of Muhammad; others, including many non-Muslims, could put out their own evidence proving that he did exist.posted @ Friday, December 7, 2012 - 15:50
Point 1: "alleged peeping Tom"
Point 2: "but police said but a cashier saw the man reach under the skirt"
Point 3: "If identified, the man faces a peeping Tom charge."
Point 1: The meaning of the word "alleged" is that the person is only thought to have committed the crime. This means there is not enough clear evidence to determine that the person actually committed the crime.
Point 2 suggests that the cashier saw the man in the picture performing the crime. However, this is the cashier's word against the man's. There is no clear evidence that the man committed this crime. The only clear evidence that could definitely prove that this man was a peeping Tom is the picture that this man was said to have "allegedly" taken with his cell phone; or if there was any images/video that showed the man engaging in this act.
In light of Point 1 and 2, Point 3 does not make any sense. How can this man face a charge if there is no clear evidence against him? The article does not state that any clear indication was found that the man committed this crime; the only cited evidence is eyewitness testimony from 2 people (the victim and the cashier) who work together in the same store and thus have a higher probability of knowing one another than if the witness was, for example, a customer at the Wal-Mart. When two people know one another, there is a higher chance that the two people can conspire and "witness" the same thing than if the people do not know one another. I am not saying that the people in this case did that. I'm saying that there is a higher probability that it could occur.
However, this man's picture is placed on the news article as if he committed the crime and the police are highly sure of it. People are already accusing this man of being the peeping Tom even though there is a possibility that he may not have done it.
Personally, I feel a bit uncomfortable that this man's picture was put into the news article. Though the paper has the freedom of speech right to do so, since the man gave consent for the picture by entering the store, the association that will be made with the man and the peeping Tom incident is one that is open to a lot of unjust possibilities. Suppose someone knows this man and retaliates in anger against him. Suppose this man is an innocent person, but now on the word of two people (without any clear evidence) he has to come into the police station, get searched, and give a big statement. He will have to deal with a court date and all the headaches of court.
I think in the United States, sexual and racial issues are taken in a very serious, jumpy manner. On these two issues, it appears that people tend to take action first and ask questions later. The DSK case is a notable example that comes to mind.
I don't know...I wonder how this incident will play out.posted @ Friday, December 7, 2012 - 15:27
Summary: I'm not saying it's lonely to be a movie critic, but we often find ourselves seated alone in an empty theatre when we're watching new stuff. I know people who say they won't go see anything unless they have at least one other person to go with, but I've always enjoyed having the place to myself. I'm not saying it's lonely to be a movie critic, but we often find ourselves seated alone in an empty theatre when we're watching new stuff. I know people who say they won't go see anything unless they have at least one other person to go with, but I've always enjoyed having the place to myself. read more