Cam and Auburn cleared

[2jakefansinva]

OJ was just the first person that popped in my head when you think of someone that was "innocent" but many thought otherwise.

You name a person not named Casey Anthony or OJ that everyone can point to.

OJ's not "innocent".......................he was found Not Guilty.

[HeatCheck]

OJ's not "innocent".......................he was found Not Guilty.

Semantics. But makes my point even better. Cam and Auburn were found not guilty of any charges.

Because you directly made the comparison to the OJ case. A case where the accused (who was found not guilty) had TONS of evidence against him and was let off by what many now understand as the tactic of "jury nullification".

Now, please, point out to me the TONS of evidence against Cam Newton in the Newton NCAA case. They interviewed 80 people and examined bank records, tax records, investment records, church records, EVERYTHING. And then gave this ruling. Where is the TON of evidence?

See what I'm saying? You're comparison is pathetic. Its a comparison the haters grabbed onto for dear life as soon as the NCAA ruling came down. You're not a hater? Good. I didn't think you were. But you grasped on to the same weak, inaccurate comparison that the haters have. Understand?

When I originally posted the OJ comparison someone came at me saying 'you're innocent proven until guilty.' All I said was OJ was innocent because he wasn't proven guilty but that doesn't mean he didn't do it. That's all I am saying. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

[tiger7_88]

When I originally posted the OJ comparison someone came at me saying 'you're innocent proven until guilty.' All I said was OJ was innocent because he wasn't proven guilty but that doesn't mean he didn't do it. That's all I am saying. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

I understand what you are TRYING to say, but I'm just giving you friendly advise that it is a ridiculous comparison because its "over the top".

Kind of like walking in your childs room, noticing its messy, and telling him/her "I haven't seen this big a mess since the Twin Towers fell on 9/11."

A more apt comparison can be made. Just because a comparison at on a shallow level may be accurate doesn't mean that its appropriate.

And, again, its the first thing the "haters" hung their hat on. If you don't want to sound like a "hater" (because you're not), you should stop using their language.

[blackcatgrowl]

Semantics. But makes my point even better. Cam and Auburn were found not guilty of nay charges.

When I originally posted the OJ comparison someone came at me saying 'you're innocent proven until guilty.' All I said was OJ was innocent because he wasn't proven guilty but that doesn't mean he didn't do it. That's all I am saying. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

:nonod:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance.

Burden of Proof in this scenario:

LSUFreak fan: "I think Cam Newton engaged in a Pay for Play scheme"

NCAA: "What is your proof?"

RadioKiller: "None, but that's just a lack of evidence!"

[HeatCheck]

Sorry, it was just the first thing that came to mind.

Would people have gotten as upset if people used Casey Anthony?

[blackcatgrowl]

Everybody is guilty of something, getting caught, almost getting caught, not getting caught. Good kids are guilty of something and good kids learn and grow.

Sure. Traffic tickets and having a stolen laptop is stuff like that.

But that's a little bit different in scale and impact to telling a school you want $180,000 to come play for them.

[Jangler]

proof? link? anything?

[blackcatgrowl]

Sorry, it was just the first thing that came to mind.

Would people have gotten as upset if people used Casey Anthony?

Yeah. Probably.

But it definitely wouldn't be a double wammy like an OJ comparison, because many people believe he was aquitted on racially motivated grounds.

[blackcatgrowl]

proof? link? anything?

Of what?

I'm not saying Newton was guilty. I'm just saying the accusation is different in scale.

[HeatCheck]

LSUFreak fan: "I think Cam Newton engaged in a Pay for Play scheme"

NCAA: "What is your proof?"

RadioKiller: "None, but that's just a lack of evidence!"

Not what I am saying. I understand where the burden of proof lies. I personally don't have any concrete evidence because I am not doing the investigating. And that's another thing you have to take into account. This is the NCAA, not the government, not the FBI. I am just connecting the dots. Cecil admitted to pay for play. Miss St. was in play but Cam chose to go to Auburn.

[Jangler]

I knew there was a reason I didn't open this thread.

[blackcatgrowl]

I knew there was a reason I didn't open this thread.

You used to have so much fire Jangler... what's happened?

[tiger7_88]

Sorry, it was just the first thing that came to mind.

Would people have gotten as upset if people used Casey Anthony?

I don't know about "people", but the principle would still be the same.

Guilty people walk out of court rooms every day... peruse the news, you'll find one more appropriate rather than a vicious knife murderer or a mom who killed her own kid. :lol:

[tiger7_88]

I am just connecting the dots. Cecil admitted to pay for play. Miss St. was in play but Cam chose to go to Auburn.

That is ONE rational conclusion. But just because that is ONE rational conclusion doesn't mean it is THE rational conclusion. But its the one many anti-Cam folk like to use because why? Because it puts him and his Dad in the worst possible light.

How about the Daddy Cecil "Oh-fug-what-the-hell-have-I-done-I-better-make-the-best-of-what-I-can-and-go-to-Auburn" scenario? Wouldn't that also be a rational conclusion based on the only evidence that we DO know?