Posted by Friend [Friend] on November 22, 1999 at 12:48:32 {k/.KBikg62ePXjHnUl.IOgnjR4Br/g}:
In Reply to: ***************AP and AF posted by Gedanken on November 18, 1999 at 16:58:43:
Gedanken
Greg, having been backed into a corner, has resorted to his last defense: "one cannot prove motivations."
Alan said he could prove intent. Intent is motivation.
I maintain that one can properly draw reasonable deductions, as you have, from observing how a person or an organization deals with "evidence."
I agree with that and so does Greg. Greg has not argued that Alan’s deductions are unreasonable. He has said that deductions are not enough to prove intent. Deductions can allow that we extrapolate intent/motivation but it does not prove it to the exclusion of mistakes, mistaken notions or incompetence.
If a lawyer defends an innocent man, is he defending only the truth or the man as well?
If an attorney is defending a man (innocent or not) then he is defending the man regardless of what is true or not. I do not so claim to defend the Society. If a man is guilty of some crime and it is proven then the defense is that of lessening the consequences. If a man is innocent then the defense is in proving that for others to see. However, there is no intrinsic corollary between defending an entity and defending truth by way of correcting error or determining error from fact. That is precisely what jurors are charged to do within the law. Jurors are supposed to weigh evidence and draw conclusions of innocence or guilt. If facts favor innocence then their action of pronouncing innocence amounts to defending truth and by extension a defendant. However, the jury does not pretend to pronounce innocence of any wrongdoing whatsoever but rather a particular charge, and that based upon evaluating pertinent information. So are my actions regarding various charges that arise concerning the Society or Jehovah’s witnesses. It is not a matter of defending any particular entity but rather accuracy (or factualness) of information.
Friend