Tim Ballard

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

But we are discussing legal issues here.

Not entirely. Not even mostly. There are a lot of things being discussed in this thread.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

A lawyer publicly read a letter about her client's allegations against Tim.  I think we are "in a legal context."

For that one issue, but the lawyer's letter is a minor part of this 20+ page thread.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

The principles of law I am laying out here matter, or ought to matter.  A lot.

Why? Why are principles of law more important than other principles? Again, this thread contains much more than legal issues. It is true that you have consistently applied legal reasoning and principles here, but that doesn't make this thread solely about the law. In my previous post and in this one, I'm questioning the warrant of your argument: why are the principles of the law more important than other principles that guide human knowledge, understanding, judgement, and decision making?

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Then let's take whatever usefulness we can get out of legal reasoning, principles, etc.  

Sure. And we can take the usefulness of other types of reasoning and principles, too, since this is not a court of law and much more is going on than just legal issues (the OP had nothing to do with the law). My discomfort is that you shoot down other types of reasoning by saying they are not legal reasoning/argument/etc. See my quotes above of you doing this.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I can appreciate that.  But here, the discussion is about legal issues, so I think "the law" can and ought to be discussed and applied.  Not exclusively, but it should play a fairly substantial role in the discussion.

Again, this 20+ page thread has much more than just discussion about legal issues. You have pushed the discussion towards legal issues. It didn't have to go that way.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Legal reasoning can also be illuminating. 

I do not deny this. But it can still also be limiting.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Many principles of law are not just made up for no reason.

I never claimed that they were. One of my bachelor's degrees is in philosophy. My philosophy department also offered a degree in "Justice, Political Philosophy, and Law." Mine was the general philosophy degree, but I took many classes that dealt with the law in the philosophy, political science, and history departments.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

They have been developed and refined over many centuries by attorneys, judges, appellate courts, and legislatures.

Many other fields have also been developed and refined over the centuries by their respective authorities. Poetry comes to mind.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

These principles are used to to sort out precisely the kind of disputes as what we are discussing here. 

Again, there is more going on in this 20+ page thread than legal issues. I know you choose to look at most things through a legal lens, but that doesn't mean that they are inherently legal.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I suspect it will be just a matter of time before someone files a lawsuit against someone else, and when that happens all of the issues I am raising will be brought into even more of a focus.

No disagreement here.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I would prefer to first assess what allegations have been made, and what evidence exists to support those allegations. 

And there are many more ways to do this than just relying on the reasoning of the US legal system.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am less interested in musing on the foibles of Tim Ballard or anyone else, not when we don't even know what those foibles are, or if they have been distorted, embellished, or even fabricated.

Do you enjoy reading/watching Shakespeare? He's all about the foibles of humanity. And somehow we recognize them in his plays without having to resort to legal reasoning. Perhaps we can recognize them in others without having to use the law, too.

Edited September 30, 2023 by MiserereNobis

[MiserereNobis]

28 minutes ago, halconero said:

Only because I get so few opportunities to bring up regression analysis on this board that smac gets all the fun.

I'd love to see you apply regression analysis on almost every thread! Start tracking the variables now  

[Calm]

11 hours ago, ttribe said:

Meanwhile, the Cult of Tim Ballard is taking off:
 

 

I watched the other video they have.  “Religion is politics”.  Not a good starting point for judgement. 
 

These videos are such an excellent example of how not to use scripture.  Their logic…Tim Ballard says human traffickers are present at every disaster and war site, yet the Church has said and done nothing about it.  Therefore the Church must be part of the human trafficking network.  If you are not with us, you are against us.

My guess is they aren’t paying attention and only see the UN armbands that are the modern mark of Satan apparently.

That they are smiling and laughing as they consign their leaders to hell is very disturbing. 

The daughter is a returned missionary and it doesn’t sound that recent, so my guess is she is mid twenties.

I bet they are very nice neighbors and go the extra mile to help those they see in need.  So sad to see the world as such an evil place.

Edited September 30, 2023 by Calm

[The Nehor]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

This sort of "I wouldn't put it past him" speculation is fine for gossip and casual conversation, but it doesn't work in a legal context.

I am not.  To state "X is not inculpatory evidence" is not equivalent to "X is exculpatory evidence."

I am applying the normative principles of evidence and legal reasoning here.

When when false or embellished allegations of misconduct pop up, the same thing course of events can happen.  Hence the need to examine evidence, rather than just assume - as you appear to do - that anonymous allegations of misconduct are evidence unto themselves.  You can, of course, think that for yourself, but that's not how the legal process works. 

And I doubt you would be so cavalierly confident of guilt if you or someone you know were in the crosshairs of anonymously-sourced-but-published-to-the-world-and-largely-unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct.

It is also possible that he resigned for related reasons.  Perhaps there is some truth to the allegations of financial impropriety and/or misuse of Pres. Ballard's name.  Or perhaps Tim is substantively innocent of the allegations, but has nevertheless got on the wrong side of enough people at OUR that they (and/or he) felt that him continuing to work there was not practicable.  Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.  Maybe, maybe, maybe.

We need more evidence.

This is not a legal argument.  

This is not a legal argument, either.

Is Tim Ballard supposed to go around and police the free speech of anyone who references his name and may support his efforts in some sense?  I doubt it.

Thanks,

-Smac

I doubt most of these complaints of sexual misconduct are prosecutable at all so acting like this is all headed to a legal trial is just being silly.

If I were in the crosshairs of such an event I would wonder what I could possibly have done to cause seven women who probably don’t all know each other to publish that I had manipulated them into what felt like coerced sexual activity. Especially when the result of them making these allegations is likely to just hurt them and their families if they are identified and odds are high at least some of them will be identified at some point. If one woman did it I might think she is just unbalanced or vengeful over some perceived slight. When it is seven people that he hired or invited to go on these “stings” he is either a magnet for the unhinged or (more likely) he is the problem. I would be more skeptical if the people making the allegations could expect some social or economic gain but that is just not the case here.

[Peacefully]

16 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

We’re not in a court of law here. Legal reasoning is required in a legal context. Legal reasoning can be helpful in other contexts. It can also, however, be downright disastrous in a non-legal context (I’m sure you can come up with such examples). 

I do appreciate the perspective and point-of-view you bring to the board and always have. I also think there are times when you lean too heavily on the law for reasoning and examples. So much in life cannot be encapsulated by the law, and legal reasoning can at times be downright limiting. 
 

Perhaps we could apply poetry to this situation. The hubris of Macbeth comes to mind. Or perhaps Sir John Falstaff’s charisma and intelligence (and wordplay) and how he uses them to cover his dishonesty. Shakespeare can certainly weigh in on what humans do, and what we experience in ways that legal reasoning cannot even approach.

Perfect! We aren’t all lawyers here and a healthy discussion doesn’t require it:) I’m not a big conversationalist so I often prefer to read what others have written without comment. I’m even less inclined to engage when the thread turns into a legal discourse. 

[bluebell]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

I watched the other video they have.  “Religion is politics”.  Not a good starting point for judgement. 
 

These videos are such an excellent example of how not to use scripture.  Their logic…Tim Ballard says human traffickers are present at every disaster and war site, yet the Church has said and done nothing about it.  Therefore the Church must be part of the human trafficking network.  If you are not with us, you are against us.

My guess is they aren’t paying attention and only see the UN armbands that are the modern mark of Satan apparently.

That they are smiling and laughing as they consign their leaders to hell is very disturbing. 

The daughter is a returned missionary and it doesn’t sound that recent, so my guess is she is mid twenties.

I bet they are very nice neighbors and go the extra mile to help those they see in need.  So sad to see the world as such an evil place.

It's interesting to me how the mountain west really seems to breed these kinds of thinkers.  It's not the church turning people into this, as I was just having an online discussion with someone in the comments on a Facebook post about the Cody temple--someone who was very much not in favor of the temple and assigning all sorts of evil motives to the church and members--who also went off about how UNICEF and Red Cross as evil (and it proves the church is too because the church works with them so often).

Maybe it's because so many in the mountain west states feel separated and at odds with the government in DC and also feel bullied by the cities (which have more political power than they do, are also liberal, and often create policies and laws that are unfriendly to western states unique issues) so it's easy to start to believe that all large organizations are out to get them?

[kllindley]

32 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Maybe it's because so many in the mountain west states feel separated and at odds with the government in DC and also feel bullied by the cities (which have more political power than they do, are also liberal, and often create policies and laws that are unfriendly to western states unique issues) so it's easy to start to believe that all large organizations are out to get them?

I think that is a very insightful and likely explanation. 

 

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

It's interesting to me how the mountain west really seems to breed these kinds of thinkers.  It's not the church turning people into this, as I was just having an online discussion with someone in the comments on a Facebook post about the Cody temple--someone who was very much not in favor of the temple and assigning all sorts of evil motives to the church and members--who also went off about how UNICEF and Red Cross as evil (and it proves the church is too because the church works with them so often).

Maybe it's because so many in the mountain west states feel separated and at odds with the government in DC and also feel bullied by the cities (which have more political power than they do, are also liberal, and often create policies and laws that are unfriendly to western states unique issues) so it's easy to start to believe that all large organizations are out to get them?

I don't think you can separate the geographical location from the religion when it comes to the impact. I think the church does contribute as does the insular society there. It's an inextricable package in my opinion and I have lived there for many years as well as in California.

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I don't think you can separate the geographical location from the religion when it comes to the impact. I think the church does contribute as does the insular society there. It's an inextricable package in my opinion and I have lived there for many years as well as in California.

How do you explain those who are not members of the church and who are even ill-disposed to it and members, and yet have the same mindset?

[BlueDreams]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's interesting to me how the mountain west really seems to breed these kinds of thinkers.  It's not the church turning people into this, as I was just having an online discussion with someone in the comments on a Facebook post about the Cody temple--someone who was very much not in favor of the temple and assigning all sorts of evil motives to the church and members--who also went off about how UNICEF and Red Cross as evil (and it proves the church is too because the church works with them so often).

Maybe it's because so many in the mountain west states feel separated and at odds with the government in DC and also feel bullied by the cities (which have more political power than they do, are also liberal, and often create policies and laws that are unfriendly to western states unique issues) so it's easy to start to believe that all large organizations are out to get them?

I have a theory that isolation can lead to isolationism and likewise uncertainty/suspicion of change or difference. That's getting worse where people can not only be isolated in like-minded communities (whether that be places like a church community or town) but isolated in thought on social media. And it bolsters an insecure confidence in ones own views. I just finished watching the church's world report and when  I read this I wondered what would this look like to someone who's skeptical or pro-actively presume evil to large organizations and figureheads. With every humanitarian effort there's acknowledgment of other humanitarian groups/NGO's the church partnered with. There's an emphasis on multicultural, interreligious, and multinational efforts and outreach. At one point there were two prominent democratic political leaders with sound bites in the presentation (Obama and Ossoff).   

Cooperation with views and experiences that may never align with yours can be seen as a threat. It'll feel wrong. And it can't be that we're wrong...so that wrong feeling is pushed outward to the offending parties. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Chum]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

How do you explain those who are not members of the church and who are even ill-disposed to it and members, and yet have the same mindset?

I grew up in rural Virginia. One could see the mindset difference (between there & western states) in hat choice. I think that's it.

Edited September 30, 2023 by Chum

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

It's interesting to me how the mountain west really seems to breed these kinds of thinkers.  It's not the church turning people into this, as I was just having an online discussion with someone in the comments on a Facebook post about the Cody temple--someone who was very much not in favor of the temple and assigning all sorts of evil motives to the church and members--who also went off about how UNICEF and Red Cross as evil (and it proves the church is too because the church works with them so often).

Maybe it's because so many in the mountain west states feel separated and at odds with the government in DC and also feel bullied by the cities (which have more political power than they do, are also liberal, and often create policies and laws that are unfriendly to western states unique issues) so it's easy to start to believe that all large organizations are out to get them?

I think a lot of this is tied to local politics.

I also think a lot of it is due to Church History. Our history with state and federal governments is based on a lot of distrust. We focus a lot on the crisis points in church history so we think of Boggs and Ford and it is easy to generalize those lessons.

Then add in Ezra Taft Benson’s intense fixation on conspiracy and how that is still impacting us as children are raised by those who lived through this or got the same sentiments from their parents. I am very glad President Benson’s presidential ambitions never went anywhere.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

interesting to me how the mountain west really seems to breed these kinds of thinkers. 

They are not in Utah and apparently are quite happy about it. Did you see something that indicated they were somewhere nearby?

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

They are not in Utah and apparently are quite happy about it. Did you see something that indicated they were somewhere nearby?

I wasn't speaking of that group specifically but of that mindset.  I'm sure woman I referred to on Facebook is not a formal member of the group either, but their distrust of the government, assigning evil motives to almost every large organization (especially those who claim to do good), and hating anything that might be considered "liberal" is common in some circles.

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I wasn't speaking of that group specifically but of that mindset.  I'm sure woman I referred to on Facebook is not a formal member of the group either, but their distrust of the government, assigning evil motives to almost every large organization (especially those who claim to do good), and hating anything that might be considered "liberal" is common in some circles.

It is definitely that mindset. We saw it some in Kansas, but that was 40 years ago, so have no clue if better or worse now.  One ward family was moving to Utah so they could live in a constitutional community, had homeschooled their kids and were quite sweet, but antisocial in some ways, had us vs them attitudes about some groups.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I wasn't speaking of that group specifically but of that mindset.  I'm sure woman I referred to on Facebook is not a formal member of the group either, but their distrust of the government, assigning evil motives to almost every large organization (especially those who claim to do good), and hating anything that might be considered "liberal" is common in some circles.

One way to identify these kinds of apologists is to look at how they view crime and criminality. They usually define people in two groups: good people and bad people (criminals). When a good person does a crime it doesn’t count since they are not a criminal. When a bad person doesn’t do a crime that just means you haven’t caught them yet and they are definitely doing it.

I think the most ridiculous example I saw of this was someone who opposed welfare assistance because of a belief that it was being systematically abused (mostly by minorities). He thought this was unfair so he had set up a way to defraud the government and get welfare payments by deception and justified it in the name of fairness. Since others were abusing the system it was only fair that he get the same advantage. Broken down he hated minorities because he thought they were acting like he was but he wasn’t doing anything wrong since he was a good person and they definitely were doing things wrong since he could easily imagine them doing these same wrong things.

It is basically the worst kind of tribalism.

[jkwilliams]

My favorite part of this is the “Joder” tattoo above his crotch. Classy  

 

[pogi]

21 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I think a lot of this is tied to local politics.

I also think a lot of it is due to Church History. Our history with state and federal governments is based on a lot of distrust. We focus a lot on the crisis points in church history so we think of Boggs and Ford and it is easy to generalize those lessons.

Then add in Ezra Taft Benson’s intense fixation on conspiracy and how that is still impacting us as children are raised by those who lived through this or got the same sentiments from their parents. I am very glad President Benson’s presidential ambitions never went anywhere.

Also, we are warned of latter-day secret combinations in scripture. I imagine this must have some effect in priming LDS to be much more open to consider conspiratorial thinking.  There is no question for many that the problem exists, it is simply a matter of identifying the problem and resisting it.  We are definitely warned to be suspicious/watchful in that way.  My mother in law never talks about her conspiracy theories (which are many) without including Mormon scripture and gospel teachings.

I know that conservative Christianity is a breeding ground for this type of thinking, in general.  I’m not as sure how the religious component plays a role there, but it seems that the combo of Christianity and conservative politics is fertile soil for conspiratorial thinking.    The  non/less-religious and/or moderate political leanings seem to be less vulnerable.

 

Edited October 1, 2023 by pogi

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

Also, we are warned of latter-day secret combinations in scripture. I imagine this must have some effect in priming LDS to be much more open to consider conspiratorial thinking.  There is no question that the problem exists, it is simply a matter of identifying the problem and resisting it.  We are definitely warned to be suspicious/watchful in that way.  My mother in law never talks about her conspiracy theories (which are many) without including scripture and gospel teachings.

I know that conservative Christianity is a breeding ground for this type of thinking, in general.  I’m not as sure how the religious component plays a role there, but it seems that the combo of Christianity and conservative politics is fertile soil for conspiratorial thinking.    The  non/less-religious and moderate politics seem to be less vulnerable.

 

I know but I think people read into the secret combinations a lot of stuff that isn’t there. The idea of a vast conspiracy held in absolute secrecy that can cover up almost anything is common but the combinations in the Book of Mormon were nothing like that. They were bumbling buffoons filled with internal treachery. They weren’t secret for very long. The commandment is more not to join the combinations than it is to figure them out. The Book of Mormon writers seem to think these kinds of collaborations to cover up crime are obvious and they generally are. Is the Mafia a secret to anybody? Most corporate shenanigans aren’t very well hidden at all. The danger is less that they will enslave us all and more that we will start playing their games and turning people and their lives into wealth for ourselves and go to hell for being predators. Cain killed his brother because it freed up property. Turning life into property.

[pogi]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I know but I think people read into the secret combinations a lot of stuff that isn’t there. The idea of a vast conspiracy held in absolute secrecy that can cover up almost anything is common but the combinations in the Book of Mormon were nothing like that. They were bumbling buffoons filled with internal treachery. They weren’t secret for very long. The commandment is more not to join the combinations than it is to figure them out. The Book of Mormon writers seem to think these kinds of collaborations to cover up crime are obvious and they generally are. Is the Mafia a secret to anybody? Most corporate shenanigans aren’t very well hidden at all. The danger is less that they will enslave us all and more that we will start playing their games and turning people and their lives into wealth for ourselves and go to hell for being predators. Cain killed his brother because it freed up property. Turning life into property.

Book of Mormon secret combinations are one thing, but prophecies of modern day secret combinations are pretty poignant.   There are pretty frightening  warnings of destruction and overthrow of freedom, nations, and countries, if we don't identify and resist these latter-day secret combinations in Ether 8:

 

Quote

 

22 And whatsoever ^anation shall uphold such secret combinations, to get power and gain, until they shall spread over the nation, behold, they shall be destroyed; for the Lord will not suffer that the ^bblood of his saints, which shall be shed by them, shall always cry unto him from the ground for ^cvengeance upon them and yet he avenge them not.

23 Wherefore, O ye Gentiles, it is wisdom in God that these things should be shown unto you, that thereby ye may repent of your sins, and suffer not that these murderous combinations shall get above you, which are built up to get ^apower and gain—and the work, yea, even the work of ^bdestruction come upon you, yea, even the sword of the justice of the Eternal God shall fall upon you, to your overthrow and destruction if ye shall suffer these things to be.

24 Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this ^asecret combination which shall be among you; or wo be unto it, because of the blood of them who have been slain; for they cry from the dust for vengeance upon it, and also upon those who built it up.

25 For it cometh to pass that whoso buildeth it up seeketh to overthrow the ^afreedom of all lands, nations, and countries; and it bringeth to pass the destruction of all people, for it is built up by the devil, who is the father of all lies; even that same liar who ^bbeguiled our first parents, yea, even that same liar who hath caused man to commit murder from the beginning; who hath ^chardened the hearts of men that they have ^dmurdered the prophets, and stoned them, and cast them out from the beginning.

 

 

[Tacenda]

20 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I know but I think people read into the secret combinations a lot of stuff that isn’t there. The idea of a vast conspiracy held in absolute secrecy that can cover up almost anything is common but the combinations in the Book of Mormon were nothing like that. They were bumbling buffoons filled with internal treachery. They weren’t secret for very long. The commandment is more not to join the combinations than it is to figure them out. The Book of Mormon writers seem to think these kinds of collaborations to cover up crime are obvious and they generally are. Is the Mafia a secret to anybody? Most corporate shenanigans aren’t very well hidden at all. The danger is less that they will enslave us all and more that we will start playing their games and turning people and their lives into wealth for ourselves and go to hell for being predators. Cain killed his brother because it freed up property. Turning life into property.

I'm not too knowledgeable of the World Order conspiracy theory that I hear from different people saying it lately. The only thing I remember close to it, is when I watched a documentary or maybe a youtube that showed many US presidents and dignitaries meeting together at a large estate and even doing masonic handshakes when greeting each other. And this is what I thought people are thinking that it's our government that wants to be the World Order thing, whatever that is. 

Found it: 

 

[CA Steve]

22 hours ago, bluebell said:

How do you explain those who are not members of the church and who are even ill-disposed to it and members, and yet have the same mindset?

Not everyone is the same. 

I didn't say the church was the only factor, just that is part of a whole series of complex factors.

[CA Steve]

I think it is ironic how people join or form "secret combinations" to fight "secret combinations. Qanon, Proud Boys, Oath Keepers.

[smac97]

On 9/29/2023 at 7:55 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Not entirely. Not even mostly. There are a lot of things being discussed in this thread.

Fair enough.  For my part, I'm going to focus on the legal aspects.

On 9/29/2023 at 7:55 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Quote

The principles of law I am laying out here matter, or ought to matter.  A lot.

Why? Why are principles of law more important than other principles?  Again, this thread contains much more than legal issues. It is true that you have consistently applied legal reasoning and principles here, but that doesn't make this thread solely about the law. In my previous post and in this one, I'm questioning the warrant of your argument: why are the principles of the law more important than other principles that guide human knowledge, understanding, judgement, and decision making?

I didn't say "principles of law {are} more important that other principles."

If we were having a discussion of some sort of disease, then I think we ought to look to appropriate sources of medical knowledge to be a part of the discussion.  If we were having a discussion about, or having to do with, accounting or biology or Aramaic, we ought to look to competent sources of knowledge to be a part of such discussions.

Here, serious claims of misconduct are being asserted against Tim Ballard.  I think it's appropriate to discuss these claims in a legal context.  You are, of course, at liberty to discuss them in ways you see fit.

On 9/29/2023 at 7:55 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Quote

Then let's take whatever usefulness we can get out of legal reasoning, principles, etc.  

Sure. And we can take the usefulness of other types of reasoning and principles, too, since this is not a court of law and much more is going on than just legal issues (the OP had nothing to do with the law). My discomfort is that you shoot down other types of reasoning by saying they are not legal reasoning/argument/etc. See my quotes above of you doing this.

I am shooting down "other types of reasoning" that are being deployed in a legal context, yes.  

On 9/29/2023 at 7:55 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Again, this 20+ page thread has much more than just discussion about legal issues. You have pushed the discussion towards legal issues. It didn't have to go that way.

I think the legalities should be a part of the discussion.  Even an important part.

I don't know Tim Ballard, and I owe him no particularized allegiance or courtesy, save the Golden Rule.  If serious claims of misconduct were anonymously published against me, I would hope that those claims would be fairly viewed, and that I would also be fairly viewed.  Applying the principles of law requires us to pump the brakes, examine the evidence, and parse and prioritize out the various claims and evidentiary supports of each.  I am sensing there is something of a Moral Outrage going on here.  A rush to judgment.  The allegations are being construed as evidence for themselves.  I find that both unreasonable and unChristian.  "Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged; but judge righteous judgment."  (JST Matthew 7:2.)

At present, I think there is some fairly credible evidence of misconduct by Ballard as to misusing Pres. Ballard's name, "monetizing" stuff that ought not be monetized, and a few other things.  The available evidence regarding sexual impropriety/misconduct, at present, is far less persuasive.  Statements that are anonymous and/or conclusory and/or unsubstantiated and/or hearsay.  Speculation and gossip.  Worst assumptions.  That's about it.

On 9/29/2023 at 7:55 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Quote

Legal reasoning can also be illuminating. 

I do not deny this. But it can still also be limiting.

With respect, I disagree.  My discussion of this topic in a legal context does nothing to constrain you from discussing it in, say, a poetic or philosophical context.

On 9/29/2023 at 7:55 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Quote

Many principles of law are not just made up for no reason.

I never claimed that they were. One of my bachelor's degrees is in philosophy. My philosophy department also offered a degree in "Justice, Political Philosophy, and Law." Mine was the general philosophy degree, but I took many classes that dealt with the law in the philosophy, political science, and history departments.

Many of these spheres of knowledge can likewise be deployed here.  Feel free.

For example, historians take a markedly different approach to hearsay statements.  That's fine, because hearsay is often all we have (IIRC, all the accounts of the assassination of Julius Caesar are all hearsay, multiple hearsay, late, etc.).

On 9/29/2023 at 7:55 PM, MiserereNobis said:

And there are many more ways to do this than just relying on the reasoning of the US legal system.

I agree.  Poetry, though, just doesn't when when discussing these claims in a legal context.

On 9/29/2023 at 7:55 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Do you enjoy reading/watching Shakespeare? He's all about the foibles of humanity. And somehow we recognize them in his plays without having to resort to legal reasoning. Perhaps we can recognize them in others without having to use the law, too.

Agreed.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Fair enough.  For my part, I'm going to focus on the legal aspects.

I didn't say "principles of law {are} more important that other principles."

If we were having a discussion of some sort of disease, then I think we ought to look to appropriate sources of medical knowledge to be a part of the discussion.  If we were having a discussion about, or having to do with, accounting or biology or Aramaic, we ought to look to competent sources of knowledge to be a part of such discussions.

Here, serious claims of misconduct are being asserted against Tim Ballard.  I think it's appropriate to discuss these claims in a legal context.  You are, of course, at liberty to discuss them in ways you see fit.

I am shooting down "other types of reasoning" that are being deployed in a legal context, yes.  

I think the legalities should be a part of the discussion.  Even an important part.

I don't know Tim Ballard, and I owe him no particularized allegiance or courtesy, save the Golden Rule.  If serious claims of misconduct were anonymously published against me, I would hope that those claims would be fairly viewed, and that I would also be fairly viewed.  Applying the principles of law requires us to pump the brakes, examine the evidence, and parse and prioritize out the various claims and evidentiary supports of each.  I am sensing there is something of a Moral Outrage going on here.  A rush to judgment.  The allegations are being construed as evidence for themselves.  I find that both unreasonable and unChristian.  "Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged; but judge righteous judgment."  (JST Matthew 7:2.)

At present, I think there is some fairly credible evidence of misconduct by Ballard as to misusing Pres. Ballard's name, "monetizing" stuff that ought not be monetized, and a few other things.  The available evidence regarding sexual impropriety/misconduct, at present, is far less persuasive.  Statements that are anonymous and/or conclusory and/or unsubstantiated and/or hearsay.  Speculation and gossip.  Worst assumptions.  That's about it.

With respect, I disagree.  My discussion of this topic in a legal context does nothing to constrain you from discussing it in, say, a poetic or philosophical context.

Many of these spheres of knowledge can likewise be deployed here.  Feel free.

For example, historians take a markedly different approach to hearsay statements.  That's fine, because hearsay is often all we have (IIRC, all the accounts of the assassination of Julius Caesar are all hearsay, multiple hearsay, late, etc.).

I agree.  Poetry, though, just doesn't when when discussing these claims in a legal context.

Agreed.

Thanks,

-Smac

Maybe it's been mentioned, but through the grapevine, Tim has been ex'd. If true, how can this be?