|
|
|
|
|
|
by jbarciauskas
2466 days ago
|
|
|
The standard of evidence is lower in civil cases than criminal ones. Taking away someone's bodily autonomy is different than saying you can't have a prominent role at a prestigious institution. You don't (or shouldn't) have an inalienable right to power. And, again, the facts aren't even in dispute. |
|
|
That's probably because the standard of accuracy is tied to severity of punishment (they're will to pay more for a higher standard in cases where it's more damaging to be wrong). Are you arguing that someone losing their job or other position of influence is low-enough severity that we don't need a high standard? That seems reckless to me.
> Taking away someone's bodily autonomy is different than saying you can't have a prominent role at a prestigious institution.
Agreed. Putting someone in jail is more severe than taking someone's job. I don't think this is controversial.
> You don't (or shouldn't) have an inalienable right to power.
Nobody has claimed this.
> And, again, the facts aren't even in dispute.
This entire thread is a massive contradiction of that claim.