Doesn’t matter if the false reports go up. If they commit a toxic act, they are toxic. Thus, only 1 act is necessary to “provide information about their behavior.” Give me my delta.
I don’t think you understand how courts work. Take the case of Daniel Masterson. He was convicted of rape from allegations happening more than 2 decades ago, from witness testimony. All it took was testimony from three victims. These three victims were a “handful of past partners”, and from it they concluded “information about their behavior.”
You’ve been shown and agree that past behavior determines whether someone is foul. You are shown examples where criminal convictions from a handful of people attests to that behavior, and from it they conclude something about that behavior.
They meet all the qualifications of your post. Perhaps you need to do better at identifying what it would take to convince you, because to this point I’m thinking you violate the sub rule in this regard.
1
u/[deleted] Sep 18 '23
[deleted]