I can trust that there is corruption in the court system for the rich and powerful. Therefore a trial for Trump that seems clearly biased and poorly handled may go in his favor. A trial for some actor may be biased as well, but less in his favor. Additionally if the evidence is strong for one trial and week for another, I’m taking that into account!
The logic is sound. The courts can convict someone as powerful and well connected as Trump, the current (unfortunately) president of the United States that should lend more Credence to spaces acquittal.
Maybe a slightly different example will help understand the logic?
Let’s say NewsCorpA likes Trump and Spacey.
NewsCorpA publishes their usual stuff saying they’re both cool and good, but one day they post an article saying Trump did something bad. Because they have every reason to like Trump it seems more likely to me that the article has a genuine criticism (not to say their reasoning is good. E.g. He’s not racist enough), but that doesn’t have any bearing on the other, usual, articles about Spacey.
In other words it’s kinda the inverse of “if someone hates someone and says something nice about them, it’s probably genuine” so kinda “if someone likes someone and says something bad about them, it’s probably genuine”
The logic here is flawed. For example:
I can trust that there is corruption in the court system for the rich and powerful. Therefore a trial for Trump that seems clearly biased and poorly handled may go in his favor. A trial for some actor may be biased as well, but less in his favor. Additionally if the evidence is strong for one trial and week for another, I’m taking that into account!
The logic is sound. The courts can convict someone as powerful and well connected as Trump, the current (unfortunately) president of the United States that should lend more Credence to spaces acquittal.
How does that not make sense?
Maybe a slightly different example will help understand the logic?
Let’s say NewsCorpA likes Trump and Spacey.
NewsCorpA publishes their usual stuff saying they’re both cool and good, but one day they post an article saying Trump did something bad. Because they have every reason to like Trump it seems more likely to me that the article has a genuine criticism (not to say their reasoning is good. E.g. He’s not racist enough), but that doesn’t have any bearing on the other, usual, articles about Spacey.
In other words it’s kinda the inverse of “if someone hates someone and says something nice about them, it’s probably genuine” so kinda “if someone likes someone and says something bad about them, it’s probably genuine”