First you tried to claim "you don’t fucking get arrested unless they have some proof to back it up. Period.". You're claiming that he's "obviously guilty" by virtue of being arrested. The "Period" really sells it. You sound all in on the idea that simply being arrested is more than enough proof of "obvious guilt".
Then it became "he admitted to it". So regardless of whether you left it out originally or not, you changed your argument to this. Now he's "obviously guilty" because he admitted it, not because he was arrested.
Even if that really is what you originally meant (doubt) and you didn't just find it out after making your first argument it still makes your argument dumb for leaving it out in the first place. There are two ways to sentence somebody and determine guilt; Prove it in court with a fair trial where each side is represented as best as possible, or a guilty plea. Outside of those, there is no "obviously guilty" (Save for things like video proof (of which we have none)). But if you knew that one of those were met why would you not mention that in your first argument or any of your earlier comments? And don't give me some dumb shit about how me not knowing makes me dumb. It's not my job to make your argument for you.
And, upon looking at your original comment, even there you only mentioned that he was arrested and should therefore be "stripped of [his] shit". Nothing like "he literally admitted he was guilty why is he not stripped of his power/position?". Up until several comments down you were all in and consistent on it being the fact he was arrested with absolutely no mention of his admission of guilt. So it's pretty clear at this point what you were saying.
Our legal system, like the rest of the country, was set up very carefully by people much smarter than you or me. The Founders knew what they were doing and they believed in "innocent until proven guilty", as it should be.
Now obviously sentencing and proving guilt in court isn't directly related to public opinion and what people think of others' guilt, but the concept should still apply in all areas since it's fundamentally fair. You can have suspicions and hunches but to declare that someone is "obviously guilty" is completely unfair if you have no proof to go on other than "I think so" or "he got arrested". If you do have proof or admission of guilt then that should be presented right along with the initial assertion. If you don't offer any of these you can expect people to respond bringing up innocent until proven guilty. Especially if you say that a punishment should be doled out despite the lack of a fair trial because the person is "obviously guilty".
In the end, you either believe in "innocent until proven guilty" or you believe in "obvious guilt". It can't be both. They're incompatible.
Also, why didn't you lead with that?
Read/pay attention to what? You've linked nothing and it doesn't state that in the picture above.
And aside from that you still moved the goalposts ;)
First you tried to claim "you don’t fucking get arrested unless they have some proof to back it up. Period.". You're claiming that he's "obviously guilty" by virtue of being arrested. The "Period" really sells it. You sound all in on the idea that simply being arrested is more than enough proof of "obvious guilt".
Then it became "he admitted to it". So regardless of whether you left it out originally or not, you changed your argument to this. Now he's "obviously guilty" because he admitted it, not because he was arrested.
Even if that really is what you originally meant (doubt) and you didn't just find it out after making your first argument it still makes your argument dumb for leaving it out in the first place. There are two ways to sentence somebody and determine guilt; Prove it in court with a fair trial where each side is represented as best as possible, or a guilty plea. Outside of those, there is no "obviously guilty" (Save for things like video proof (of which we have none)). But if you knew that one of those were met why would you not mention that in your first argument or any of your earlier comments? And don't give me some dumb shit about how me not knowing makes me dumb. It's not my job to make your argument for you.
And, upon looking at your original comment, even there you only mentioned that he was arrested and should therefore be "stripped of [his] shit". Nothing like "he literally admitted he was guilty why is he not stripped of his power/position?". Up until several comments down you were all in and consistent on it being the fact he was arrested with absolutely no mention of his admission of guilt. So it's pretty clear at this point what you were saying.
Our legal system, like the rest of the country, was set up very carefully by people much smarter than you or me. The Founders knew what they were doing and they believed in "innocent until proven guilty", as it should be.
Now obviously sentencing and proving guilt in court isn't directly related to public opinion and what people think of others' guilt, but the concept should still apply in all areas since it's fundamentally fair. You can have suspicions and hunches but to declare that someone is "obviously guilty" is completely unfair if you have no proof to go on other than "I think so" or "he got arrested". If you do have proof or admission of guilt then that should be presented right along with the initial assertion. If you don't offer any of these you can expect people to respond bringing up innocent until proven guilty. Especially if you say that a punishment should be doled out despite the lack of a fair trial because the person is "obviously guilty".
In the end, you either believe in "innocent until proven guilty" or you believe in "obvious guilt". It can't be both. They're incompatible.