> The first part is about how an individual that knows that they are innocent should not expect that to count for anything in the eyes of others. The second part is to ensure that he doesn't waste his time on people that are really guilty because in the end that will go nowhere.
Again, I think this is inconsistent. The original comment author is bound to be one of those third parties where objective innocence does not matter.
But if it "will go nowhere" as soon as objective innocence isn't a given, it does apparently matter.
I think you've been adequately answered more than once in this thread, if you insist that that is not the case then I would assume that you have your mind made up and further discourse is not productive. That's not me trying to be rude, just an observation.
I will try. As soon as "objective innocence isn't a given", the prosecutor will be able to produce true evidence to prove you guilty (not always, but mostly). Thus "will go nowhere". If "objective innocence" is given, the prosecutor, by definition, can't provide true evidence to prove you guilty. So they need help to hold up their fake case, and one way to provide help for that is acting like an ingenuous innocent who thinks nothing can happen to them because they are innocent.
Again, I think this is inconsistent. The original comment author is bound to be one of those third parties where objective innocence does not matter.
But if it "will go nowhere" as soon as objective innocence isn't a given, it does apparently matter.
Now does it, or doesn't it matter?