Do you think Guilt by association does not exist or exist?

[Anonymous]

Some people say this Guilt by association is considered an ad hominem fallacy.

Let me put an example. You all know the story behind the Mastersons family. Danny M convicted of rape. Dannys friends Mila Kunis and Asthon Kutcher plead for his clemency last year and that had backfired at them from the public. Dannys sister, Alana I heard intimated one victim during the trial. Now. Danny has another brother who is an B or C actor too but has been an actor for many years and I dotn really know what now he does for a living, he is not very popular actor. His name is Jordan Masterson, Jordan Masterson has a girlfriend who is a fashion designer. Jordan and his girlfriend had been friends for many years with a known and famous actor, who has a famous father, ( I won't say who, but is not Mila or Asthon is another famous and popular actor), this known actor had been friends with the all the Mastersons for many years now (even before the Danny legal issues) and lately he (and his girlfriend) has been hanging out a lot with the mastersons and not other long time friends this actor has, they go to trips together often.

Now it is possible that this known actor is not a Scientologist or does nto follow hte Mastersons beliefs, he is just guilty that his friends are tied and are the siblings to Danny Masterson. Also this known actor is friend with actor Casey Affleck who I heard in the past he also has some issues with sexual harassment.

Do you think that as a public figure this actor should lets say not seen with the Masterson dude often or beign associated with? I mean for his image and reputation for being a public figure in the entertainment business. Like I said this actor is not guilty his friends have legal issues or tied to the brother of one with a serious legal issue (rape)

Updates

1 y

The actor in question initials are CP

[Anonymous]

Guilt by association is a concept that does exist, but it is often criticized for being logically flawed and ethically problematic. In its simplest form, it suggests that a person can be blamed or judged for something simply because they are associated with others who may have committed wrongdoings or engaged in undesirable behavior.

While guilt by association is real in that it happens in society, it is typically seen as unfair because it overlooks an individual's personal responsibility and actions. For instance, just because someone is friends with someone who has committed a crime doesn't necessarily mean that they are guilty of the same crime or share the same views or values.

However, in certain contexts, such as legal and social dynamics, it can be used to make assumptions or judgments, though these assumptions often do not hold up to scrutiny when considering individual responsibility and the full context. It’s important to distinguish between association and actual culpability in matters of morality or law.

So, while it "exists" in practice, it doesn't always hold up logically or ethically.

[purplepoppy]

Birds of a feather flock together.
We all know dodgy people but what we don't do is move in the same circles or build relationships with them. Association doesn't prove guilt but it does raise suspicions. If all your close friends are criminals it's right that people suspect you're one too.

[Asker]

You are correct buyt some people say that not necessarily true and I agree with you too.

[Anonymous]

yes and no but it depends on the context

for example whatever views (positive or negative) you have Donald Trump shouldn't be associated with his youngest son Barron Trump who very much lived a sheltered life

on the other hand, the list of celebrities who've been to P Diddy parties from Jennifer Lopez to Beyonce to LeBron to Taylor Swift to Cardi B etc. could have some relation to one another for what was going on behind the scenes

[Summeroflove]

It depends. If you know someone’s committing a crime and you do nothing to stop it. That’s one thing. But let’s sag you just don’t know someone’s involved… and they get pulled over for a traffic infraction and they take off running.

That’s not your fault

[Asker]

This actor that I won't mention, of course is aware his best friend brother is in jail and why and Im sure he is also aware abou tthe news that Dannys sister intimated the victim at the trial but since this actor is not related to them, he does nto care or maybe he does not talk about his friends sibling situtions or they do talk but dont they are neutral.

Just that for this actor bad luck he is friends with a family with a questionable reputation but taht is why some say guilt by association does not exist other says it does exist

[Anonymous]

Yes or no, depending on the circumstances. Simply being associated with someone who is guilty of something does not make the other person guilty in any way. But having knowledge of the "crime" and not doing anything to stop it (or report it), or even contributing in some small way to it, does mean at least some level of guilt.

[jshm2]

It's silly as it contravenes the "innocent until proven guilty" laws that govern the land.

[exitseven]

My Italian grandmother used to say that if you walk next to a man that limps , pretty soon you will start to limp.

[OddBeMe]

Of course his 70s pals aren't guilty. They're guilty of publicizing support for a rapist. Like the actors who had their passion projects funded by Weinstein.

[DrPepper12]

Ofc it exists. It's a evolutionary advantage.