My outrage isn't directed at your moral failings,which are unfortunately all too common, but at your intellectual failures.

You are misrepresenting the status quo when you're insinuating that some "establishment" conspiracy will be suppressing the usefulness of violating fundamental rights, such as assumption of innocence, in their quest to defend "political correctness".

This is obviously wrong. Such rights, and others like privacy or the right to a fair trial, only make sense under the assumption that their violation would in some ways benefit law enforcement. Otherwise there'd be no need to protect them.

While the argument that, for example, "torture doesn't work" is sometimes made, it is always secondary to "our civilisation is better than that, and it is strong enough to accept a (small) hit in effectiveness in the defence of fundamental rights".

So when you believe you've stumbled onto some greater truth, and that the world needs to hear some tough talk of realism, you've simply missed the essential message of enlightenment, and are reverting to 16th-century morals.

> My outrage isn't directed at your moral failings,which are unfortunately all too common, but at your intellectual failures.

Would you care to enumerate the moral failings of mine which you have identified? Or is this just an indiscriminate attack?

> You are misrepresenting the status quo when you're insinuating that some "establishment" conspiracy will be suppressing the usefulness of violating fundamental rights, such as assumption of innocence, in their quest to defend "political correctness".

I have made no such statements nor insinuations. There is no conspiracy. If this is the only such intellectual failure of mine which you have (mis)identified, then I suggest you recalibrate your moral outrage meter and try a less scattershot approach to fighting ideas and messengers which make you uncomfortable.

As to the rest of your statements, I think I agree with them mostly. We should not violate fundamental rights including the presumption of innocence particularly. I agree with prohibitions on torture on moral grounds and not simply consequential grounds.

I have not missed the essential message of the Enlightenment and in fact uphold such ideals as a core part of my identity. So in summary, I reiterate my concern that your outrage is indiscriminate and scattershot, and you have misunderstood my position and statements.

You can't use terms like "big hurdle of political correctness" and "establishment dogma" and then pretend you didn't start the "hysterical moral outrage"

Really? That just seems like a dispassionate accounting of facts. There are such things as political correctness and establishment dogma, and these things constrain large scale social programs. I don't see the hysteria or moral outrage as such.