Who do you attract the most?

[NotADcotor]

I was SO IMPRESSED that you thought to use Llamas with Hats.
(Seriously, I thought it was hilarious.)

Although without being able to use cultural references I'd be pretty much mute.
Prouder of the ancient Egyptian reference myself.

What can I say, I'm how do you say, ah yes old.

 

[Vera.Reis]

I said there is a moral obligation to give someone the benefit of the doubt, not a legal one. Law students ought to pay attention to what they are reading.

Actually, you said several things, first being that people are "innocent until proven guilty", this is a charter right, so I was letting you know, I don't owe people charter rights.

The second part, you said morally I have to say he is not guilty, is confusing because this isn't really saying anything different than what I said, an acquittal is being found not guilty based on the evidence. So, by saying he was acquitted I did say he was not guilty, what I also said is that this does not mean he is innocent.

 

[NotADcotor]

Oh look, it is Mr. Shack Apartheid, PhD in Logic, from the University of Apartheid and Genocide, Tel Aviv. If you used common logic and if it is infact true that you scored a 97% in "logic", and knew how to interpret anything, then you wouldn't be supporting and pushing the nasty, violent and racist ideologies you have been in every politics thread. Infact you would have had enough logical thinking to not bring politics into the lounge and you'd know that I was talking about a moral obligation to give someone the benefit of the doubt, not a legal one.

I think you need to sign up for that back to school program, for the elderly, to read basic English.

I said there is a moral obligation to give someone the benefit of the doubt, not a legal one. Law students ought to pay attention to what they are reading.

Ohh so cute, a dude who doesn't know the difference between civilians dying from the chaos of war/being used as human shields and a group that specifically targets civilians for MDK and hostage taking lecturing someone on logic and the ability to read and understand.
So cute, someone who can't tell the difference between a country that has been gang attacked by neighbors multiple times, allows Homosexuals the right to exist and even gives local arabs the right to vote and with their own parties with a group who literally has river to sea extermination as their goal and labels the former as genocide but doesn't see river to sea as genocidal/death to Israel/death to the west as genocidal lecturing someone of logic and the ability to read and understand.

At least with you being Indian we can assume you are motivated by a hatred of the west in general and not Jews in particular small solace that is. Much like how the division of India into now 3 nations is totally and only the fault of the English, never mind that India was divided when the western powers got there [which made them easy pickings] and that it has absolutely nothing to do with some Indians wanted a separate state, I mean as we all know when India separated, people so peacefully and with no violence what so ever [For the non fat guys out there, this is sarcasm] went their separate ways in peace love and brotherhood.

Sad thing is, you think you are somehow winning.

You got Trumptards on the right thinking their guy is a truth teller who had an election win stolen away from him, and libtards on the left who can't tell what a genocide or for that matter a woman is.

No wonder I've gone full potato on Absolute Monarchy.

 

[Vera.Reis]

I guess me and mr doesn't know that not guilty and acquittal mean the same thing have at least something in common

My ancestors were western colonizers, so I'm excited to see what I get called when people can't fall back on their racist tropes to attack people who can tell the difference between actual genocide by a state with nuclear weapons, and threats of genocide from people with rudimentary mortar bombs.

 

[Vera.Reis]

You said, just because you were acquitted doesn't mean you are innocent.

And I said, given it is innocent until proven guilty, we, as people, morally have to give someone the benefit of the doubt once acquitted, unless there is precedent in the form of multiple past instances. I think my statement was clear enough. I wasn't talking about charter rights or anyone being legally obligated, which is what your earlier comment accused me of saying.

The statement "innocent until proven guilty" is a legal obligation and charter right, so yes, you did bring it up.

I don't morally owe anyone anything, I am allowed to form my own opinions, which I didn't actually say whether I thought guy was innocent or not, I said an acquittal isn't proof of innocence. But just because someone is acquitted doesn't mean I can't form my own opinion on whether they are innocent or not, that's a weird argument.

 

[Vera.Reis]

Firstly are you talking to me? Well, glad, you support the same position as me on Israel/Palestine.

However, the argument is not about "knowing the difference between not guilty and acquittal". It was about what I said and what I did not say.

And you can do that, it is your choice. Just don't misinterpret my statement, which clearly mentioned, that I believe that morally people should give people the benefit of the doubt to someone. Nowhere in my statement did I say, there is a legal obligation for you to give someone the benefit of the doubt.

My guy, INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY IS A LEGAL CONCEPT.

 

[NotADcotor]

I guess me and mr doesn't know that not guilty and acquittal mean the same thing have at least something in common

My ancestors were western colonizers, so I'm excited to see what I get called when people can't fall back on their racist tropes to attack people who can tell the difference between actual genocide by a state with nuclear weapons, and threats of genocide from people with rudimentary mortar bombs.

The Palistinian population is and has been growing by leaps and bounds both within the Israel borders and in Gaza. I notice you used the term genocide, I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Also only one side has as it's stated purpose the extermination of a people from River to Sea, just because thankfully they don't have the capacity to do and are too stupid to realize it doesn't make them any less genocidal than white supremacists collecting the dole, getting drunk in their parents basement and jerking it over dreams of a white ethnostate.
You have actually disproven your point, as I understand it. The country that has been accused of genocide and actually has the capacity to do it obviously doesn't have the intention to. The side that actually does want to commit genocide doesn't have the capacity to do so, or they would, doesn't stop them from killing civilians both Israeli and their own any chance they take and taking hostages

 

[Vera.Reis]

So what? My statements were clear.

I rebutted your statement, where you said, "just because you were acquitted does not mean you are innocent" - by saying that it is innocent until proven guilty. Which is correct, because that is how the law works.

I then followed up by saying that once acquitted, I believe that we should morally give people the benefit of the doubt, unless there is precedent. You are free to not share that belief and I have nothing to say to that, as it is your choice.

However my statements and their intent were clear enough. There is no reason to misinterpret them and say that I said, there is a legal obligation for you to give someone the benefit of the doubt.

You saying that people are innocent until proven guilty and then you said "so if he is acquitted" right after and then that we you have a moral obligation to do so. This clearly indicated that you were basing this moral argument on the legal concept because you said "SO if he is acquitted" making this a clear indication the two arguments were linked. I read your statement and their implications in its entirety, you're trying to separate them now to win the argument, but that's not how this works.

 

[carvesg]

Who is guilty of attracting whom ? That thread is going sideways....in a big way

A thread about attraction ended up attracting improvised legal experts

 

[Vera.Reis]

The Palistinian population is and has been growing by leaps and bounds both within the Israel borders and in Gaza. I notice you used the term genocide, I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Also only one side has as it's stated purpose the extermination of a people from River to Sea, just because thankfully they don't have the capacity to do and are too stupid to realize it doesn't make them any less genocidal than white supremacists collecting the dole, getting drunk in their parents basement and jerking it over dreams of a white ethnostate.
You have actually disproven your point, as I understand it. The country that has been accused of genocide and actually has the capacity to do it obviously doesn't have the intention to. The side that actually does want to commit genocide doesn't have the capacity to do so, or they would, doesn't stop them from killing civilians both Israeli and their own any chance they take and taking hostages

I didn't disprove my point, I said one IS ACTUALLY DOING IT, and that others (being a very tiny fraction of Palestinians) just want to.

It's amazing how the ICC says that it is "plausible" that Israel is committing genocide and yall want to act like there is not a single possibility that this true. Israel not using its nuclear weapons has just as much strength as arguing Russia isn't up to anything in Ukraine because they have not used their nuclear weapons. Neither country has done so because at that point immediate action from the west would be unavoidable as the west world no longer be able to turn a blind eye.

 

[shack]

Another day another person who is not in the legal field thinking they know the legal system better than a law student, and misinterpreting what was said as negatively as possible.

kautilya is well know for this. He's not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. His arguments can be circuitous to the point of being laughable.

 

[shack]

Oh look, it is Mr. Shack Apartheid, PhD in Logic, from the University of Apartheid and Genocide, Tel Aviv. If you used common logic and if it is infact true that you scored a 97% in "logic", and knew how to interpret anything, then you wouldn't be supporting and pushing the nasty, violent and racist ideologies you have been in every politics thread. Infact you would have had enough logical thinking to not bring politics into the lounge and you'd know that I was talking about a moral obligation to give someone the benefit of the doubt, not a legal one.

I think you need to sign up for that back to school program, for the elderly, to read basic English.

Big talk from somebody who's idiotic opinion was put down by everybody else in this thread and who has been called out for being anti-Semitic by dozens of people.

 

[shack]

You said, just because you were acquitted doesn't mean you are innocent.

She IS correct. That person may be innocent, but not necessarily so.

And I said, given it is innocent until proven guilty, we, as people, morally have to give someone the benefit of the doubt once acquitted, unless there is precedent in the form of multiple past instances. I think my statement was clear enough. I wasn't talking about charter rights or anyone being legally obligated, which is what your earlier comment accused me of saying.

Benefit of the doubt is a phrase used prior to a trail. I don't believe that it applies after the trial.

You were wrong before and still wrong. Nobody agrees with you. Not the person with more knowledge of the law than you and not:

No she doesn't.
The government has to give him that benefit of the doubt.
She, as a private citizen, does not.

That isn't what she said. Technically an acquittal doesn't mean you are innocent, you can get an acquittal because of a lack of evidence.
Also innocent until proven guilty is a legal concept.

 

[Vera.Reis]

The only question is, did I say there is a legal obligation for YOU to give someone the benefit of the doubt once acquitted? No I did not say that. Case closed.

by using the legal terms that you used, yes you did, but your lack of understanding of these legal arguments makes you think you didn't, or makes you think you can argue semantics because you think you did not directly say it but merely implied it, and that this means I cannot say that you said it. But, the legal terms you used are unequivocal in their meaning, so while you might think it was merely implied or that you did not say them at all, it was actually directly stated for anyone who has the legal knowledge to know the meanings and implications of the phrases you used and how you used them.

 

[Vera.Reis]

Is anyone else really irked by the incorrect use of precedence over and over again, because while I know what guy means, it makes his arguments even more ridiculous. Not to mention the fact that the courts cannot use past convictions as evidence that you did something, so why this would be the standard for not "giving someone the benefit of the doubt" is beyond me.

 

[Vera.Reis]

I neither said it directly, nor implied, that you have a legal obligation to give someone the benefit of the doubt. That was objectively not my statement, and repeating "I am a law student, I have legal knowledge" does not change the fact that you are misstating what I said.

Given this misstatement, it is entirely reasonable for me to assume that although you may be a law student, you may not be a very good one. I may be wrong, but I may be right as well!

My guy, you are a fucking tool. You are correct that you did not imply, but you are incorrect that you did not directly say it, as I said, the legal terms you used are unequivocal in their definitions, if you do not know how to use legal terms then maybe you should avoid doing so instead of telling people that they are interpreting you wrong when you are the one who just said something you did not mean because you did not understand the legal terms you were using

I never said anything about the courts using past convictions as evidence. This is a nonsensical tangent you have introduced, and is therefore irrelevant. All I said was, if a guy is acquitted, and he has no past history, then I would give him the benefit of the doubt, and I believe everyone else should as well. Now you can disagree with that last bit that everyone should as well, but again, don't lie that I said that there is some legal obligation to give that person the benefit of the doubt.

You're ignoring your repeated misuse of precedence and I never said YOU said anything about the COURTS using past convictions as evidence. I said that YOU saying past convictions would be needed to not give someone the benefit is ridiculous because even the courts do not do that. Reading comprehension is clearly not your strength lol

 

[NotADcotor]

In quoting this
"kautilya is well know for this. He's not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. His arguments can be circuitous to the point of being laughable. "

He replied this

Thank you for acknowledging I am super smart and kick your butt every single time, in an argument. But truth be told, your "logic" or lack thereof, isn't hard to counter.

Not sure how someones reading and understanding skills can be so low, he must be taking the piss, nobody can be that special needs.

 

[mrhumbug]

And another thread is hijacked by a totally unrelated discussion. Verbal diarrhea spanning two pages.

@LC18 We sincerely value the conversations and subjects you have raised time and again. I hope you begin with a disclaimer to stay on topic. I'm hoping that this doesn't become another thread that gets blocked.

 

[LC18]

And another thread is hijacked by a totally unrelated discussion. Verbal diarrhea spanning two pages.

I am getting used to it. Some members just like to argue. In a way, I’m happy my threads can bring them the little joy they find in arguing with strangers on the internet.

 

[Vera.Reis]

I did not imply, but I directly said it? What are you going on about? I very clearly, copy pasted my comment and explained it, and your response is word salad. lol. I again repeat:

My statement is clear in expressing that a) According to the law a person who is found not guilty, is innocent of a crime they were charged with or accused of. b) If said person does not have a history, then it is morally correct, atleast according to me, to give that person the benefit of the doubt, once they are acquitted.

Anything else, you are just spinning lies and resorting to name calling.

I did not say that. I did not say past convictions would be needed, and infact convictions are irrelevant to what I said. It is not even a word that I used.

My precise statement was: "unless the guy is a known career criminal who has multiple charges or has gotten off on a technicality before for similar charges".

So if a guy has a history of criminal charges, convicted or not, or has gotten off on technicalities for similar charges, then I wouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt.

You should look in the mirror when you talk about someone's reading comprehension.

Whatever makes you feel better about yourself lol