On 2011-02-28 09:52:22 +0000, d said:

On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 16:59:22 -0000
"Mizter T" wrote:
On Feb 25, 3:43 pm, George wrote:

On 25 Feb, 14:24, wrote:
[snip]
And state execution being barbaric is merely your opinion, not a fact.
If you would not wish someone like Huntley to be executed simply for
moral
reasons then your mind is almost as warped and debased as his is.

IMO of course.

The last sentence of that last para being a rather pathetic way of trying to
advance an argument.

I wasn't trying to advance the argument, it was simply an opinion. I find the
whole "state execution is murder and makes us no better than the criminals"
argument a load of specious BS thought up by libtards deliberately to make
people feel guilty about wanting suitable punishment for offenders so they
can advance their brainless hippy , sorry - enlightened approach to
incarceration.

B2003

I'm still trying to find some sort of meaning in this paragraph.

Please go back to whingeing about the Piccadily Line, or asking
interesting technical questions.

On 28 Feb 2011 17:01:02 GMT
Adrian wrote:
gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

Proof is never absolute.

Total BS.

Being able to discuss, isn't one of your strong points. Note, not a
question.

What should I discuss it? "Proof is never absolute" was such a ludicrous
statement that it wasn't worth wasting time.

OK, great.

So give us an example of _absolute_ proof. Not just "beyond reasonable
doubt", but _absolute_.

Criminal videoed on CCTV committing crime with good view of face along with
corroborating witnesses. For example. Unless you subscribe to the evil twin
argument.

There can _always_ be doubt injected into things. It might not be
_reasonable_ to do so. But it can. Look at the various historical
revisionists/conspiracy-theorists - the moon landings, the holocaust,
9/11.

Anyone who claims thing like the moon landings or the holocaust didn't happen
despite concrete proof to the contrary are just so deluded and/or retarded
that their opinions are essentially irrelevant.

B2003

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:41:04 -0000
"Recliner" wrote:
But as I thought I'd make clear even to you, under your proposals,
absolutely no-one, however guilty, would ever, ever plead guilty, so the
state would have to prove every case beyond reasonable doubt. Just
because someone did it, doesn't mean it's easy to prove. And juries
would be more reluctant to convict (not every juror thinks like you).

As I said, if I were in charge and brought back the death penatlty it would
only be allowed if there was absolute proof of guilt. For example in cases
such as Fred West with incriminating evidence under the patio.

Result: more murderers would be found not guilty and released
immediately, rather than in, say, 15 years. Another well thought-out
Boltar plan.

Well it doesn't seem to happen in the USA.

B2003

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 19:17:39 +0000
Ken Wheatley wrote:
The last sentence of that last para being a rather pathetic way of trying to
advance an argument.

I wasn't trying to advance the argument, it was simply an opinion. I find the
whole "state execution is murder and makes us no better than the criminals"
argument a load of specious BS thought up by libtards deliberately to make
people feel guilty about wanting suitable punishment for offenders so they
can advance their brainless hippy , sorry - enlightened approach to
incarceration.

B2003

I'm still trying to find some sort of meaning in this paragraph.

Don't worry, even libtards have a few working braincells - though not too many
- so just give it time and it'll come to you.

B2003

d gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

Proof is never absolute.

Total BS.

Being able to discuss, isn't one of your strong points. Note, not a
question.

What should I discuss it? "Proof is never absolute" was such a
ludicrous statement that it wasn't worth wasting time.

OK, great.

So give us an example of _absolute_ proof. Not just "beyond reasonable
doubt", but _absolute_.

Criminal videoed on CCTV committing crime with good view of face along
with corroborating witnesses. For example. Unless you subscribe to the
evil twin argument.

Or doctored video tape. Or several other implausible reasons.

There can _always_ be doubt injected into things. It might not be
_reasonable_ to do so. But it can. Look at the various historical
revisionists/conspiracy-theorists - the moon landings, the holocaust,
9/11.

Anyone who claims thing like the moon landings or the holocaust didn't
happen despite concrete proof to the contrary are just so deluded and/or
retarded that their opinions are essentially irrelevant.

Tough. You're the one who wants the standard moved _past_ REASONABLE
doubt. The only way to do that is for UNREASONABLE doubt to block
conviction.

On 1 Mar 2011 09:43:39 GMT
Adrian wrote:
Criminal videoed on CCTV committing crime with good view of face along
with corroborating witnesses. For example. Unless you subscribe to the
evil twin argument.

Or doctored video tape. Or several other implausible reasons.

Doctoring is easy to spot especially in video.

Anyone who claims thing like the moon landings or the holocaust didn't
happen despite concrete proof to the contrary are just so deluded and/or
retarded that their opinions are essentially irrelevant.

Tough. You're the one who wants the standard moved _past_ REASONABLE
doubt. The only way to do that is for UNREASONABLE doubt to block
conviction.

I wouldn't have a problem with giving juries an IQ test first and the
thickos being weeded out. Quite how the state expects reasonable decisions
to be made on complex cases by people who - if my single experience on a jury
is anything to go by - can barely string a coherent sentence together I have
no idea.

B2003

d gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

Criminal videoed on CCTV committing crime with good view of face along
with corroborating witnesses. For example. Unless you subscribe to the
evil twin argument.

Or doctored video tape. Or several other implausible reasons.

Doctoring is easy to spot especially in video.

Like I said. You're the one that wants to go past REASONABLE doubt, which
can only mean UNREASONABLE doubt.

Anyone who claims thing like the moon landings or the holocaust didn't
happen despite concrete proof to the contrary are just so deluded
and/or retarded that their opinions are essentially irrelevant.

Tough. You're the one who wants the standard moved _past_ REASONABLE
doubt. The only way to do that is for UNREASONABLE doubt to block
conviction.

I wouldn't have a problem with giving juries an IQ test first and the
thickos being weeded out.

There's a lot of quantifiably, demonstrably very intelligent people
amongst those conspiracy theorists.

Quite how the state expects reasonable decisions to be made on complex
cases by people who - if my single experience on a jury is anything to
go by - can barely string a coherent sentence together I have no idea.

A jury of your peers.

On 1 Mar 2011 11:07:03 GMT
Adrian wrote:
I wouldn't have a problem with giving juries an IQ test first and the
thickos being weeded out.

There's a lot of quantifiably, demonstrably very intelligent people
amongst those conspiracy theorists.

If they get taken in by the BS despite evidence to the contrary then they're
demonstrably NOT intelligent.

B2003

On Mar 1, 10:19*pm, wrote:
On 1 Mar 2011 11:07:03 GMT

Adrian wrote:
I wouldn't have a problem with giving juries an IQ test first and the
thickos being weeded out.

There's a lot of quantifiably, demonstrably very intelligent people
amongst those conspiracy theorists.

If they get taken in by the BS despite evidence to the contrary then they're
demonstrably NOT intelligent.


It's clear that believe some stuff that it's clear most of the people
in this NG believe is *utterly ****ing ridiculous*. That doesn't alter
the fact that you are an intelligent person; at least, one who goes
beyond the threshold that you're suggesting for juries.

The point in a free society is, the fact that I believe your opinions
are demented is irrelevant, just as the fact that you believe the
Troofers' opinions are demented is irrelevant. They get to be
citizens. So do you. The other way lie Uncle Joe and his sometime
friend.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

d gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

I wouldn't have a problem with giving juries an IQ test first and the
thickos being weeded out.

There's a lot of quantifiably, demonstrably very intelligent people
amongst those conspiracy theorists.

If they get taken in by the BS despite evidence to the contrary then
they're demonstrably NOT intelligent.

Riiight. So when you say you only want "intelligent" people on juries,
you mean you only want people who share your opinions.

thinks about some of your posts
****. The world is doomed.