Louise O'Neill on manned mission to Mars: "Why not go to Venus?" (MOD Warning post 1)

LLMMLL

Ush1 wrote: »

The jury were in the court, you weren't.

And?

Ush1

LLMMLL wrote: »

And?

Whether you or LON believes anyone is largely irrelevant as you weren't in the courtroom and privy to all the information.

So who cares I guess?

Maxpfizer

LLMMLL wrote: »

I believed the victim in that case as the testimony of the men were demonstrably bags of lies with one defendant actually telling the wrong version of events that had been designed by another defendant.

I’m sure other people have their own reasons for why they believe either the victim or the defendants.

There was no victim. The verdict was "not guilty".

Or did you mean the alleged victim?

Do you think that if people were to read your posts on this thread that had nothing to do with that trial that we would still be able to predict who you would choose to believe?

What would it take for you to NOT believe her?

It just seems to me like you are a lost cause. Even if you were there and you knew that they were not guilty and you knew that there was no victim I still wouldn't trust you to say "I don't believe her".

What would it take for you to accept that they didn't do it?

LLMMLL

Maxpfizer wrote: »

There was no victim. The verdict was "not guilty".

Or did you mean the alleged victim?

Do you think that if people were to read your posts on this thread that had nothing to do with that trial that we would still be able to predict who you would choose to believe?

What would it take for you to NOT believe her?

It just seems to me like you are a lost cause. Even if you were there and you knew that they were not guilty and you knew that there was no victim I still wouldn't trust you to say "I don't believe her".

What would it take for you to accept that they didn't do it?

Well not telling obvious lies that they didn’t get together and come up with a cover story when one of them gave the wrong story that another also gave. That would be a start.

Maxpfizer

LLMMLL wrote: »

And?

Well it means you don't have the full story or all the details so your "belief" is based on other factors.

In effect you are making a judgement on something using your own personal biases but, in reality, you have no idea what you are talking about.

In addition to that, the "side" you would fall on feels pre-determined based on your contributions here.

You seem more likely to follow your beliefs than to follow the evidence.

As a member of this society, as a taxpayer and as someone who believes in the justice system I trust a jury to make decisions that I can't.

So, with that in mind, who should I believe? A jury of my peers or a biased individual who is apparently fully indoctrinated into an ideology that would have VERY specific beliefs and views in a case like this?

Yeah_Right

LLMMLL wrote: »

In reality an initial no is often met with either wheedling/whining, directly ignored, or initially accepted followed a few minutes later by trying again.

So? Do you give in because of wheedling/whining and say ok? If they ignore you is that the end of your resistance? And if they are ignoring 'no' repeatedly then they don't need consent classes, they need a jail cell. If someone keeps trying it on with you do you eventually submit? Or do you stand your ground?

Maxpfizer

LLMMLL wrote: »

Well not telling obvious lies that they didn’t get together and come up with a cover story when one of them gave the wrong story that another also gave. That would be a start.

So should I trust you or trust the jury? You seem biased, incredibly so.

LLMMLL

Maxpfizer wrote: »

Well it means you don't have the full story or all the details so your "belief" is based on other factors.

In effect you are making a judgement on something using your own personal biases but, in reality, you have no idea what you are talking about.

In addition to that, the "side" you would fall on feels pre-determined based on your contributions here.

You seem more likely to follow your beliefs than to follow the evidence.

As a member of this society, as a taxpayer and as someone who believes in the justice system I trust a jury to make decisions that I can't.

So, with that in mind, who should I believe? A jury of my peers or a biased individual who is apparently fully indoctrinated into an ideology that would have VERY specific beliefs and views in a case like this?

My belief is based on my examination of the evidence. And I don’t think I would have convicted based on the evidence.

This is what most people do not understand about the legal system. Conviction is not based on belief. It’s based on a certain standard of proof.

Equally, my belief as a private citizen is not based on conviction in a court.

LLMMLL

Maxpfizer wrote: »

So should I trust you or trust the jury? You seem biased, incredibly so.

Where have you been asked to trust me? I stated my belief on a topical court case relevant to the thread. I never suggested you should agree.

You seem equally as biased.

Omackeral

LLMMLL wrote: »

No it doesn’t. Take the PJ case for instance. The victim claims she said no. LON, whether right or wrong about this case,believed her account. So from their point of view a woman said no and was ignored. I see no inference that women can’t say no.

Of course she did. Based on what I wonder. Like the majority of people hashtagging #IBelieveHer, she was not privy to anything in that case. In reality, she likely saw a chance to get on a bandwagon that runs down privileged men while getting some limelight on herself. Also, the jury, which included women, had the evidence. Those women weren't worthy of a hashtag were they? Undermining poison.

Ush1

LLMMLL wrote: »

My belief is based on my examination of the evidence. And I don’t think I would have convicted based on the evidence.

This is what most people do not understand about the legal system. Conviction is not based on belief. It’s based on a certain standard of proof.

Equally, my belief as a private citizen is not based on conviction in a court.

We must tell the exchequer about you, would save billions in trials.

2smiggy

LLMMLL wrote: »

My belief is based on my examination of the evidence.

you were not privy to all the evidence, so how can you make any judgement on it ?

LLMMLL

Omackeral wrote: »

Of course she did. Based on what I wonder. Like the majority of people hashtagging #IBelieveHer, she was not privy to anything in that case. In reality, she likely saw a chance to get on a bandwagon that runs down privileged men while getting some limelight on herself. Also, the jury, which included women, had the evidence. Those women weren't worthy of a hashtag were they? Undermining poison.

Actually anyone who followed the case were privy to a lot of information. There were journalists in the court live tweeting it.

Sure the jury got to see things like the demeanour of those testifying and more details of testimony but suggesting that there was no or little information for the general public to base opinions on is just not true.

Omackeral

LLMMLL wrote: »

My belief is based on my examination of the evidence.

I hate the term 'lol' but fcuking lol. Were you given a laminated folder and all. Deluded.

LLMMLL

Ush1 wrote: »

We must tell the exchequer about you, would save billions in trials.

Obviously my post went way over your head.

Ush1

LLMMLL wrote: »

Actually anyone who followed the case were privy to a lot of information. There were journalists in the court live tweeting it.

Sure the jury got to see things like the demeanour of those testifying and more details of testimony but suggesting that there was no or little information for the general public to base opinions on is just not true.

Well that's brilliant isn't it, literally "trial by social media".

Ush1

LLMMLL wrote: »

Obviously my post went way over your head.

Yes, there was such high concept in there, I really struggled with the inane ramblings of an ideologue saying they know better than the courts system.

Omackeral

LLMMLL wrote: »

Actually anyone who followed the case were privy to a lot of information. There were journalists in the court live tweeting it.

Sure the jury got to see things like the demeanour of those testifying and more details of testimony but suggesting that there was no or little information for the general public to base opinions on is just not true.

The general public in the gallery have nothing on jurors who are on the scene, who deliberate, who cross reference, who are advised by the judge. This goes ten fold for some slack jawed onlookers from outside the jurisdiction who wouldn't even be au fait with a different legal system. Give it a rest My Cousin Vinny.

LLMMLL

2smiggy wrote: »

you were not privy to all the evidence, so how can you make any judgement on it ?

The jury were also not privy to all the evidence. Legal arguments were made to withhold some from them. And that is fine in the context of the trial.

It’s also fine for me to make the lesser commitment (lesser than criminally convicting someone) of believing someone.

I make a decision based on the evidence I do have. Which was quite a lot.

Ush1

LLMMLL wrote: »

The jury were also not privy to all the evidence. Legal arguments were made to withhold some from them. And that is fine in the context of the trial.

It’s also fine for me to make the lesser commitment (lesser than criminally convicting someone) of believing someone.

I make a decision based on the evidence I do have. Which was quite a lot.

And?

LLMMLL

Ush1 wrote: »

Yes, there was such high concept in there, I really struggled with the inane ramblings of an ideologue saying they know better than the courts system.

You just didn’t understand my post.

I said that convicting in a court is different to believing someone.

I’m not convicting PJ, I’ve no power to do so.

My beliefs have nothing to do with his conviction or lack thereof.

Do you follow?

LLMMLL

Ush1 wrote: »

And?

And I believe the victim.

Omackeral

LLMMLL wrote: »

I make a decision based on the evidence I do have. Which was quite a lot.

You should call for a re-trial and take the stand Ally Mc Beal.

Ush1

LLMMLL wrote: »

You just didn’t understand my post.

I said that convicting in a court is different to believing someone.

I’m not convicting PJ, I’ve no power to do so.

My beliefs have nothing to do with his conviction or lack thereof.

Do you follow?

Some people believe the earth is flat, have a nice day!

LLMMLL

Ush1 wrote: »

Well that's brilliant isn't it, literally "trial by social media".

No it was trial by court.

In addition, people hold opinions about public court cases. But it’s not a trial.

Ush1

LLMMLL wrote: »

And I believe the victim.

….and?

Omackeral

LLMMLL wrote: »

And I believe the victim.

There was no victim. Next case please.

LLMMLL

Omackeral wrote: »

You should call for a re-trial and take the stand Ally Mc Beal.

Also missing my point completely.

Omackeral

LLMMLL wrote: »

Also missing my point completely.

Sorry Judge Judy.

Yeah_Right

Omackeral wrote: »

You should call for a re-trial and take the stand Ally Mc Beal.

There I was applauding the My Cousin Vinny comment (great movie) and you go and ruin it by bringing up Ally McBeal. #sad #ibelievevinny