Re: Irvine Patnick RIP (rot in pieces) : Sat Jan 05, 2013 9:46 pm  

kirkstaller wrote: Does every thread have to turn into this? For the record, you are quoting Mosaic law. Forgive me. I know not what I do. I actually found it on a website called: www.howtobethesameaswindupmerchantswhou ... aforum.com

kirkstaller wrote: Does every thread have to turn into this? For the record, you are quoting Mosaic law. Forgive me. I know not what I do. I actually found it on a website called: www.howtobethesameaswindupmerchantswhou ... aforum.com

Re: Irvine Patnick RIP (rot in pieces) : Sat Jan 05, 2013 9:53 pm  

Rooster Booster wrote:

Forgive me. I know not what I do.

Was that intentional???

Re: Irvine Patnick RIP (rot in pieces) : Sat Jan 05, 2013 9:54 pm  

and

pretendingtobesomethingimnot.com

and

ilovewindingpeopleup.com

and

igoonsitestogetariseANDTHEYBITE.com

Re: Irvine Patnick RIP (rot in pieces) : Sat Jan 05, 2013 9:56 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

You would have to agree a certain type of crime - terrorism, ian huntley/Brady types on children, premeditated or repeated murder e.g. Rose West, Shipman the very serious types of murder.

I am not sure how much more objective I can be - I have stated my reasons what more do you want?

Those are your reasons, yes – and fair enough.

But they're subjective. And indeed, would rely on subjectivity.

Re: Irvine Patnick RIP (rot in pieces) : Sat Jan 05, 2013 9:59 pm  

Rooster Booster wrote: Forgive me. I know not what I do. I actually found it on a website called: http://www.howtobethesameaswindupmercha ... aforum.com Do you understand the significance of your words? Luke 23:24

Rooster Booster wrote: Forgive me. I know not what I do. I actually found it on a website called: http://www.howtobethesameaswindupmercha ... aforum.com Do you understand the significance of your words? Luke 23:24

Re: Irvine Patnick RIP (rot in pieces) : Sun Jan 06, 2013 7:46 am  

Mintball wrote:

Those are your reasons, yes – and fair enough.

But they're subjective. And indeed, would rely on subjectivity.

Virtually everything we do in life requires subjectivity, even the law which is subject to individual judge's interpretation of statute. This would be no different - seldom are things so black and white.

Re: Irvine Patnick RIP (rot in pieces) : Sun Jan 06, 2013 2:23 pm  

Rock God X wrote:

Well, I wouldn't direct the jury to do that. For a start, I wouldn't use a term like 'as near as damn in' in court, whereas I just might on a message board.

What I'm saying is that if I'd want the jury to be 100% sure in as much as you can be 100% sure about anything. For example, I'm 100% sure that I am the person my birth certificate says I am. Sure, I accept the possibility that I could have been switched at birth with another baby, but I don't find it causes me any reasonable doubt about my identity given the likeness I possess to my father and whatnot. That's what I mean when I say 100% or 'as near as damn it'.

So in fact, having disagreed all along, you have now been persuaded that the standard of proof of "beyond reasonable doubt" is the best we can do.

As for using different terminology in court, one problem has been (it turns out) you use of imprecise language. You probably don't even know it, but your starting proposition (100% sure) it turns out does not mean what it implies, and does not equate to certainty. Therefore is very confusing if used as any yardstick. Being "sure" is not exactly the same as being "certain". So, for example, you are 100% sure you are that person; but you aren't (and cannot be) certain. So to use the term "100% sure" in the way you argued is misleading. If you had been charged with not being that person, you are sure you're not, but cannot be certain. Leave the "100%" out and it works.

Re: Irvine Patnick RIP (rot in pieces) : Sun Jan 06, 2013 2:45 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

So in fact, having disagreed all along, you have now been persuaded that the standard of proof of "beyond reasonable doubt" is the best we can do.

As for using different terminology in court, one problem has been (it turns out) you use of imprecise language. You probably don't even know it, but your starting proposition (100% sure) it turns out does not mean what it implies, and does not equate to certainty. Therefore is very confusing if used as any yardstick. Being "sure" is not exactly the same as being "certain". So, for example, you are 100% sure you are that person; but you aren't (and cannot be) certain. So to use the term "100% sure" in the way you argued is misleading. If you had been charged with not being that person, you are sure you're not, but cannot be certain. Leave the "100%" out and it works.

I think that that is the crux of it my legalistic friend.
I had noticed his use of the term 'beyond reasonable doubt' which sort of holed him below the water-line , but I thought that I would leave it to my learned colleague to point it out.
Do you do cheap conveyancing by any chance?

Re: Irvine Patnick RIP (rot in pieces) : Sun Jan 06, 2013 6:18 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Virtually everything we do in life requires subjectivity,

Nah.

Sal Paradise wrote:

even the law which is subject to individual judge's interpretation of statute.

Nah. If the statute is clear, and most are, the judge is not even allowed to do any interpretation. See "golden rule".

Re: Irvine Patnick RIP (rot in pieces) : Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:09 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Nah.

Nah. If the statute is clear, and most are, the judge is not even allowed to do any interpretation. See "golden rule".

So every decision you make is so straight forward you do not require you to use your brain, you are effect an automon - but for most of us we need to consider other issues i.e. decision are 'subject' to outside considerations. I would suggest you are wrong in your 'nah' comment.

How do you explain Judicial law changes? and how do you explain the diversity of sentencing for very similar offences if the decision does not include some degree of subjectivity from the judge? If it were not the case you would only need the judge to ensure legal protocol and on conviction the sentence would already be known.