Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Real Life James Bond on March 14, 2013 at 4:03pm

By "they don't come from nowhere" I mean there must have been something to the accusation, unless the lawyer was completely full of shit (which I don't think he was) no one has given anything to say the he did or didn't have anything to do with so the question is open ended. It's just a fact that if someone is going to the trouble to file a criminal complaint against another person they must have some reason, that's just a fact.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on March 14, 2013 at 4:24pm

And the 'fact' could be that they harbour a grudge against that person for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with the alleged assault.  Perhaps a spurned romantic advance, perhaps being overlooked for a promotion, or perhaps just a wild fantasy.

As someone putting yourself forward as policing the intellectual honesty of this discussion I think you ought to take a closer look at the intellectual integrity of your obvious bias.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MikeLong on March 14, 2013 at 4:31pm

What complete and utter BULLSHIT. Please look up the term, "due process". 

No it is NOT "open ended". If a charge is brought, the accused must be PROVED guilty or he/she is INNOCENT. That's a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT!

By your standard anyone can "go through the trouble" of filing a complaint and completely ruin someone's life because idiots like you ASSUME "there must be something to it" just because an accusation is made. If that's your definition of "fact", a whole lot of assumptions can be made about your thought processes. Are you a theist troll? (A reasonable assumption considering the way you think.)

Meanwhile we'll just go ahead and assume you are a theist troll. The question has been raised. There must be something to it, right? The question is open ended, right? Your denials are irrelevant. The assumption has been made. We'll just go ahead and roll with that.

FACT: Sam Redmon is a a theist troll.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on March 14, 2013 at 4:35pm

I don't know what sort of evidence there is that Sam Redmon is a theist troll, but these sorts of accusations don't come from nowhere, right?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Real Life James Bond on March 14, 2013 at 4:45pm

You could make that claim and a pretty convincing argument for it. I am not a theist, but I see where you're coming from.
@Mike if you're talking about the US criminal justice system, I'm sorry to say that is a flawed system. Hundreds of innocent people go to jail all the time, meaning that for every innocent person in jail there is at least 1 criminal free. So innocent until proven guilty is not the best way to go. And yes false accusations can ruin someone's life, but prove to me that this was a false accusation and ill side with you.
No one has even tried to defend the pope with any evidence, show me evidence of his guilt, or innocence, and nobody has given either one (I know I haven't either so don't try that one).
Show me he is innocent without a doubt.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by kris feenstra on March 14, 2013 at 4:53pm

You should bear the burden of proof here. The problem is not his guilt or innocence; the problem is whether or not your implication was justified. Even if he is guilty, that does not inherently justify your claim.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MikeLong on March 14, 2013 at 4:54pm

Sorry, I thought you were trolling. I figured you'd say, "got me". But no, you "honestly" don't accept (nor understand) the basic tenet of civilized legal systems. You want "guilty until proven innocent", eh? What more can I say?

Sorry I misjudged you. Please say a prayer for me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Real Life James Bond on March 14, 2013 at 5:03pm

Lol, still not a theist, you could probably deduce that from this post of mine, previous posts, my blog, or various other sources. That's beside the matter though. Look at the flaws of civilized legal system and you'll realize that it's not all it cut out to be.
However, @Kris I can see your point, and should probably have revised my post a little.
I didn't set out to offend anyone, my sincerest apologies if I have.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on March 14, 2013 at 7:54pm

Sam, I have no personal bone to pick with you, so this is simply FYI - I lived in Mexico for several years, and under the Mexican "justice" system, a person accused of a crime is guilty - why else would he be arrested? - until he or she proves himself innocent, and in Mexican jails, if you want to eat, you need to buy your own food. It doesn't take much time in a Mexican jail, which is not all the fun it's cracked up to be, to appreciate the American "innocent until proven guilty" system - and on this side of the Rio, the food is free.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Real Life James Bond on March 14, 2013 at 8:04pm

Thank you for your insight. I agree, a guilty until proven innocent system is much worse than innocent until proven guilty. I think we have a good system in comparison, but should be revised so as so many innocent people aren't getting put away.
And as for the food, tax payers pay for that here

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dale Headley on March 14, 2013 at 6:39pm

The Vatican must have some kind of Nazi obsession.  The last Pope was a Hitler youth.  This new one collaborated very closely with the fascist government that was "disappearing" people in the 70's.  He even ratted out two monks who were subsequently "disappeared."  What was their crime?  Working to improve the living conditions of poor people in the Argentine slums, instead of converting them, as the abominably cruel Mother Teresa would have done.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dr. Bob on March 14, 2013 at 8:02pm

@DaleHeadley, "This new one collaborated very closely with the fascist government that was "disappearing" people in the 70's" is a claim.  What is your evidence and reasoning?  The men you mention were not "monks" by the way, they were Jesuit priests.

Adolfo Perez Esquivel, who won the Nobel Peace Prize for documenting the atrocities in Argentina during the "dirty war" is on record as saying that Bergoglio is innocent of the charges you just made.  Do you have some evidence that he and the Argentinian legal system does not?

The reasoning is also faulty.  At the time, Bergoglio was the Jesuit provincial responsible for those two men.  Betraying them would have cost him everything in the Society.  Ruined his career, marked him for life.  To what end?  What would be the motive?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 16
• 17
• 18
• 19
• 20
• …
• 29
• Next ›
• Page