Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
lionking said:
Personalizing the argument again? Sorry, I don't accept this ironclad, years long conspiracy
Click to expand...

And in my opinion the reasons you stated show no grip on reality. It's nothing personal unless you feel overly attached to the irrational you expressed here. ( And I got a feeling you don't :p ) Certainly no more personal than insulting others by calling them CTers.
 
lionking said:
Personalizing the argument again? Sorry, I don't accept this ironclad, years long conspiracy
Click to expand...


Huh?

And "ironclad"? "years long"?

This case doesn't even require the existence of a conspiracy to result in a miscarriage of justice. All it requires is blinkered police and prosecutors who were desperate to be shown to be fast and competent in their search for the killer(s), who made a rash misjudgement on their theory of the case and its participants very early on in the investigation, and who have been trying to justify these early misguided decisions ever since.

But even if it did, many other miscarriage cases have involved fairly widespread conspiracies (either simple conspiracies of silence, or, in some cases, elaborate conspiracies of lies and disinformation), which have lasted for years or sometimes decades. These things can and do happen. They happen in every walk of life: human fallibility, pride and fear (of being shown to be incompetent or worse) all gang up to ensure that.
 
lionking said:
You're welcome. CTs are not my thing. Sorry.
Click to expand...

I'm not exactly sure what you mean about conspiracy theory. I know most people think this has a lot to do with incompetence more than a conspiracy. You seem to think there are only two choices, either it was a conspiracy to frame the two or this idiotic theory of Massei or the prosecution. Then you've given us this principle of yours that you'll just accept whatever the court deems with a "shrug" as you've described.

So does that mean if the court acquits them in round 2 you'll just embrace whatever strawman conspiracy theory you're proposing?
 
HumanityBlues said:
So does that mean if the court acquits them in round 2 you'll just embrace whatever strawman conspiracy theory you're proposing?
Click to expand...

If the court exonerates them I will accept it. I hope you will have the same reaction if it goes the other way. Somehow, I don't think that will be the case.
 
lionking said:
If the court exonerates them I will accept it. I hope you will have the same reaction if it goes the other way. Somehow, I don't think that will be the case.
Click to expand...

What do you mean you will accept it? You will accept it as in, it means the evidence wasn't strong? You will accept it as in you will accept the two as innocent?

I could be wrong, but in your previous posts you've basically inferred that the only alternative to them being innocent is some conspiracy by the police to frame AK and RS. Is this your position? Please explain.
 
HumanityBlues said:
What do you mean you will accept it? You will accept it as in, it means the evidence wasn't strong? You will accept it as in you will accept the two as innocent?

I could be wrong, but in your previous posts you've basically inferred that the only alternative to them being innocent is some conspiracy by the police to frame AK and RS. Is this your position? Please explain.
Click to expand...

Evasion noted. Will you accept the decision of the appeal court or not?
 
lionking said:
Evasion noted. Will you accept the decision of the appeal court or not?
Click to expand...

It's not an evasion. You're not even defining your terms. What do you mean by you will "accept" the verdict? Meaning you won't show up at the court house with a pitchfork? What? What do you mean by accepting?
 
HumanityBlues said:
It's not an evasion. You're not even defining your terms. What do you mean by you will "accept" the verdict? Meaning you won't show up at the court house with a pitchfork? What? What do you mean by accepting?
Click to expand...

Wow, this is getting surreal. Accept as in "yes the court reviewed the evidence and found them guilty (or otherwise), fair enough". What did you think I meant?
 
Yes, this is surreal. What do you expect people to say? "I refuse to believe that the court found them guilty - at least not until I have the court ruling in my hands, properly stamped and sealed, and translated by a notary public".

And then it will probably still be forgery. :D
 
lionking said:
Wow, this is getting surreal. Accept as in "yes the court reviewed the evidence and found them guilty (or otherwise), fair enough". What did you think I meant?
Click to expand...

If it's surreal for you to have to define your terms, what can a person do really? Even now, they way you've worded it, to "accept" a guilty verdict is to say "yes, the court reviewed the evidence and found them guilty (or otherwise), fair enough". I mean, jeez, do you actually expect people to argue that the court actually didn't find them guilty in their appeal even when they did? That's what your wording literally says. What you actually mean is another thing. That's why people ask you define your terms in the first place.

What I would assume a normal person would mean by "accept" within the context of what you are saying is that you will accept in your own brain that the two are innocent or the two are guilty based on which way the verdict goes. Except in your case, I wouldn't expect this is what you personally meant, seeing how you are not denying that the alternative to guilt, in your mind, demands that there is a massive conspiracy amongst the police. This is the inference that you're implying about believing them to be innocent. Therefore, in the case of acquittal, because of this absurd lemming principle you've chosen to adopt for whatever reason, you'd be forcing yourself to believe in this exact so called police conspiracy which you've been forcefully arguing against.

So are we to assume you'll be arguing a mass police conspiracy if they are acquitted? I hope so. At least with your oddly chosen principles you'd at least be consistent.

So if you're asking if I'll "believe" the two are guilty strictly on the basis that the court found them guilty and nothing else? No, of course not. That's a lemming principle devoid of any critical thinking. A loony principle to adopt, but I suppose it's a safe paradigm if that's what makes you feel good.
 
Last edited:
Alt+F4 said:
I thought no one in Italy is considered convicted until their case has made it's way through the entire appeal process. Is this incorrect?

So, according to you AK and RS are convicted murderers, right?
Click to expand...

It's already been pointed out by pro-innocence posters that the status of Mignini's conviction is currently the same as that of Amanda and Raffaele. You're the one who recently claimed that Mignini has not been convicted of anyone, while at the same time attacking AK and RS on the basis of their own (provisional) convictions.

On this subject, you have expressed absolute confidence that the verdicts against Amanda and Raffaele will be upheld. What is the evidence you believe will lead to this?
 
HumanityBlues said:
So if you're asking if I'll "believe" the two are guilty strictly on the basis that the court found them guilty and nothing else? No, of course not.
Click to expand...

As I suspected. That an Internet warrior would know far more than a duly constituted court in a first world nation which accepts the rule of law. See, if the court released them, I would say "fair enough, justice done". I don't expect this to happen, but I would accept it if it did. Why would you know better?
 
lionking said:
Evasion noted. Will you accept the decision of the appeal court or not?
Click to expand...

You'll find most of the pro-innocence believers are rationalists, not authoritarians.

We'll change our minds if and only if new, relevant and substantiated facts are presented at the appeal that we are not currently aware of.

The authoritarian mindset that holds that we should kowtow to a court ruling regardless of the evidence is anti-skeptical and irrational.

It's also fairly blatantly a fall-back position for those too emotionally committed to the guilter position to admit they were totally wrong, but self-aware enough to realise that they do not have any coherent pro-guilt narrative or argument to present. Back when they thought the evidence was on their side they were quite happy to argue that the evidence was on their side and in addition the Perugian court agreed with them. When the evidence got more thoroughly examined and it turned out that they were totally wrong, they retreated to the fall-back position that we should totally ignore all the evidence but that at least the Perugian court agreed with them.

Personally I'd much rather admit to being wrong than admit to being that kind of authoritarian. Wrong can be easily fixed. Irrational ain't so easy. But then again, by definition irrational people don't make rational decisions.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
You'll find most of the pro-innocence believers are rationalists, not authoritarians.

We'll change our minds if and only if new, relevant and substantiated facts are presented at the appeal that we are not currently aware of.

The authoritarian mindset that holds that we should kowtow to a court ruling regardless of the evidence is anti-skeptical and irrational.

It's also fairly blatantly a fall-back position for those too emotionally committed to the guilter position to admit they were totally wrong, but self-aware enough to realise that they do not have any coherent pro-guilt narrative or argument to present. Back when they thought the evidence was on their side they were quite happy to argue that the evidence was on their side and in addition the Perugian court agreed with them. When the evidence got more thoroughly
examined and it turned out that they were totally wrong, they retreated to the fall-back position that we should totally ignore all the evidence but that at least the Perugian court agreed with them.

Personally I'd much rather admit to being wrong than admit to being that kind of authoritarian. Wrong can be easily fixed. Irrational ain't so easy. But then again, by definition irrational people don't make rational decisions.
Click to expand...

Neat. To believe in guilt makes one an authoritarian. I'll cop that. I'd rather accept the authority of an appeal court in a first world country which accepts the rule of law than an internet forum without access to all the evidence.
 
lionking said:
Neat. To believe in guilt makes one an authoritarian. I'll cop that. I'd rather accept the authority of an appeal court in a first world country which accepts the rule of law than an internet forum without access to all the evidence.
Click to expand...

You just spout off nonsensical phrases that have no meaning. "A first world country which accepts the rule of law"? What does that even mean? It's just cheesy jargon. I know you think they sound good, but it really means nothing.

The United States is a first world country btw, and our criminal courts are a total disaster. But wait, that actually can't be true, because we're a first world country and all.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom