• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
RoseMontague said:
Welcome to the forum. I am in complete agreement with you. The problem we have here is the posters that make us feel uncomfortable. I am so glad you brought this up.

I suggest those that are deemed unbecoming of this place be prohibited from posting here. There should be no talk of who is right or wrong, or rational or irrational. Once we get rid of those poor unfortunate, unbecoming souls we can close the thread to new members. That way things will remain comfortable for all of us becoming ones.

We need to start a list. Who shall we start with?
Click to expand...

Nice! :)
 
curi0us said:
Very kind words but I think you misunderstand my side. I will argue with bolint, shuttit and thoughtful but they are on my side. Anyone who mocks rational debate with a holier than thou attitude is not on my side even if they superficially agree with me.
Click to expand...

I see what you mean about that.

Seriously look at what Malfie wrote again:

Originally Posted by Malfie Henpox
The constant 'You're not rational', 'No, you're not rational' arguments. Some of things said about the Kerchers. The bashing of those with differing opinions. The general air of pretentious superiority.
Click to expand...

Do You really think that is a fair description of this thread? Would you describe it as a place of "constant" 'You're not rational', 'No, you're not rational' arguments"?

I see plenty of very rational arguments being made in this thread and consider it an insult to many thoughtful posters here to suggest they are just engaging in childish back and forth name calling as Malfie described.<snip>
Click to expand...

I thought Malfie's first two posts were neutral enough that we couldn't jump to conclusions about whom she was referring to; that's why I asked her what it was that made her uncomfortable. In my experience, everything she described above could be applied to the guilters.

Since Malfie has been around since 2004, she actually might have been reading this thread when there was a lot of "You're not rationals" being exchanged. There has been much less of that since most of the guilters left.
 
Mary_H said:
I see what you mean about that.



I thought Malfie's first two posts were neutral enough that we couldn't jump to conclusions about whom she was referring to; that's why I asked her what it was that made her uncomfortable. In my experience, everything she described above could be applied to the guilters.

Since Malfie has been around since 2004, she actually might have been reading this thread when there was a lot of "You're not rationals" being exchanged. There has been much less of that since most of the guilters left.
Click to expand...

I'm a dude. And yes I remember, though I never specified a date.

And I consider both sides of this argument ridiculous, and at times unnecessary. Not that it matters. I don't claim to be the judge of reason. I do like to have my opinion considered without mockery though. And poor attempts at a character slur are just silly.

I think my biggest problem is the size of the debate. I wish I had all these people bullying everyone in my defence that time I was incorrectly given a speeding ticket.
 
Malfie Henpox said:
How about 'people'? Yes. That's a nice term for describing people. It's almost like it was made for it. And there is no indication of negative aspersions. .
Click to expand...

How do we refer to those people that believe in innocence? It is the nature of this debate to add a descriptive for either guilt, innocence, or undecided. Quite confusing otherwise. Pro-guilt or Pro-innocence does not seem to me to carry "negative aspersions" and is in fact one of the more neutral terms I have seen.

Malfie Henpox said:
I think the Kerchers probably just wanted justice. You know, for their dead daughter.
Click to expand...

I agree. It is my opinion that their trust in the cops, prosecutor, and their lawyer was misplaced. The result was that they backed a position that was an injustice towards two innocent kids. That is simply my opinion.
 
Malfie Henpox said:
I think my biggest problem is the size of the debate. I wish I had all these people bullying everyone in my defence that time I was incorrectly given a speeding ticket.
Click to expand...

IMO, that point of view is silly. Not you, just your point. Who cares what size the debate is? People find it interesting. There are lots of people who felt very strongly about a case where two people were held in jail, charged with murder and called all sorts of horrible names, based on lies. I think that is way more important than a speeding ticket.

Now that a court has agreed with all the people that have been arguing this point on the internet for years, it looks a lot less crazy for all of these folks to be talking about this. I will agree that the debate should remain civil, but some of the points that have been raised in the case against Knox and Sollecito were so outrageous that it difficult to find a way to politely refute them. Is there a polite way to tell people they are arguing to convict two innocent kids using false information?
 
RoseMontague said:
I think when Malfie said he/she didn't like the term proguilters or criticism of the Kerchers it became rather obvious which side he/she is being critical of regardless of what opinion this poster has on guilt or innocence.

I like a debate with both sides of the case involved. I believe the best way to determine the truth is to expose each side of the argument to counter-argument and discussion. I like an uncomfortable debate with my beliefs challenged and I believe that is the best way to go about determining the truth of things. None of us own the truth, it exists independent of our opinion.
Click to expand...

Malfie Henpox said:
Outrageous. There is no room on this thread for the counter argument. As the hounding of those who hold it proves.

You don't know the truth. You know there wasn't enough evidence to imprison them. As do we all. The rest is hyperbole and conjecture.

You attempt to say I'm dogmatic, I think, because I said some of the thread makes for uncomfortable reading. This is just wild, unsupported nonsense.

But mock away.

I have nothing more to add. My point is clear. It's an opinion, I'm sure you can deal with that on an open forum.
Click to expand...

I am not mocking you. Read again what I said. I don't agree with you that there is no room on this thread for counter argument. I have been in the minority position of my opinion on many occasions. I still enjoy the debate and discussion. If it makes you uncomfortable that your opinion is challenged you can either defend your opinion or not.
 
Malfie Henpox said:
I'm a dude. And yes I remember, though I never specified a date.
Click to expand...

Awesome, dude. ;)

And I consider both sides of this argument ridiculous, and at times unnecessary.
Click to expand...

It could be argued that it is at all times unnecessary.

Not that it matters. I don't claim to be the judge of reason. I do like to have my opinion considered without mockery though. And poor attempts at a character slur are just silly.

I think my biggest problem is the size of the debate. I wish I had all these people bullying everyone in my defence that time I was incorrectly given a speeding ticket.
Click to expand...

Don't we all. In fact, you have reminded me of one of the primary reasons I became interested in this case. I was in a situation in which my life was damaged by some bad people. What I wished for more than anything at that time was a strong advocate. Amanda and Raffaele have benefited from my experience. :)
 
RoseMontague said:
I am not mocking you. Read again what I said. I don't agree with you that there is no room on this thread for counter argument. I have been in the minority position of my opinion on many occasions. I still enjoy the debate and discussion. If it makes you uncomfortable that your opinion is challenged you can either defend your opinion or not.
Click to expand...

My opinion wasn't challenged. I agree (for the most part) with you. But I don't call anyone who doesn't irrational. And I certainly wouldn't call the Kerchers anything. One person went so far as to say they looked unhappy at the verdict due to lost compensation. In fact a few have alluded to this. Disgusting, and complete conjecture. The very thing this argument proposes to be against. It was the tone of the argument that uneases me, not the content.
 
Keeper said:
Independent's coverage of Sollecito's comments on the Perugia Police...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...cuses-italian-police-of-violence-2366163.html
Click to expand...

That link goes on to say:

Describing his experience at the hands of interrogators, he [Raffaele] said: "I thought that I didn't have anything to worry about because they would look after me as my father had always told me they would.

"I certainly couldn't have imagined that rather than protect me the police would act with violence and coercion." The statement, read by Mr Sollecito's father, Francesco, had been, according to Corriere della Sera, deliberately toned down.
Click to expand...

Raffaele's sister is a cop, I believe. Who would have thought?

That first betrayal by government is always a shock!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom