Play Nice Random Chat Thread: Episode III

[Kangaroos4eva]

Anyone who thinks a corporation can be "woke" ... ahhh what's the point.

Thanks for killing my half assed gag...

 

[Del191229]

I'm not claiming anything otherwise without proof to the contrary, but let's not utilise the blanket term "rape" as a social phenomenon where accusations must always be taken at face value as truth, because it's certainly not the case.

Agree entirely.

 

[Val Keating]

Anyone know what the symbol in this photo represents? Looks like a swastika on top of a Star of David with another symbol inside. It’s from a building in Collins St Melbourne (the Ralph Lauren building)

 

[Snake_Baker]

Anyone know what the symbol in this photo represents? Looks like a swastika on top of a Star of David with another symbol inside. It’s from a building in Collins St Melbourne (the Ralph Lauren building)

View attachment 732142

A hindu symbol, with some type of caduceus encircling a star of David containing Egyptian hieroglyphics.

Dunno, but it looks Masonic to me.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Anyone know what the symbol in this photo represents? Looks like a swastika on top of a Star of David with another symbol inside. It’s from a building in Collins St Melbourne (the Ralph Lauren building)

View attachment 732142

Coptic Christian, the Egyptian symbol gives it away.

If you looking for ancient symbols of the swastika, you can find it in ancient Greek/Iranian/Hindu temples/iconography.

If you’re not sure:https://www.ancient-origins.net/myths-legends/symbol-swastika-and-its-12000-year-old-history-001312

 

[Tas]

Sweet, so basically you can rape or abuse someone with no witnesses and never be held accountable for it.

No, people shouldn't. If you get r*ped, call the police, collect physical evidence and put the person away. Having zero evidence and coming back 30 years later to make an accusation is a scenario I don't think it is possible to satisfy reasonable doubt no matter how compelling the testimony is.

If you think we should just believe any accusation, or even eyewitness testimony, then you must believe that Daw is guilty of the accusation that was levelled at him if you have any consistency in your beliefs.

 

[Del191229]

No, people shouldn't. If you get r*ped, call the police, collect physical evidence and put the person away. Having zero evidence and coming back 30 years later to make an accusation is a scenario I don't think it is possible to satisfy reasonable doubt no matter how compelling the testimony is.

If you think we should just believe any accusation, or even eyewitness testimony, then you must believe that Daw is guilty of the accusation that was levelled at him if you have any consistency in your beliefs.

Righto, let's get 13 year old kids who have just been r*ped to call the police.

And the obvious "oh you must be in favour of the extreme opposite".

 

[Val Keating]

Righto, let's get 13 year old kids who have just been r*ped to call the police.

And the obvious "oh you must be in favour of the extreme opposite".

Not to mention they target kids that don’t really understand what’s happened till later on. Often even told that THEY did something wrong.

 

[Tas]

Righto, let's get 13 year old kids who have just been r*ped to call the police.

I think kids are better educated now in terms of being aware of predatory behaviour and what they should do if they are a victim of it. It isn't a perfect world and no amount of justice can undo the crime. Sadly, we live in a world where false accusations are common enough that the burden of evidence is as high as it is. In a civilised society it is better to have a guilty person walk free than it is to ruin the life of an innocent person.

And the obvious "oh you must be in favour of the extreme opposite".

Yeah, it is obvious. Some people would have little hesitation stringing Pell up and forgetting about the rule of law entirely because they believe he is guilty, want him to be guilty or do not care if he is innocent because lets be realistic, even if he was innocent he has probably known of other priests molesting children and did nothing about bringing them to justice.

My point is I do not care about this cases in particular, just the scenario that someone can have their name ruined forever and sent to jail based on nothing other than the jury having to guess which one of two people are lying, that it would be impossible to be free of reasonable doubt in that scenario. Using another case of someone you actually give a shit about is important because I am assuming you care more about justice when it comes to Daw than you do for Pell.

If an accusation is not enough for someone you give a shit about, it isn't enough for someone you hate.

 

[Tas]

Not to mention they target kids that don’t really understand what’s happened till later on. Often even told that THEY did something wrong.

Kids aren't as stupid as people like to think they are.

My public high school was smack in the middle of a number of Catholic private schools and everyone knew what was going on; kids, schools, police, etc. Everyone knew it was wrong. People didn't report back then as often as they do now because everyone actively tried to cover things up to save face and as a result more and more kids were abused because of it.

We have different attitudes now, different standards.

 

[SpiderBurton22]

Kids aren't as stupid as people like to think they are.

My public high school was smack in the middle of a number of Catholic private schools and everyone knew what was going on; kids, schools, police, etc. Everyone knew it was wrong. People didn't report back then as often as they do now because everyone actively tried to cover things up to save face and as a result more and more kids were abused because of it.

We have different attitudes now, different standards.

How do I put this, but the simplicity of children and for that case, woman and men just calling police after being r*ped is so nìave and out of touch with the real world that it really astounds me that you have gone down this line of reasoning as, judging by your posting, you're an intelligent individual.

 

[Val Keating]

Kids aren't as stupid as people like to think they are.

My public high school was smack in the middle of a number of Catholic private schools and everyone knew what was going on; kids, schools, police, etc. Everyone knew it was wrong. People didn't report back then as often as they do now because everyone actively tried to cover things up to save face and as a result more and more kids were abused because of it.

We have different attitudes now, different standards.

I’m talking about kids that come from broken homes, intellectual difficulties, physical disabilities

In Argentina, Catholic priests face trial for deaf children’s sexual abuse | Catholic Herald

The trial has begun for two Catholic priests and a former employee allegedly involved in sexual abuse of 10 students at an institute that cared for deaf children. Their alleged victims say one abuser…

catholicherald.co.uk

The Document Trail: The Predator Priest Who Got Away

The Rev. Lawrence C. Murphy admitted he sexually abused deaf boys at his boarding school for 22 years. Victims tried for more than three decades to bring him to justice, but documents show that the church neither defrocked him nor referred him for prosecution. <a...

www.nytimes.com

Then we have father Bongiorno preying on Maria James disabled son..

There’s thousands of these cases

 

[Val Keating]

There’s also kids who are so embarrassed and ashamed that they never come forward. They just go inward and often go from bright happy kids to dark broken people.

 

[Tas]

How do I put this, but the simplicity of children and for that case, woman and men just calling police after being r*ped is so nìave and out of touch with the real world that it really astounds me that you have gone down this line of reasoning as, judging by your posting, you're an intelligent individual.

It isn't a line of reasoning, it is what the data says from relevant government authorities. The number of people who survey as victims of crime is on the decline yet the number of reported crimes has increased dramatically then it has remained fairly steady in recent years.

Attitudes now are very different to what even existed 10 years ago. What it was like 30 years is completely foreign to what it is like now.

 

[Tas]

There’s also kids who are so embarrassed and ashamed that they never come forward. They just go inward and often go from bright happy kids to dark broken people.

Our criminal justice system doesn't have a crystal ball, a lot of people who steal, who murder, etc also get away with crimes if they aren't reported or there is a lack of evidence to convict. We can only deal with those that are reported to police and we need enough evidence to ensure someone is guilty.

If I had a vendetta against you and accused you of a crime and knew enough about your life to make a convincing testimony, would you be happy about going to jail and being a sex offender for the rest of your life based on my accusation/evidence alone?

I am perplexed that anyone in their right mind would be comfortable with that scenario.

 

[Val Keating]

Our criminal justice system doesn't have a crystal ball, a lot of people who steal, who murder, etc also get away with crimes if they aren't reported or there is a lack of evidence to convict. We can only deal with those that are reported to police and we need enough evidence to ensure someone is guilty.

If I had a vendetta against you and accused you of a crime and knew enough about your life to make a convincing testimony, would you be happy about going to jail and being a sex offender for the rest of your life based on my accusation/evidence alone?

I am perplexed that anyone in their right mind would be comfortable with that scenario.

On the other hand if I did something really awful to you and for years you struggled with it then one day confided in someone what happened and why your life has been chaos since then.

You find the courage to go to the police and they say, “bad luck. No physical evidence. Should’ve told us when you were 7”

 

[Snake_Baker]

No, people shouldn't. If you get r*ped, call the police, collect physical evidence and put the person away. Having zero evidence and coming back 30 years later to make an accusation is a scenario I don't think it is possible to satisfy reasonable doubt no matter how compelling the testimony is.

If you think we should just believe any accusation, or even eyewitness testimony, then you must believe that Daw is guilty of the accusation that was levelled at him if you have any consistency in your beliefs.

It's not that easy Tas.

 

[SpiderBurton22]

If I had a vendetta against you and accused you of a crime and knew enough about your life to make a convincing testimony, would you be happy about going to jail and being a sex offender for the rest of your life based on my accusation/evidence alone?

I am perplexed that anyone in their right mind would be comfortable with that scenario.

Of course no one would be happy with that scenario.

Do you actually know the process one has to go through to lay serious charges against someone? You make it sound so simple.

As I've mentioned last time Pell got found guilty, people very close to me have lived this personal experience. You don't just rock up to the cops and the next day they are charged. There were hours and hours of speaking to detectives, going over your statements multiple times in many interviews and that is just the victims. It took years of going back and forth. Police investigating, Detectives to Prosecutors, Prosecutors back to Detectives making sure they were convinced they had a case.

As I said before, nìave.

 

[Tas]

It's not that easy Tas.

I'm not saying it is easy, I'm saying if we want justice it has to happen that way. If this case wasn't about Pell and the subconscious bias we all have against the Catholic church for what it did and for how they covered things up, I am not sure this case would have got out of first gear.

If we are sending people to jail on the basis of testimony alone on a significant scale, that deeply concerns me because we obviously have very different definitions of what is reasonable doubt between me and those people putting people in jail.

 

[Snake_Baker]

I'm not saying it is easy, I'm saying if we want justice it has to happen that way. If this case wasn't about Pell and the subconscious bias we all have against the Catholic church for what it did and for how they covered things up, I am not sure this case would have got out of first gear.

If we are sending people to jail on the basis of testimony alone on a significant scale, that deeply concerns me because we obviously have very different definitions of what is reasonable doubt between me and those people putting people in jail.

Indeed. The investigation AND process needs to be rigorous, or we end up with hellish things like this:

Man exonerated over wrongful rape conviction after 36 years in prison

A man was exonerated over a wrongful rape conviction after spending 36 years in prison.

abcnews.go.com

Unfortunately, libertarianism is in short supply these days, and people want short term political solutions for everything.

 

[Del191229]

I'm not saying it is easy, I'm saying if we want justice it has to happen that way. If this case wasn't about Pell and the subconscious bias we all have against the Catholic church for what it did and for how they covered things up, I am not sure this case would have got out of first gear.

If we are sending people to jail on the basis of testimony alone on a significant scale, that deeply concerns me because we obviously have very different definitions of what is reasonable doubt between me and those people putting people in jail.

You don't actually understand the first thing about this case do you?

You do know right that Pell has been accused MANY times before? And those accusations looked at and the cops and DPP saying "No, we don't have enough evidence for these"?

And these accusations that were proven were tested brutally by Robert Richter under hours of cross? Then supported by a jury? And upheld by the Chief Justice and the President of the Court of Appeal?

 

[Tas]

On the other hand if I did something really awful to you and for years you struggled with it then one day confided in someone what happened and why your life has been chaos since then.

You find the courage to go to the police and they say, “bad luck. No physical evidence. Should’ve told us when you were 7”

That is the whole point, nobody has ever said the criminal justice system is infallible and nobody remotely sane has ever suggested that everyone who commits a crime will be punished.

If we had the ability to access memories and determine what happened then perhaps one day we will get closer to real justice. At present we have a flawed system that sometimes brings people to justice... if we can meet the burden of proof.

You wouldn't want to be sent to prison based on one person's testimony and zero evidence. I wouldn't either, nobody will. We can say **** Pell because we either believe he did it or actively covered up assaults by other priests, in my eyes he is a piece of shit regardless of the outcome and while I am agnostic and don't really believe in Hell, in his case I hope one exists and he ends up there for what he was a part of.

However, my concern is people are being sent to prison based on evidence that obviously doesn't satisfy the beyond reasonable doubt test. One person's account of events can't possibly be beyond reasonable doubt when the defendant denies the claims. We need evidence, be it physical or eyewitness or something more tangible than an accusation.

 

[Del191229]

That is the whole point, nobody has ever said the criminal justice system is infallible and nobody remotely sane has ever suggested that everyone who commits a crime will be punished.

If we had the ability to access memories and determine what happened then perhaps one day we will get closer to real justice. At present we have a flawed system that sometimes brings people to justice... if we can meet the burden of proof.

You wouldn't want to be sent to prison based on one person's testimony and zero physical evidence. I wouldn't either, nobody will. We can say fu** Pell because we either believe he did it or actively covered up assaults by other priests, in my eyes he is a piece of s**t regardless of the outcome and while I am agnostic and don't really believe in Hell, in his case I hope one exists and he ends up there for what he was a part of.

However, my concern is people are being sent to prison based on evidence that obviously doesn't satisfy the beyond reasonable doubt test. One person's account of events can't possibly be beyond reasonable doubt when the defendant denies the claims. We need evidence, be it physical or eyewitness or something more tangible than an accusation.

Do yourself a favour and leave it.

It is well established that "memory" and "eye witness" testimony can be deeply deeply unreliable.

Indeed, you regularly have situations where the victims of crimes "remember" them very differently to how they happened.

 

[Tas]

You don't actually understand the first thing about this case do you?

You do know right that Pell has been accused MANY times before? And those accusations looked at and the cops and DPP saying "No, we don't have enough evidence for these"?

And these accusations that were proven were tested brutally by Robert Richter under hours of cross? Then supported by a jury? And upheld by the Chief Justice and the President of the Court of Appeal?

I understand the case as well as it has been covered in the media.

I don't really give two shits about Pell, it is about someone being found guilty based on testimony alone. It can be any case but cases such as murder, rape, etc which have severe punishments require the beyond reasonable doubt test to be satisfies rather than the lighter on the basis of probability which he would easily be found guilty of with a testimony alone.

We are asking a jury to guess in a case like this and to me that isn't beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Del191229]

I understand the case as well as it has been covered in the media.

I don't really give two s**ts about Pell, it is about someone being found guilty based on testimony alone. It can be any case but cases such as murder, rape, etc which have severe punishments require the beyond reasonable doubt test to be satisfies rather than the lighter on the basis of probability which he would easily be found guilty of with a testimony alone.

We are asking a jury to guess in a case like this and to me that isn't beyond reasonable doubt.

Well, you're wrong. And lining up on the side of the paedophiles.

And it isn't just "testimony" like you keep blabbering on about. It isn't like someone just rocks up and goes "They r*ped me" and bang, jail for them!