Personal Reality Thread

@fmf said
Suzianne, did you really not read this either?

Why do you post the exact same thing twice?

-VR

@fmf said
And what about this Suzianne, did you really not read this before asking him for his "source"?

Because she believes him more so than you?

-VR

@badradger said
Yeah agreed Free will is not equal with freedom

It does seem odd that we get all bent out of shape for losing something that does not really exist, or you're just flat wrong.

@whodey said
It does seem odd that we get all bent out of shape for losing something that does not really exist, or you're just flat wrong.

If you get arrested they say you are innocent until proven guilty, but they've already accused you of being guilty by arresting you.

Then one starts the proceedure of proving they are innocent, unless of course they actually are guilty......How many innocent people do you figure we have in our jails right now?

-VR

@very-rusty said
If you get arrested they say you are innocent until proven guilty, but they've already accused you of being guilty by arresting you.

Then one starts the proceedure of proving they are innocent, unless of course they actually are guilty......How many innocent people do you figure we have in our jails right now?

-VR

Nobody is proven innocent, they are merely proven not guilty according to the relevant legal test for their case (at least in the U.K.). Does this make a difference? It makes a massive difference. A father might be found not guilty of assaulting a mother in a criminal court where the test is beyond reasonable doubt, yet for the same family and in the light of the same evidence a family court might prevent the father from visiting the family home because the legal test for whether the children need protecting from possible domestic violence is balance of probability (i.e. greater than 50/50 chance but not necessarily beyond reasonable doubt). So you can be found not guilty of a crime despite the same evidence leading people to believe that on the balance of probability it is sufficiently likely you did it to protect your children from it happening again!

How many people are walking the streets after being found not guilty despite the fact they are not proven innocent?

@suzianne said
Well, that's kind of what I was getting at. People love to anthropomorphize, even imagining what their pet would sound like if they could talk. I don't think we often see the world through the eyes of our pets, but it is more the other way 'round. Some people seem to think they see the world as we do. It's what I mean when I say that we think humans are the 'top of the h ...[text shortened]... other dogs and missed out on just being a puppy. He's trying to catch up on lost time now, though.

We (humans) have the 'intelligence' to create the technology to have our dominion over the beasts of the field, we can kill them at will, or trash the rain forests, oceans and so on which kills them anyway, and perhaps some of us are just waking up to the responsibility which comes therewith.
On a domestic level, I live in a small Indonesian fishing village; good people, but I constantly take issue with them as to how they treat their domestic animals, absolutely zero empathy, they just don't get it, it's only a pig/chicken/dog after all. It gets frustrating. They once brought me some live crabs to eat (I'm vegetarian but whatever), I paid for them and put them back in the sea, at which point they concluded that the Englishman was definitely one (crab) sandwich short of a picnic. It's different some places, in Bali for example (Hindu) animals are revered, so it does depend where you are.
Anyway, good luck and well done with your Basset Hound, may you have a long and happy friendship.

@petewxyz said
Nobody is proven innocent, they are merely proven not guilty according to the relevant legal test for their case (at least in the U.K.). Does this make a difference? It makes a massive difference. A father might be found not guilty of assaulting a mother in a criminal court where the test is beyond reasonable doubt, yet for the same family and in the light of the same eviden ...[text shortened]... are walking the streets after being found not guilty despite the fact they are not proven innocent?

Yes, that does make a lot of sense and sound logical, I was though talking about somone who is NOT GUILTY at all, you are talking about different circumstances. You do have an excellent point of course.

In my opinion at least in Canada there are more innocent people in jails than guilty people walking the streets, although that indeed can happen when you lots of money and good lawyer(s)!

-VR

@suzianne said
You could start by citing the source.

Why?

@suzianne said
Because people like you have made a habit of calling people out for not citing their source, yet you fail this time. One wonders why.

It’s abridged from a personal relationship, what good would it do it I gave you the name of a person you had never heard of?

What a very strange reaction to my post, both in terms of anonymous thumbs and specifically Suzianne.

@divegeester

I am use to the thumbs....LOL... 😉 I don't see why you got a thumbs down though.

You could look at this this way, they are too afraid to say something to you back!

-VR

@divegeester removed their quoted post

dystopic


i approve

@divegeester said
What a very strange reaction to my post, both in terms of anonymous thumbs and specifically Suzianne.

No thumbs from me, but if the quoted opinions are ones that you agree with, why not just say 'these are my opinions'; why introduce the mysterious and anonymous third party, I'm sure nobody cares who they are, and it's a bit creepy, to be honest.

It's like me saying 'I know somebody who thinks there are some rather paranoid people around.'

Okay, I confess, it's the milkman.

@indonesia-phil said
No thumbs from me, but if the quoted opinions are ones that you agree with, why not just say 'these are my opinions'; why introduce the mysterious and anonymous third party, I'm sure nobody cares who they are, and it's a bit creepy, to be honest.

He's summarizing the views of a "third party". He said so repeatedly. And he's doing this ~ surely? ~ because they are the views of the person he's described and not his own.

@indonesia-phil said
No thumbs from me, but if the quoted opinions are ones that you agree with, why not just say 'these are my opinions'; why introduce the mysterious and anonymous third party, I'm sure nobody cares who they are, and it's a bit creepy, to be honest.

I don't feel that the views of the "third party" he's describing are "creepy". Misguided yes, misanthropic yes, paranoid, pessimistic and a bit pretentious, yes. But they are earnest and distressed, not "creepy". Unless it is divegeester you're describing as "a bit creepy", in which case I don't get what you mean.