Soldato
why would you be any of those things? Why would you even think like that?
Poll: Abortion, Roe v. Wade
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
why would you be any of those things? Why would you even think like that?
Soldato
If you are trying to impose your will on others, well, take a long hard look at yourself.
One persons abortion decision is like one persons decision to take 3 flights. Or maybe eat meat, or whatever. Get over yourselves, holier than thou is so Rees-Mogg.
One persons abortion decision is like one persons decision to take 3 flights. Or maybe eat meat, or whatever. Get over yourselves, holier than thou is so Rees-Mogg.
Man of Honour
So you don't understand the difference between a group based on collective interest and a group based on being the "right" biological group identity?
Actually, I think you don't. You consistently post as a true believer in biological group identity, the doctrine of "they're all the same". Anyone who believes that wouldn't be able to see the difference because they'd believe that everyone they assign to a particular group identity is the same and thus must have the same interests.
Are you a member of the white community? If so, do you campaign for whatever you regard as the collective interest of that collective identity? If not, do you support those who do?
Soldato
A very very quick search of that thread, I know there is more in there but I really can't be bothered to trawl through over 8 pages of just your posts. So when I and lots of other saw (I saw a fair bit of the trial) the trial and most importantly the video of him murdering Floyd and said he was guilty of murder, you said in just this one post on page 66 I think that there was a 5% chance he was guilty of 2nd degree and 15% of 3rd degree. 35% of mistrial where all the jurors couldn't agree on the murder charge. When in fact is was 100% guilty on all charges according to the jury and anyone who watched it without any bias. You like many other were miles off on that trial.
Soldato
God how did I know you'd have to pipe up when this came up. Its like a porn mag to a 14 year old boy
And like always you take it to straight to the extreme.
Man of Honour
God how did I know you'd have to pipe up when this came up. Its like a porn mag to a 14 year old boy
Nice evasion of both the question and the point.
Sure you can't be bothered because you just made up a load of nonsense, it's pretty clear I thought it was more likely than not that he'd be convicted of one or more offence and only a 10% chance of an acquittal.
Whereas you claimed this:
This is the same expert who told us Derek Chauvin would be acquitted of murder as there was no evidence he was guilty
That's total nonsense and you know it, I said there was a 10% chance he'd be found not guilty/acquitted and sure enough you've gone into the old thread and dragged up a post that just backs up what I claimed, now you've got to switch to the fact I didn't predict that he'd be found guilty of all three, well neither did the prediction markets or a bunch of legal pundits either, that's nothing like the claim you originally made which is a complete lie.
Right above that 10% you answer the question "does anyone here think he's guilty of second degree murder" with "nope, not at all IMO"
So what? What does that have to do with the claim that I supposedly said he'd be acquitted when I clearly didn't say that.
Soldato
Dowie you wrote you didn't think he was guilty of murder as Tefal has pointed out. You said there was a 95% chance he'd be acquitted of murder 2 and a 85% chance of acquittal for murder 3. Now I could be wrong but 95% and 85% is higher than 10%. Don't try and word play it, you expected, so believed he had a 95% chance of acquittal.
Soldato
Neither, I just can't be arsed dealing with someone who only deals in extremes and has an obsession on that subject.
Associate
A very very quick search of that thread, I know there is more in there but I really can't be bothered to trawl through over 8 pages of just your posts. So when I and lots of other saw (I saw a fair bit of the trial) the trial and most importantly the video of him murdering Floyd and said he was guilty of murder, you said in just this one post on page 66 I think that there was a 5% chance he was guilty of 2nd degree and 15% of 3rd degree. 35% of mistrial where all the jurors couldn't agree on the murder charge. When in fact is was 100% guilty on all charges according to the jury and anyone who watched it without any bias. You like many other were miles off on that trial.
What amazes me is his ability to have a strong opinion on just about everything. I mean if ever a post has screamed 'internet expert' this one is it. Literally breaking it down into percentages as if he's some kind of legal expert lol.
Soldato
Exactly. He is one of a handful of armchair/keyboard "experts" on here in fields that take years of not just education but working in that field before you could be considered an expert. I don't doubt he's an intelligent guy but sometimes its ridiculous. That whole thread was full of posters calling the result based on their own bias but calling it legal understanding and they couldn't have been more wrong.
To be fair you said Dowie said he'd be acquited, you then proceeded to post a screen grab confirming he never said that, doubled down on the false claim, and then threw in a load of misdirection. Are you sure you dont work for the democrats? 
Last edited:
Man of Honour
I don't regard treating a person as a person as being an extreme. Nor do I regard treating people equally regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, "race", etc as an extreme.
My fairly left leaning friend said that a white comedian shouldn't tell jokes about black people, even if the jokes were basically just poking fun at stereotypes, aren't malicious or done with the intent of racism, while part of an overall act that makes fun of other races and groups, and is fairly light hearted, because it is considered "punching down". Now I'm not sure how he comes to terms with the fact he's classing white people as "up" and black people as "down" yet doesn't consider himself as racist. However, a comedian making fun of everyone equally would be racist.
Soldato
To be fair you said Dowie said he'd be acquited, you then proceeded to post a screen grab confirming he never said that, doubled down on the false claim, and then threw in a load of misdirection. Are you sure you dont work for the democrats?
Somewhere in that thread I read a post where dowie said words to the effect that the prosecution hadn't proved its case on the murder charges. Now I really can't be arsed to trawl through 8 pages of post just by him, I just don't care that much. I looked around the middle of the thread and saw that post. As Tefal has pointed out in a post above that he said in answer to the question "does anyone here think he's guilty of second degree murder" with "nope, not at all IMO". If you aren't guilty then you are acquitted. Now you might call it misdirection, sorry I don't see it that way. And using percentages like that is frankly laughable, like he's a legal mind giving his professional opinion on each charge
Soldato
and where have I said they should be. Again you always jump to the extreme. You've got a problem, go deal with it at therapy because I can't be bothered with people who only see the extremes.
No, I said there was a 10% chance of acquittal (not guilty), it's literally in my post, you're the one trying to wordplay it by inferring some chance of acquittal and ignoring what I actually stated. Just like you made up your initial claim.
Where did I say there was a 95% chance of acquittal? My prediction was that it was more likely than not he'd be convicted of something.
No, it's just airing an opinion on it, as lots of people did. Perhaps the notion of quantifying your opinion somewhat (given the different outcomes) is something that confuses you but it's not too hard to follow.
If you think using basic percentages = a claim to be a legal expert then that's more a reflection on you, it's a pretty dumb claim tbh...
Somewhere in that thread I read a post where dowie said words to the effect that the prosecution hadn't proved its case on the murder charges. Now I really can't be arsed to trawl through 8 pages of post [...]And using percentages like that is frankly laughable, like he's a legal mind giving his professional opinion on each charge
You're just making things up aren't you, you seem to have conflated different things too. This is just clutching at straws now because you blatantly lied with your intial claim.
This is your original claim:
This is the same expert who told us Derek Chauvin would be acquitted of murder as there was no evidence he was guilty
Yet if you look at what I actually said... I only put down a 10% chance that he'd be acquitted, 35% chance of a mistrial and a total of a 55% chance he'd be found guilty of (at least one of the charges; 35% for the lowest + 15% for the next + 5% for the next.)
If you want you can well ackchually and say one of the charges was manslaughter (I think the other two officially were homicide), it's still rather different from what you claimed.
So just like you then... it's a bit hypocritical, don't try and pretend you didn't have an opinion on the trial, or ditto to the Rittenhouse case - what was your view there again? Did you get that one wrong?
Colonel_Klinck the only man on the internet with no bias, if he airs an opinion then it's all fine, if other people air an opinion then it's just their bias and heaven forbid anyone gets a prediction wrong...
I mean this is literally an internet discussion forum, the general discussion section is full of people airing opinions, since when did you need to be an expert to comment on say Covid, or the war in Ukraine or Brexit or some court cases etc..?
This has all just stemmed from you making up a complete lie and then getting called out on it, seemingly because you're still salty that people had the wrong opinions in some thread from months ago.
Last edited: