Another Belter From The R0P

[ToraToraTora]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35685981
Wonder what this poor little sod did to offend.

[andy-hughes]

AG - //Ok, how about this, from the information that is in the public domain, does your interpretation fit more in line with the balance of probabilities only? //

I would consider the balance of probablites, but that still does not get awsay from the simple fact that there is a collection of posters on here who are determined to state that there is a direct link between this woman's actions, and her religion.

I am simply saying that there is no evidence of that link.

Probability, suggestion, possibility, balance of probabilities - none of these have the concept of factual evidence in them.

I fail to see why I am still arguing this point, since it is patently the truth, and anything else is supposition, and you cannot convict and condemn someone on the basis of what you suppose.

[Ellipsis]

> Until this woman states in front of witnesses that she murdered this child because of her religion, then to say so is an assumption, not a fact, not evidence, not conclusive, an assumption.

I am not saying she murdered this child because of her religion. I am saying her religion definitely was involved when it came to her standing in the street, dressed in a hijab, shouting "Allahu Akbar", carrying the severed head of the child. Agreed?

[agchristie]

Andy, thank you. I was seriously trying to guage where your feeling lay from a legal perspective.

Motivation for a crime as I commented earlier is very important both in understanding the situation and sentencing.

One thing is for sure, it has certainly become a major talking point!

[naomi24]

This is becoming more and more ridiculous.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - //This is becoming more and more ridiculous. //

Do feel free to ignore it.

[Hypognosis]

@andy-hughes

//
Until this woman states in front of witnesses that she murdered this child because of her religion, then to say so is an assumption, not a fact, not evidence, not conclusive, an assumption.
//

Correct. Now why the photon didn't you say that on page 1 instead of stringing everybody along for 10 pages? Are you paid by the word, or something?


Also, what about the social networking which the employers couldn't decipher? Are you going to touch on that? (page 9)

Please?

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, If the inclination takes me, I shall. Thank you.

[andy-hughes]

Ellipsis - //> Until this woman states in front of witnesses that she murdered this child because of her religion, then to say so is an assumption, not a fact, not evidence, not conclusive, an assumption.

I am not saying she murdered this child because of her religion. I am saying her religion definitely was involved when it came to her standing in the street, dressed in a hijab, shouting "Allahu Akbar", carrying the severed head of the child. Agreed? //

No.

You cannot say that her religion was 'definitely involved' because you don't know that for a fact.

This woman's mind could be so deranged that she thought she was carrying an urn with the ashes of the prophet inside!

A ludicrous example? Of course it is - but it is as feasible as saying that her religion is 'involved' because no-one knows.

I feel like a broken keyboard here, but I have to keep making my original point - there may be a connection between religion and this murder, but that is not known, so any suggestion is simply guesswork and assumption, and neither of those make facts.

[Ellipsis]

Ok, thank you andy-hughes ...

[naomi24]

I wonder where she got "allahu Akbar" from?

[agchristie]

Hold it everyone!!

'Wasn't very religious' and didn't always wear even a hijab!

Cat among the pigeons time?

[agchristie]

Sorry, missed the link.

http://scallywagandvagabond.com/2016/03/nastya-meshcheryakova-murder-part-terrorist-operative/

[Sqad]

A-H

\\\\ but I have to keep making my original point \\\

No, you don't "have to" you "choose to" that is why we are up to post 189.

[andy-hughes]

Hypgnosis - //@andy-hughes

// Until this woman states in front of witnesses that she murdered this child because of her religion, then to say so is an assumption, not a fact, not evidence, not conclusive, an assumption. //

Correct. Now why the photon didn't you say that on page 1 instead of stringing everybody along for 10 pages? Are you paid by the word, or something? //

I think you will find that I did exactly that -

My first post reads thus - //I wonder if you are making a connection that may not be present? The connection between this woman's alleged psychotic behaviour, and her religion? A connection which has yet to be investigated, much less proven.//

As for 'stringing everybody along for 10 pages ...' I am unsure where you get the idea that I 'string anybody along' ever.

I entered a debate, people have debated with me. I have not 'strung anyone' anywhere - and no, I am not 'paid by the word', another strange assumption on your part.

I am debating and making my points as they occur to me - that does not mean I am obliged to explain or justify what I say, to you or anyone else.

Argue if you wish, disagree by all means, but please leave out your ludicrous notion that I am somehow controlling this debate, and the people who contribute to it.

[Hypognosis]

@andy-hughes

What if we flip the question around and ask why her faith and whatever code of morals it embodies singularly failed to inhibit her actions?

Her prophet heard voices, so what was she to make of the voice she claims to have heard?

I am stupidly curious about whether they mistake their own thoughts (inner dialogue) for voices or if they genuinely experience sounds which appear to come from outside their own head?


Lastly,
//
I fail to see why I am still arguing this point, since it is patently the truth, and anything else is supposition, and you cannot convict and condemn someone on the basis of what you suppose.
//

We are not in a court of law. We are not Russian jurors or judiciary. We have no say or powers. This has nothing to do with us and we might just as well be bar-props, passing the time. The sky will not fall in if you let our mis-speaking pass.

[andy-hughes]

Sqad - //A-H

\\\\ but I have to keep making my original point \\\

No, you don't "have to" you "choose to" that is why we are up to post 189. //

A fair point.

I choose to, because to me it is as obvious as gravity, but I seem to be arguing it on several fronts.

[naomi24]

ag, //'Wasn't very religious' and didn't always wear even a hijab! //

//It was said that she prays, but quietly, not for show. //

Who's to say how religious she is?

[andy-hughes]

Hypognosis - //@andy-hughes

//What if we flip the question around and ask why her faith and whatever code of morals it embodies singularly failed to inhibit her actions? //

We could do that - but its an entirely separate debate.

Why don't we ask if she was in a bit of a mood because her favourite football team lost? We could go on and on getting further away from the issue we are talking about - but let's not .....

//Her prophet heard voices, so what was she to make of the voice she claims to have heard? //

I have absolutely no idea, but unlike the people who are challenging my point, I am not in the business of assumptions and guesswork.

// I am stupidly curious about whether they mistake their own thoughts (inner dialogue) for voices or if they genuinely experience sounds which appear to come from outside their own head???

See the above answer.

/// Lastly,
//
I fail to see why I am still arguing this point, since it is patently the truth, and anything else is supposition, and you cannot convict and condemn someone on the basis of what you suppose.
//

We are not in a court of law. We are not Russian jurors or judiciary. We have no say or powers. This has nothing to do with us and we might just as well be bar-props, passing the time. The sky will not fall in if you let our mis-speaking pass. //

We are not in a court - which is why I take exception to the peremptory tone being used in some of the challenges to my point.