Posts by Bart Janssen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Good ol' Vogon Poetry.
Which is particularly weird given that (on my screen) the troll has somehow posted 42 times.
-
This reminds me of being told that a friend's father had said "well, I don't hate maoris but I wouldn't invite one into my home"
Sorry but I find that comparison quite offensive. My discomfort is focussed on a single individual whom a jury has found not guilty. I'm saying in spite of that I'm not certain he is innocent, yet acknowledging that some jury members clearly do believe him innocent.
It is a personal discomfort with one individual.
It has nothing to do with racism, and to imply that my feeling is akin to racism is a little much.
-
some of the jury's conduct could be seem to verge on an inappropriate level of emotional investment in the defendant
Hell yes. It's pretty much a case of what were they thinking? But it does suggest to me that at least a couple of the jury were convinced he was more than simply not guilty.
And yes asking for a clarification suggests some were on the other end of the spectrum.
I guess my point is even having heard a lot of the trial via media I know a lot less than the jury. I just don't feel comfortable over-ruling their judgement given my ignorance.
I probably would be uncomfortable inviting him into my home but beyond that I just don't know.
-
Just a couple of thoughts.
I can understand the Jury finally deciding that they were not sure of his guilt. They asked the judge for a definition of reasonable doubt and that what he told them "that they must be sure..."
And as a result I can see the jury deciding Not Guilty was the only verdict.
But consider this, if you sat on a jury and heard about 5 murders and in the end decided that the crown had not proven the case - and hence you had to say not guilty - but you knew damn well he had done the evil deed...
Would you then want to hug the accused? And go to a party with him?
So as far as I can tell not only were some of the jury convinced that they could not be sure , some of them were convinced he was completely innocent.
Given they heard ALL the evidence it's hard for me to believe that I know more than them.
-
You presume incorrectly. Institute of modern letters under the tutorship and tutelage of Bill Manhire, biatch.
Oh dear, so what they told me about Vic Uni when I was at Auckland was true? If Lhaws is a graduate I guess they were right
<ducks>
-
Can I point out once again that Micael Lhaws* holds an MA in creative writing from Victoria
I presume you mean Queen Victoria and not the institute of academia.
-
The thing that gave this away as a fake was the misspelling of Dr Wort's name.
The real mayor of Whanganui would never make that mistake.
-
Six-pack abs are kind of gross.
Is a chillibin better?
-
Does that make people who are non-breeders by choice the epitome of civilisation?
Given you can trace almost all the environmental problems with the planet to "too many people" it's not far wrong.
It's also the subject of some good and some not-so-good science fiction exploring the social implications of changes in culture around breeders vs non-breeders or restricted-breeders.
-
I have always felt that is a very dangerous proposition to agree to. It is giving in to the fallacy that only what is "natural" is permissible.
I agree, as I bet does Danielle.
The point was the argument being tossed around was that it should be illegal because it was an "unnatural" choice, which it very clearly was not.
That we can decide to use our intelligence to do what is right even in cases where our biology might push us to do what is wrong is to me a pretty serious marker of civilisation.