Kid Sampson Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 It's not about being 'overly precious', it's about rational thinking. I could ask you a challenging question..why are people spleen venting in their haste to lay the blame with the parents? I expect it is more a sense of Ha! I knew it all along! amongst those who did indeed "know it all along," as opposed to genuine pitchfork sharpening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 someone has completely missed the point of the word instinct there! I think its an evolutionary thing. Gut instincts can save your life at the end of the day. ..and someone has completely missed the point of the words "supported by compelling evidence". I think the problem is there was no pitchfork brigade.So you're supporting vigilantism and kangaroo courts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 I expect it is more a sense of Ha! I knew it all along! amongst those who did indeed "know it all along," as opposed to genuine pitchfork sharpening. Indeed, and as I said earlier I didn't think their original press conference was particularly convincing, but when discussing people for crimes they're accused or might be accused of it's better to park any prejudices before forming an opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 they weren't! The emotive language you are using is astonishing compared to the language of the people you are disagreeing with. Emotive language? It's an emotive subject matter! Christ, I put my hand up-"Guilty of using emotive language". so you don't have to speculate as to whether you're right or wrong! Rather that then let the gobfrothers form the pre-eminent view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Nobody is judging, merely opining. Semantics. For all we know, this could be an elaborate ruse by the police to flush out the culprit/s and to get whoever knows who did do it, to shop them, rather than see the innocent parents of 6 dead children go down for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 What you see as compelling someone else may not...you only have to read the "Do you believe in God" thread to be aware of that.. That's why in the English justice system you're heard by a jury of your peers. Personally, I'd like to see evidence of the 'smoking gun' variety before convicting people of murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Sampson Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Semantics. For all we know, this could be an elaborate ruse by the police to flush out the culprit/s and to get whoever knows who did do it, to shop them, rather than see the innocent parents of 6 dead children go down for it. Of course, and that would be an equally valid opinion of the matter. Personally I would be suprised if that were the case as the police know well enough that many people, press included, actually press especially, think that there is no smoke without fire. For example Chris Jefferies was totally vilified in the press after he was wrongly arrested for the Jo Yeates murder, not to mention all those who are attacked after being correctly or incorrectly labelled as paedophiles. But I digress. The point is that I still think people should be allowed to express a feeling or opinion on a matter without being patronised into silence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 ..and someone has completely missed the point of the words "supported by compelling evidence". So you're supporting vigilantism and kangaroo courts? no someone didn't, those words do not apply when you are talking about instincts. no I'm not supporting them why would you think that?....I'm joking of course we know why you wrote it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Semantics. For all we know, this could be an elaborate ruse by the police to flush out the culprit/s and to get whoever knows who did do it, to shop them, rather than see the innocent parents of 6 dead children go down for it. whooooooahhhh there, so we are not allowed to think that they might have caused the fire themselves but you are allowed to suggest that the police are charging people with no evidence. I don't understand the rules:huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Emotive language? It's an emotive subject matter! Christ, I put my hand up-"Guilty of using emotive language". so you don't have to speculate as to whether you're right or wrong! Rather that then let the gobfrothers form the pre-eminent view. Are you claiming "spleen venting" was an accurate description? And "pitchforks"? "gobfrothers"? Remember most people were saying they thought there was something not quite right about the way they were acting. They weren't calling for vigilantism or even for the police to lock em up and throw away the key. You must be slightly embarrassed at your exaggerations! Ever heard that quote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I love that quote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.