Happy St. David's Day 2023 A.D.!!!

[bigtoughralf]

This thread is a fitting tribute to Wales, a nation whose rugby union chose this week to decimate its grassroots rugby and plunge the country into bitter infighting.

[Dukasaur]

This thread is a fitting tribute to Wales, a nation whose rugby union chose this week to decimate its grassroots rugby and plunge the country into bitter infighting.

Do tell.

[jusplay4fun]

[But get a group of 100 people who look at evidence (or even as few as 12, in a jury trial) and most rational individuals can come to reasonable conclusions most of the time, even up to and exceeding 90%. How many times have your heard of a jury getting it WRONG? Most of the time, they are right. The media will cover the VERY FEW times a wrong conclusion was reached and made the wrong decision. I would argue this is RARE, as otherwise there would be a MASSIVE call to reform that part of the Justice System. Those few wrong (and egregious) decisions are highlighted, but we fail to acknowledge the 99 or 98+% correct ones.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Your logic fails.

In sooooo many ways.

The analogy doesn’t hold up for one.

Even if it does the logic still fails.

Prove a negative.

I’ll leave it to others to expand on this and come back later if no one takes it up.

Just admit you: you, jimb, are WRONG, and wrong 3x Minimally. Stop making excuses, jimboston jimb. It has been MORE than ADEQUATELY proven here and in OTHER threads, too. LOSER.

[jimboston]

[But get a group of 100 people who look at evidence (or even as few as 12, in a jury trial) and most rational individuals can come to reasonable conclusions most of the time, even up to and exceeding 90%. How many times have your heard of a jury getting it WRONG? Most of the time, they are right. The media will cover the VERY FEW times a wrong conclusion was reached and made the wrong decision. I would argue this is RARE, as otherwise there would be a MASSIVE call to reform that part of the Justice System. Those few wrong (and egregious) decisions are highlighted, but we fail to acknowledge the 99 or 98+% correct ones.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Your logic fails.

In sooooo many ways.

The analogy doesn’t hold up for one.

Even if it does the logic still fails.

Prove a negative.

I’ll leave it to others to expand on this and come back later if no one takes it up.

Just admit you: you, jimb, are WRONG, and wrong 3x Minimally. Stop making excuses, jimboston jimb. It has been MORE than ADEQUATELY proven here and in OTHER threads, too. LOSER.

OK…

1) The analogy comparing criminal cases to “induction” into the “pantheon of christian saints” is a bad one on its’ face.

One is metaphysical in nature and no one can really even proves it exists.

The other is a man made social construct designed to regulate behavior.

Now… some people may believe that religion is also a man made construct designed to regulate behavior.

… but for the purposes of this ‘debate’ we will assume Heaven is a real thing that exists and that saints are those people who have ”been accepted” into said heaven. Given that the analogy also fails.

In one case you are talking about reasonable intelligent and supposedly unbiased people making a determination of an action of another person after being presented evidence. In the other case you are relying on a small group of “anointed” Bishops, these Bishops are by definition biased because they have a goal of maintaining the Catholic Church’s position as (supposedly) the sole arbiter of God’s Will here on Earth. This specially anointed select group then make a determination of “sainthood” based almost exclusively on testimony (sometimes 2nd/3rd hand testimony of dead people)… and there is by definition no ability to have real physical evidence.

Do you know what it takes to be declared a Saint by the Church? I won’t google it but on memory it requires that a specified number of “miracles” have been attributed to being “caused” by praying to the “saint to be”. The idea being someone (or several someone’s) have prayed to this dead person and asked this dead person to intercede on their behalf (essentially asked the dead person to ask Jesus)… and then based on this prayer supposedly a miracle has then occurred. By definition there can’t ever be any physical evidence of said miracle… it’s all based on testimony or heresay.

So yeah… not comparable. Bad analogy.
============

Now… let’s assume it’s not a bad analogy. The logic still fails.

2) You can’t prove a negative.

You argue that these jury’s come to the correct conclusion “even up to and exceeding 90%” and later you claim it’s “99 or 98+%” correct.

So I’m assuming this is based on some guess you’re making about guilty verdicts and the % of these that are later overturned.

First I’d like to see stats to support this assertion. Maybe only 1-2% of guilty verdicts are overturned years later in appeal… I really don’t know and I’m not making that assertion (you did). What about guilty verdicts that are overturned on appeal. I’d bet this is higher than 1-2%. If that’s the case, who’s right? Did the first jury get it “right” and the later jury or judge just make an error? what was the cause of the error/change… some procedural issue or because evidence changed or time elapsed or the jury pool was biased or some new evidence was offered? It varies.

… but that’s all moot… because you can’t prove a negative.

I can state that “25% of convicted criminals are wrongly convicted”.

It’s impossible to prove that statement wrong.

It’s equally impossible for me to prove that statement correct. That’s not the point. The point is you are using this idea of the reliability of our criminal justice system to somehow support your argument that the Catholic Church is “good” at “picking saints”.

Interesting.

3) So I have to assume your 1-2% error rate was on convicted criminals… because if it was for all criminal cases guilty and non-guilty verdicts it would be crazy. I mean come on… we have to agree that the number of criminals who get acquitted is way way higher than 2% right?

… and assuming that is fair… (you can estimate the error rate) then you just proved my point.

[jusplay4fun]

[But get a group of 100 people who look at evidence (or even as few as 12, in a jury trial) and most rational individuals can come to reasonable conclusions most of the time, even up to and exceeding 90%. How many times have your heard of a jury getting it WRONG? Most of the time, they are right. The media will cover the VERY FEW times a wrong conclusion was reached and made the wrong decision. I would argue this is RARE, as otherwise there would be a MASSIVE call to reform that part of the Justice System. Those few wrong (and egregious) decisions are highlighted, but we fail to acknowledge the 99 or 98+% correct ones.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Your logic fails.

In sooooo many ways.

The analogy doesn’t hold up for one.

Even if it does the logic still fails.

Prove a negative.

I’ll leave it to others to expand on this and come back later if no one takes it up.

Just admit you: you, jimb, are WRONG, and wrong 3x Minimally. Stop making excuses, jimboston jimb. It has been MORE than ADEQUATELY proven here and in OTHER threads, too. LOSER.

OK…

1) The analogy comparing criminal cases to “induction” into the “pantheon of christian saints” is a bad one on its’ face.

One is metaphysical in nature and no one can really even proves it exists.

The other is a man made social construct designed to regulate behavior.

Now… some people may believe that religion is also a man made construct designed to regulate behavior.

… but for the purposes of this ‘debate’ we will assume Heaven is a real thing that exists and that saints are those people who have ”been accepted” into said heaven. Given that the analogy also fails.

In one case you are talking about reasonable intelligent and supposedly unbiased people making a determination of an action of another person after being presented evidence. In the other case you are relying on a small group of “anointed” Bishops, these Bishops are by definition biased because they have a goal of maintaining the Catholic Church’s position as (supposedly) the sole arbiter of God’s Will here on Earth. This specially anointed select group then make a determination of “sainthood” based almost exclusively on testimony (sometimes 2nd/3rd hand testimony of dead people)… and there is by definition no ability to have real physical evidence.

Do you know what it takes to be declared a Saint by the Church? I won’t google it but on memory it requires that a specified number of “miracles” have been attributed to being “caused” by praying to the “saint to be”. The idea being someone (or several someone’s) have prayed to this dead person and asked this dead person to intercede on their behalf (essentially asked the dead person to ask Jesus)… and then based on this prayer supposedly a miracle has then occurred. By definition there can’t ever be any physical evidence of said miracle… it’s all based on testimony or heresay.

So yeah… not comparable. Bad analogy.
============

Now… let’s assume it’s not a bad analogy. The logic still fails.

2) You can’t prove a negative.

You argue that these jury’s come to the correct conclusion “even up to and exceeding 90%” and later you claim it’s “99 or 98+%” correct.

So I’m assuming this is based on some guess you’re making about guilty verdicts and the % of these that are later overturned.

First I’d like to see stats to support this assertion. Maybe only 1-2% of guilty verdicts are overturned years later in appeal… I really don’t know and I’m not making that assertion (you did). What about guilty verdicts that are overturned on appeal. I’d bet this is higher than 1-2%. If that’s the case, who’s right? Did the first jury get it “right” and the later jury or judge just make an error? what was the cause of the error/change… some procedural issue or because evidence changed or time elapsed or the jury pool was biased or some new evidence was offered? It varies.

… but that’s all moot… because you can’t prove a negative.

I can state that “25% of convicted criminals are wrongly convicted”.

It’s impossible to prove that statement wrong.

It’s equally impossible for me to prove that statement correct. That’s not the point. The point is you are using this idea of the reliability of our criminal justice system to somehow support your argument that the Catholic Church is “good” at “picking saints”.

Interesting.

3) So I have to assume your 1-2% error rate was on convicted criminals… because if it was for all criminal cases guilty and non-guilty verdicts it would be crazy. I mean come on… we have to agree that the number of criminals who get acquitted is way way higher than 2% right?

… and assuming that is fair… (you can estimate the error rate) then you just proved my point.

Idiot.

[bigtoughralf]

This thread is a fitting tribute to Wales, a nation whose rugby union chose this week to decimate its grassroots rugby and plunge the country into bitter infighting.

Do tell.

I wasn't following it super closely but they wanted to redo the national team contracts in a way that basically reduced the amount everyone gets and stripped a load of money from lower league sides. Whatever it was, the Welsh players nearly refused to play their most recent Six Nations game over it (but eventually caved, as the Welsh often do in the face of conflict).

Struggling to find a decent story that explains it clearly, have mostly seen people discussing it on Reddit

[Dukasaur]

This thread is a fitting tribute to Wales, a nation whose rugby union chose this week to decimate its grassroots rugby and plunge the country into bitter infighting.

Do tell.

I wasn't following it super closely but they wanted to redo the national team contracts in a way that basically reduced the amount everyone gets and stripped a load of money from lower league sides. Whatever it was, the Welsh players nearly refused to play their most recent Six Nations game over it (but eventually caved, as the Welsh often do in the face of conflict).

Struggling to find a decent story that explains it clearly, have mostly seen people discussing it on Reddit

Ah. I thought it was something titillating, like they wanted to give a special medal to some tranny. This sounds like ordinary penny-pinching.

[2dimes]

Trannies probably don't get a lot of medals playing men's rugby. Ralf you should tell the king to fix Wales.

[jimboston]

Idiot.

Interesting rebuttal.

When logic fails this is what you do.

[jusplay4fun]

Idiot.

Interesting rebuttal.

When logic fails this is what you do.

using your preferred method; how does it feel, IDIOT?

And you are still Wrong about possessives.