(August 3, 2017 at 10:50 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: It is my hypothetical. It doesn't seem unreasonable to clarify when people are trying to evade the point, which is a question about witness testimony apart from anything else.
In the scenario I gave, I think there was an injured person, as well as the chair. What if I only robbed him (took the $500 in cash that he had). A number of independent people witnessed it, and again mistaken identity is not an issue and collusion is not in the picture.
Are you saying there is no way, based on the testimony of others alone, that there would be reason for a conviction of the crime?
Thanks for the opinion... I find it interesting.
YOU CAN'T FUCKING KNOW THAT! So you can't even be given the benefit of the doubt in this preposterous hypothetical.
And the fact that you consider the null hypothesis an 'opinion' tells us everything we need to know about you and how you come to believe what you do. Congratulations.
Religions were invented to impress and dupe illiterate, superstitious stone-age peasants. So in this modern, enlightened age of information, what's your excuse? Or are you saying with all your advantages, you were still tricked as easily as those early humans?
---
There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.
---
There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.
