ELISA NIGHT: THE HAPPY ENDING
one time in high school my friend and I, to force us into mental and physical challenges of the winter school We had a motto: "the cold air purifier." Like fire, burning, purifying, so the frost, attacking the members, strengthens the minds of the strong. A
Città di Castello today cries out to the tragedy. The priests used to even speak of "cry of lamentation left unheeded. "I support the happy ending. And, just to bring up religion, I speak of" lies off the divine justice. "
What would happen if in fact the beautiful" Elisa "was not frozen to death after denouncing violence ever suffered (as has clearly shown the autopsy)?
What would have happened if she had been with her boyfriend, an occasional lover, a friend, or simply a man guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time?
According to As happens in many other cases similar to that point, and especially what feminism wants to happen more and more practice, the "male abuser" would be arrested and imprisoned on the word of her, even before and without objective evidence and testimony of the third alleged violence. And maybe even after the medical checks and the process would also have been condemned for "the absence of signs of violent penetration does not necessarily preclude the possibility of forms of coercion and violence are less invasive." And the Supreme Court (omitting as always to note that the first objective evidence of violence and the victim was only alleged that if the same person who can act as both prosecutor and a witness-by source of evidence, the presumption of innocence was blatantly violated ) would have upheld the conviction riband (as if the lesson of Kant on the impossibility to prove by logical-syntactic existence whether something had gone in vain) that "sex offenders in the victim's testimony can costiture source of evidence on which to base even only the conviction of guilt of the accused, provided that the court shall give adequate reasons" (by arguments worthy of the sophists , which is based on the words and not of fact).
this time Divine Providence has instead extended their hands on yet another liar preventing
innocent man was treated by all as a monster, had to mortgage its assets to pay the court costs, end up as innocent pilloried in the media and social should reasonably fear of having ruined forever in every sentimental point of view, economic, moral and report, and the psyche, and sometimes the body indelibly marked by the experience of prison, with all that follows according to the code of barbaric prison for those accused of violence against women, but also according to the politically correct mentality that cast doubt on the word of a woman is already evidence of guilt and "Second violence" (and the terrible feeling of knowing how to accuasato who is innocent is similar to that of a victim of the Inquisition).
's why I talk about Cold Air Purifier.
You can cry the death of a bitch. I smile to the rescue of an innocent child. And from my pulpit
launch a warning: this is the end for all sluts mendacious West, who first, at the mercy of alcohol or infringement, they combine all the colors and then, for failure to account for their actions in front of parents, boyfriends, friends, the world said they were " raped. "
If Western man is stupid enough to let feminism destroy the rule of law (with definitions and mandatory nature of the presumption of innocence) and much more cowardly not to use the right amount of brutality against women deceiving and corrupting, there must think of a God to burn, this time with the cold, the witches!
PS If there is evidence and testimony of the third alleged violence and those who with his testimony as a source of trial, he speaks in the accusatory part of the same person (which only nell'artificio judiciary shall be considered separately from the head, as if people and their interests could be split between "interested party" and " impartial party "), then the accused has actually suffered as evidence against him the fact of being accused (just as insulted in the Inquisition), and became his burden in the search for facts and evidence in the witnesses to their release. He can not, as stated in the rule of law, require that both the prosecution to prove, with objective evidence and testimony impartial, says that what is true.
Just that the story told by the prosecution appear more credible than the one told by the defense. It is no longer necessary, as would every right and every reason for a civilized world, that every version that sees the innocent defendant is objectively proven to be impossible.
And I do not you come and say that "the courts have found ways to allow the prosecution to make heads without also affecting the balance between the parties." Do not talk to me "test of credibility and reliability of subjective objective" as "sufficient condition" to save the presumption of innocence.
The credibility there is never objective.
It is true that false testimony can be recognized as such for any inconsistencies and lack of logic, or lack of certain details and the excesses in the negatively charged paint and tell the facts so cruel and wicked opinion from the edge of climax, but it is equally true that it is perfectly possible to invent something that never existed, but has all the characteristics of consistency, logic, harmony, wealth of detail, lack of apparent willingness to persecute imputation.
as taught by Kant in the proof of the ontological proof of St. Anselm sull'infondatezza ("between all the attributes of a perfect being must exist that there and then God exists), the being is not a predicate. As in the dollars imagined and the real ones, the difference between something real and imaginary is not necessarily a quality (in fact there is no difference between silver coins: those images are identical to the real ones), but lies in the simple fact (one and only verifiable by experience) that ' one exists, and the other is not. So it is absolutely impossible to determine with certainty whether a fact is true or not based only on words. The reliability of subjective
can not exist if the witness is a party.
Already the "rigorous testing positive on the absence of any reason for hatred or interest for which slander the defendant" would, absurdly, not only to prove false to the most plausible reasons (sentimental revenge, blackmail, generalized resentment toward men, desire for compensation, pathological need to feel victim to get attention, fear of being scolded by their parents to let out a betrayal or to make public a judge as too uninhibited behavior), but
to verify that no other possible reason (even the most amazing and hidden from the vent to the whim of the day playing a movie situation, the decision to earn money as a prostitute without being so blackmailing men lured from time to time - "if you do not pay what I say I say I raped you, "the sadistic pleasure of having believed a priori while the other party is put in the pillory, treated as a monster and kept silent or if taken speaks worthy only of contempt or rice, don rodrigo finoanche to bet with a friend on the possibility of ruining the life that goes with the first word) is subsisting. And to do this would be a journey into the depths of the human psyche, from which no one could still inconclusive (because of the variety, the changing nature and the imagination of the male mind as feminine).
But even if that were possible and gave negative results, why the alleged victim-witness may be lying lies in the fact that it is she who, with the complaint, said the prosecution. If there's one sure thing proven by the complaint itself is its own (regardless of the actual reality and seriousness of the facts reported) the fact that the complainant wanted (for one reason or another) that the alleged will be convicted (does not contend otherwise). You can not come to say that this does not violate the necessary objectivity required in the tests. And you can not even argue, with sophisticated arguments, it is possible, the declaration of any person concerned who is to lie, accurately discern truth from falsehood in the absence (not infrequently) to the third objective evidence and testimonies.
And all this overlooking the fact that if the complainant is a party has at least trivially economic interest to lie!
Città di Castello today cries out to the tragedy. The priests used to even speak of "cry of lamentation left unheeded. "I support the happy ending. And, just to bring up religion, I speak of" lies off the divine justice. "
What would happen if in fact the beautiful" Elisa "was not frozen to death after denouncing violence ever suffered (as has clearly shown the autopsy)?
What would have happened if she had been with her boyfriend, an occasional lover, a friend, or simply a man guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time?
According to As happens in many other cases similar to that point, and especially what feminism wants to happen more and more practice, the "male abuser" would be arrested and imprisoned on the word of her, even before and without objective evidence and testimony of the third alleged violence. And maybe even after the medical checks and the process would also have been condemned for "the absence of signs of violent penetration does not necessarily preclude the possibility of forms of coercion and violence are less invasive." And the Supreme Court (omitting as always to note that the first objective evidence of violence and the victim was only alleged that if the same person who can act as both prosecutor and a witness-by source of evidence, the presumption of innocence was blatantly violated ) would have upheld the conviction riband (as if the lesson of Kant on the impossibility to prove by logical-syntactic existence whether something had gone in vain) that "sex offenders in the victim's testimony can costiture source of evidence on which to base even only the conviction of guilt of the accused, provided that the court shall give adequate reasons" (by arguments worthy of the sophists , which is based on the words and not of fact).
this time Divine Providence has instead extended their hands on yet another liar preventing
innocent man was treated by all as a monster, had to mortgage its assets to pay the court costs, end up as innocent pilloried in the media and social should reasonably fear of having ruined forever in every sentimental point of view, economic, moral and report, and the psyche, and sometimes the body indelibly marked by the experience of prison, with all that follows according to the code of barbaric prison for those accused of violence against women, but also according to the politically correct mentality that cast doubt on the word of a woman is already evidence of guilt and "Second violence" (and the terrible feeling of knowing how to accuasato who is innocent is similar to that of a victim of the Inquisition).
's why I talk about Cold Air Purifier.
You can cry the death of a bitch. I smile to the rescue of an innocent child. And from my pulpit
launch a warning: this is the end for all sluts mendacious West, who first, at the mercy of alcohol or infringement, they combine all the colors and then, for failure to account for their actions in front of parents, boyfriends, friends, the world said they were " raped. "
If Western man is stupid enough to let feminism destroy the rule of law (with definitions and mandatory nature of the presumption of innocence) and much more cowardly not to use the right amount of brutality against women deceiving and corrupting, there must think of a God to burn, this time with the cold, the witches!
PS If there is evidence and testimony of the third alleged violence and those who with his testimony as a source of trial, he speaks in the accusatory part of the same person (which only nell'artificio judiciary shall be considered separately from the head, as if people and their interests could be split between "interested party" and " impartial party "), then the accused has actually suffered as evidence against him the fact of being accused (just as insulted in the Inquisition), and became his burden in the search for facts and evidence in the witnesses to their release. He can not, as stated in the rule of law, require that both the prosecution to prove, with objective evidence and testimony impartial, says that what is true.
Just that the story told by the prosecution appear more credible than the one told by the defense. It is no longer necessary, as would every right and every reason for a civilized world, that every version that sees the innocent defendant is objectively proven to be impossible.
And I do not you come and say that "the courts have found ways to allow the prosecution to make heads without also affecting the balance between the parties." Do not talk to me "test of credibility and reliability of subjective objective" as "sufficient condition" to save the presumption of innocence.
The credibility there is never objective.
It is true that false testimony can be recognized as such for any inconsistencies and lack of logic, or lack of certain details and the excesses in the negatively charged paint and tell the facts so cruel and wicked opinion from the edge of climax, but it is equally true that it is perfectly possible to invent something that never existed, but has all the characteristics of consistency, logic, harmony, wealth of detail, lack of apparent willingness to persecute imputation.
as taught by Kant in the proof of the ontological proof of St. Anselm sull'infondatezza ("between all the attributes of a perfect being must exist that there and then God exists), the being is not a predicate. As in the dollars imagined and the real ones, the difference between something real and imaginary is not necessarily a quality (in fact there is no difference between silver coins: those images are identical to the real ones), but lies in the simple fact (one and only verifiable by experience) that ' one exists, and the other is not. So it is absolutely impossible to determine with certainty whether a fact is true or not based only on words. The reliability of subjective
can not exist if the witness is a party.
Already the "rigorous testing positive on the absence of any reason for hatred or interest for which slander the defendant" would, absurdly, not only to prove false to the most plausible reasons (sentimental revenge, blackmail, generalized resentment toward men, desire for compensation, pathological need to feel victim to get attention, fear of being scolded by their parents to let out a betrayal or to make public a judge as too uninhibited behavior), but
to verify that no other possible reason (even the most amazing and hidden from the vent to the whim of the day playing a movie situation, the decision to earn money as a prostitute without being so blackmailing men lured from time to time - "if you do not pay what I say I say I raped you, "the sadistic pleasure of having believed a priori while the other party is put in the pillory, treated as a monster and kept silent or if taken speaks worthy only of contempt or rice, don rodrigo finoanche to bet with a friend on the possibility of ruining the life that goes with the first word) is subsisting. And to do this would be a journey into the depths of the human psyche, from which no one could still inconclusive (because of the variety, the changing nature and the imagination of the male mind as feminine).
But even if that were possible and gave negative results, why the alleged victim-witness may be lying lies in the fact that it is she who, with the complaint, said the prosecution. If there's one sure thing proven by the complaint itself is its own (regardless of the actual reality and seriousness of the facts reported) the fact that the complainant wanted (for one reason or another) that the alleged will be convicted (does not contend otherwise). You can not come to say that this does not violate the necessary objectivity required in the tests. And you can not even argue, with sophisticated arguments, it is possible, the declaration of any person concerned who is to lie, accurately discern truth from falsehood in the absence (not infrequently) to the third objective evidence and testimonies.
And all this overlooking the fact that if the complainant is a party has at least trivially economic interest to lie!
0 comments:
Post a Comment