Comet gift vouchers/cards

System

Azari wrote: »

I'm glad that you have finally got the message.

What message? I'm not sure i've ever disagreed with you about this point? All i've disagreed with was your assertion that mens rea didn't exists in this case. I think it does exist as the purchaser has bought the item in an extraordinary manner which indicates they know what they are doing is wrong.

Its been you thats been wittering on about other stuff (as usual)

Azari

goater78 wrote: »

You really have very little idea what you are talking about! I do enjoy it when you get on one of your legal rants! If you ever get yourself on a Jury then I pity your colleagues! You will soon bully them into your way of thinking (which I imagine would be good news for the criminal)

Instead of your usual ad hominem when you realise that you cannot win your argument, how about something substantive?

I would point out that it appears to be you who seems to be the one who is happy to assume guilt without the need for a court case as witnessed by your referring to the defendant above as a 'criminal' when the jury is evidently still to decide the case.

Azari

goater78 wrote: »

What message? I'm not sure i've ever disagreed with you about this point? All i've disagreed with was your assertion that mens rea didn't exists in this case.

Once again, you are arguing against not what was said but something quite different.

I was talking about 'proving' mens rea (beyond reasonable doubt), not making a statement about whether or not it existed in any particular case.

So you have been, by your own admission, arguing against something that was never asserted.

System

Azari wrote: »

Instead of your usual ad hominem when you realise that you cannot win your argument, how about something substantive?

I would point out that it appears to be you who seems to be the one who is happy to assume guilt without the need for a court case as witnessed by your referring to the defendant above as a 'criminal' when the jury is evidently still to decide the case.

I forgot you like to revert to a straw man argument when people argue with you and you are losing.

I will change my word to "defendant" to make you happy

System

Azari wrote: »

Once again, you are arguing against not what was said but something quite different.

I was talking about 'proving' mens rea (beyond reasonable doubt), not making a statement about whether or not it existed in any particular case.

So you have been, by your own admission, arguing against something that was never asserted.

If you're not clear in your statements/posts then that is not my fault. You want to be clearer in future over what your position is. I suspect the problem is that you like to peppar your points with insults at other posters. Perhaps you should stop doing that?

Azari

goater78 wrote: »

I forgot you like to revert to a straw man argument when people argue with you and you are losing.

You obviously don't know what a 'straw man' argument is.

To help you out, here is a definition for you.

You actually did refer to a defendant as a 'criminal' so I was most definitely not arguing against something you had not said, so no straw man there, I'm afraid. :cool:

Azari

goater78 wrote: »

If you're not clear in your statements/posts then that is not my fault. You want to be clearer in future over what your position is.

Please show where I made a statement that would confuse a normally intelligent poster. Anywhere where I stated that there was no mens rea rather than that there would be a need to prove mens rea.

I suspect the problem is that you like to peppar your points with insults at other posters.

Again with the ad hominems.

System

Azari wrote: »

You obviously don't know what a 'straw man' argument is.

To help you out, here is a definition for you.

You actually did refer to a defendant as a 'criminal' so I was most definitely not arguing against something you had not said, so no straw man there, I'm afraid. :cool:

Yes but you have attached meaning to my use of the word criminal which I didn't mean. Therefore you have based your argument on a "misrepresentation of an opponent's position". Which as your definition proves is a Straw Man argument.

I'm glad you agree with me

System

Azari wrote: »

Please show where I made a statement that would confuse a normally intelligent poster. Anywhere where I stated that there was no mens rea rather than that there would be a need to prove mens rea.



Again with the ad hominems.

It was you that started the ad hominems :rotfl:

Azari

goater78 wrote: »

Yes but you have attached meaning to my use of the word criminal which I didn't mean.

The word criminal has a clear and well understood meaning.

The fact that you claim to have meant something else (and calling a defendant a criminal is hardly a subtle change) is neither here nor there. You referred to an accused as if he had been convicted and trying to weasel your way out of it by claiming that when you used the common word 'criminal' you meant something different won't wash.

I suggest that you remember that well know piece of advice: "When you have dug yourself into a hole: stop digging".