AfterDark
Contributor
AfterDark, let's get together soon, my friend.
Sadiesmom
I'm sure we will at Dave's welcome home party! If you can stop the self mutilation we might be able to get a few dives in. Hear your becoming quite the shootist too.
BREAKING NEWS: David Swain Wins Appeal Against Murder Conviction
- Thread starter SadiesMom
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
I'm sure we will at Dave's welcome home party! If you can stop the self mutilation we might be able to get a few dives in. Hear your becoming quite the shootist too.
Ayisha
Actually, that is not quite right. Yes, interpretation is necessary to make a case. I agree there. But the validity of the interpretation can be determined by the facts at hand.
If I can establish that you have used exaggeration to inflate the truth of something or in the inverse have unfairly minimized the effect of something to make your point, then I have shown that you have engaged in hyperbole. All I have to do is point to the words that you used in the context you used them.
You say that the outcome after the fact is similar to never having been tried at all. But this ignores several facts to the contrary.
He has spent time in jail. This wouldn’t have happened had no trial transpired.
He has had to pay a great deal of money to this point. This wouldn’t have happened had no trial transpired.
His family would not have had to suffer has they have. This wouldn’t have happened had no trial transpired.
The entire fiasco run by the officials in the BVI has essentially poisoned the evidence and the environment to such a degree that a fair trial at this point is all but impossible. Another point you seem to have completely missed.
Even if one assumes Swain’s guilt going in, as some are wont to do, the situation remains the same. A guilty person trying to get away with murder would still prefer get away with it without the ordeal Swain has had as opposed to simply never being tried and getting away with murder.
Every way you look at it the outcome to date and the alternative of having no trial at all are irreconcilable.
Therefore, no matter how you slice it, you have catered to hyperbole. No interpretation necessary beyond the obvious to establish this fact. A dictionary will do.
Even your justification after the fact doesn’t hold. That some people will still see him as guilty even though he has been set free would certainly remain the same even if he had had another trial (and been set free), and more than likely would have had no trial happened at all because suspicions were already rife. You don’t seriously think that this situation would change if another trial took place at this juncture, do you?
People are going to judge him no matter what. Some will see him as guilty. Some will give him the benefit of the doubt. Others will assume he is innocent.
Cheers!
Actually, that is not quite right. Yes, interpretation is necessary to make a case. I agree there. But the validity of the interpretation can be determined by the facts at hand.
If I can establish that you have used exaggeration to inflate the truth of something or in the inverse have unfairly minimized the effect of something to make your point, then I have shown that you have engaged in hyperbole. All I have to do is point to the words that you used in the context you used them.
You say that the outcome after the fact is similar to never having been tried at all. But this ignores several facts to the contrary.
He has spent time in jail. This wouldn’t have happened had no trial transpired.
He has had to pay a great deal of money to this point. This wouldn’t have happened had no trial transpired.
His family would not have had to suffer has they have. This wouldn’t have happened had no trial transpired.
The entire fiasco run by the officials in the BVI has essentially poisoned the evidence and the environment to such a degree that a fair trial at this point is all but impossible. Another point you seem to have completely missed.
Even if one assumes Swain’s guilt going in, as some are wont to do, the situation remains the same. A guilty person trying to get away with murder would still prefer get away with it without the ordeal Swain has had as opposed to simply never being tried and getting away with murder.
Every way you look at it the outcome to date and the alternative of having no trial at all are irreconcilable.
Therefore, no matter how you slice it, you have catered to hyperbole. No interpretation necessary beyond the obvious to establish this fact. A dictionary will do.
Even your justification after the fact doesn’t hold. That some people will still see him as guilty even though he has been set free would certainly remain the same even if he had had another trial (and been set free), and more than likely would have had no trial happened at all because suspicions were already rife. You don’t seriously think that this situation would change if another trial took place at this juncture, do you?
People are going to judge him no matter what. Some will see him as guilty. Some will give him the benefit of the doubt. Others will assume he is innocent.
Cheers!
Vladimir
Right…. We are all floundering in a perpetual soup of mundanity because our chosen venue to discuss this topic just so happens to take place in cyberspace. Why do I get the feeling you have this mantra stuck on a poster over your computer and emblazoned on T-shirts and bumper stickers for good measure?
It seems to fly completely over your head that it does matter how you choose to communicate your ideas and support them. That is if you consider critical thinking to have any value in the real world. And to the extent that one can choose to engage in conversations for the soul purpose of contributing and perhaps learning, you seem to hold this tenet in contempt… How do you put it in your signature, that you participate “in jest” and sans “facts”? I suppose this position of yours is a necessary consequence to your cyber world view.
One must wonder if this nihilistic position doesn’t somehow also manifest itself in your three dimensional world as well.
It must be nice in some ways to have this intellectual ace up your sleeve, a safety blanket ala Linus in Charley Brown. Every time you get called out on your inconsistency you simply slide out this card, quote an insignificant point someone brings up in a larger argument and make all the rest of it all go away.
Abracadabra!
Maybe that is what you have on your T-shirt—code for none of any of this matters at all. Straight out of the book of Fiona Apple.
Cheers!
Right…. We are all floundering in a perpetual soup of mundanity because our chosen venue to discuss this topic just so happens to take place in cyberspace. Why do I get the feeling you have this mantra stuck on a poster over your computer and emblazoned on T-shirts and bumper stickers for good measure?
It seems to fly completely over your head that it does matter how you choose to communicate your ideas and support them. That is if you consider critical thinking to have any value in the real world. And to the extent that one can choose to engage in conversations for the soul purpose of contributing and perhaps learning, you seem to hold this tenet in contempt… How do you put it in your signature, that you participate “in jest” and sans “facts”? I suppose this position of yours is a necessary consequence to your cyber world view.
One must wonder if this nihilistic position doesn’t somehow also manifest itself in your three dimensional world as well.
It must be nice in some ways to have this intellectual ace up your sleeve, a safety blanket ala Linus in Charley Brown. Every time you get called out on your inconsistency you simply slide out this card, quote an insignificant point someone brings up in a larger argument and make all the rest of it all go away.
Abracadabra!
Maybe that is what you have on your T-shirt—code for none of any of this matters at all. Straight out of the book of Fiona Apple.
Cheers!
Similar threads
