cookiesdonniedarko-
We all know that the inner workings of your mind are expressing themselves in your posts on this forum, and that this reasonably allows us to deduce that you are, in fact, the original WorstCunt™
-
How can you possibly know the inner working's of someone else's mind?
Various ways. In this case we're inferring from a particular deviation from the actions of an ideal observer.
Your point about "wrong think" (Argumentum ad populum) and internet mobs are really just a massive whinge. People are arguing against you not just because they think you're wrong, but because you maintain a pig-headed insistence on the validity of your views despite having absolutely fuck all to support them, as your recourse to name calling and appeals to ignorance show.
It's pretty clear at this point that you've given up what little substance there was in your arguments and have resorted to whining victimhood to try to prove your point (whatever it was). Anything you had to say that was actually relevant was dealt with a few pages back.
You are reading a single comment by @cookiesdonniedarko and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
deleted
spiderpie
ffm
What extreme opinion are you talking about? The problem is that juries a repeatedly returning verdicts that fly in the face of the law because the (i) the law does not make appropriate punishments available and so, (ii) the jury sympathises with the defendent, despite it being obvious that they have done something wrong. Essentially we are seeing Jury Nullification on a massive scale, whereby "a jury nullifies by acquitting a defendant, even though the members of the jury may believe that the defendant did the illegal act, yet they don't believe he or she should be punished for it." This is partly because the jury sympathises with the driver but also because they treat the trial as a test of the driver's character. The logic goes something like:
The problem (in addition to my earlier points on our failure to reason soundly with regard to probability, which you didn't reply to) is that this fundamentally isn't an issue of character; it's an issue of competence. The driver has shown themselves to be incompetent and shoudl be banned from driving for a substantial period even if it does cause them massive hardship, because their hardship is less important than the safety of others.
This is an excellent explanation of the issue from Beyond the Kerb.