Search results

Great. A straight answer. What evidence would you need to convict? You should deal with what people say, not pretend that you are the arbiter of what they should say.

So should the court find the man guilty in Fred's scenario?

Can it be proved? How do you think the court should rule?

Yikes!! People read this drivel?

Yeah, sure what?!? So "not guilty"?

Should the court find him guilty?

So if he is guilty then you will find him guilty. Is he guilty?

So now you're finding guilt on the basis of "implied force"? There are a million reasons that would not justify your guilty conviction. There is no implied force. In fact, that there was a "Wednesday event" and only a complaint about Tuesday implies there was no force. You really are...

No. There was no force in his scenario, including any sense of there being a "JR situation." No. Your immediate response was "guilty." Two items from your imagination? There's a laugh.

What did I do now?

It doesn't look like comprehension on my part is the issue...

So you would find a man guilty with no evidence.

Oh, good. :D I've had many try to pass off nonsense such as: Genesis can't be an accurate description of history because it is poetry.

Then retract your response. I'm not arguing with you over things we agree on.

They can be both, right?

There was no evidence of force in the scenario, yet you would throw the book at the guy even though "it can't be determined if the husband forced her." All you are doing is destroying any foundation upon which you might challenge Fred's ideas.

So you would convict a man based on a lack of evidence.

Then retract your assessment

Actually, the flood is probably the reason there is lava on other heavenly bodies, most notably, the moon.

And yet you would find him guilty.