What are the standards for evidence?

[Curious George]

Once again, and for the last time, we are not discussing physical evidence.

What is so hard to understand? We are discussing eyewitness testimony sans (without) physical evidence.

I.e. convictions made purely on the say so on one person. "Yes your honour, i saw that man in the dock pull the trigger"

"Yes, you honor, i found that knife at the crime scene." Eye-witness testimony.

 

[Curious George]

I am not defining anything here, you are imposing your belief on me and claiming it as my definition.

As you seem to do very often. Sorry your bully tactics won't work on me.

No bully tactics. Just words here. If you define x as y then it is your definition.

 

[ChristineM]

"Yes, you honor, i found that knife at the crime scene." Eye-witness testimony.

Once again you are introducing physical evidence.

 

[ChristineM]

No bully tactics. Just words here. If you define x as y then it is your definition.

Your words defined what you claim to be, i simply questioned that claim based on your posts.

No bulky tactics,? Telling me what i should accept because its what you want me to accept?

Making false claims about my posts?

Ok

 

[Curious George]

Your words defined what you claim to be, i simply questioned that claim based on your posts.

No bulky tactics,? Telling me what i should accept because its what you want me to accept?

Making false claims about my posts?

Ok

I did not tell you what you should accept. I said if you define something in such and such manner the by your definition so and so. You were free to say, that you do not define it that way. If an "if" condition is not met the "then" statement does not follow.

This really is simple communication. If the if condition is met, it is your definition.

Cheers

 

[Curious George]

Once again you are introducing physical evidence.

Nope, we are nit talking about physical evidence we are talking about the eye-witness testimony. There is no physical evidence that goes to prove the truth of the claim. If there was, we would need eye-witness testimony to introduce that. If such was the case there would be no physical evidence of that. You see your assertion leads to an infinite regression. This is why we don't need sources. What you said was wrong logically.

 

[Thief]

It has occurred to me that some people believe they are the authority of evidence for others, but it seems to me that authority lies with the individual. However I would agree that there are societal standards both formal and informal.

So my question is what are these standards? If I said my mother loves me would you consider that sufficient evidence to agree? Or do we need to run that hypothesis through the scientific method?

if you are seeking to be a better person.....
trust in others can help....or derail

no matter how much someone loves you
they could be wrong about important lines of thought

as it is written.....Trust no one. Question everything

 

[ChristineM]

I did not tell you what you should accept. I said if you define something in such and such manner the by your definition so and so. You were free to say, that you do not define it that way. If an "if" condition is not met the "then" statement does not follow.

This really is simple communication. If the if condition is met, it is your definition.

Cheers[/QUOTE

You said "your definition"

I made no such definition, for the fourth and last time, i queried your claim. What is so difficult for you to understand?

 

[ChristineM]

Nope, we are nit talking about physical evidence we are talking about the eye-witness testimony. There is no physical evidence that goes to prove the truth of the claim. If there was, we would need eye-witness testimony to introduce that. If such was the case there would be no physical evidence of that. You see your assertion leads to an infinite regression. This is why we don't need sources. What you said was wrong logically.

A knife is physical evidence

If the knife is produced with say, the victims blood and the suspects finger prints, couples with the eyewitness testimony then case solved,

If someone (claimed eyewitness) says, without physical evidence "i saw the man standing in the dock knife the victim" then that testimony cannot be relied on, is open to deep scrutiny as to the character of the witness, whether there is ulterior motive, mental state of the witness, whether the claim fits the facts, etc. In the majority of cases, only if there is corroborating evidence can the eyewitness testimony be accepted otherwise it will not influence their verdict. Of course some backward judges may still accept eyewitness testimony, only for the verdict to overturned on appeal.

In the past it has been accepted, see my links to see what happens in the case conviction by eyewitness testimony alone.

And see you are still stomping your foot in incredulity but consistently continue failing to supply your claimed evidence.

 

[Curious George]

A knife is physical evidence

If the knife is produced with say, the victims blood and the suspects finger prints, couples with the eyewitness testimony then case solved,

If someone (claimed eyewitness) says, without physical evidence "i saw the man standing in the dock knife the victim" then that testimony cannot be relied on, is open to deep scrutiny as to the character of the witness, whether there is ulterior motive, mental state of the witness, whether the claim fits the facts, etc. In the majority of cases, only if there is corroborating evidence can the eyewitness testimony be accepted otherwise it will not influence their verdict. Of course some backward judges may still accept eyewitness testimony, only for the verdict to overturned on appeal.

In the past it has been accepted, see my links to see what happens in the case conviction by eyewitness testimony alone.

And see you are still stomping your foot in incredulity but consistently continue failing to supply your claimed evidence.

You are still missing the point. There is no physical evidence that the knife was found at the scene of the crime, there is no physical evidence that validates the knife is what it is held to be. And if there was there would be no physical evidence to support that physical evidence. Eye-witness testimony is neccessary and upon this eye witness testimony, courts rely.

 

[Curious George]

You said "your definition"

I made no such definition, for the fourth and last time, i queried your claim. What is so difficult for you to understand?

And again if you define strong atheist with that definition it is your definition.

Cheers

 

[ChristineM]

You are still missing the point. There is no physical evidence that the knife was found at the scene of the crime, there is no physical evidence that validates the knife is what it is held to be. And if there was there would be no physical evidence to support that physical evidence. Eye-witness testimony is neccessary and upon this eye witness testimony, courts rely.

Please explain why a knife is a dream?

I really don't know what you cut yor food with but i use a physical knife.

Are you saying a knife wound is no physical evidence

 

[ChristineM]

And again if you define strong atheist with that definition it is your definition.

Cheers

What definition? Doubting your claim is not a definition

 

[Curious George]

What definition? Doubting your claim is not a definition

Lol, are you serious?

If you define strong atheism as a person claiming no god exists, then I am by your definition a strong atheist.

The above is a complex sentence, but I am not sure why you seem confused by it. Do you know how conditional sentences function?

I used the above conditional sentence. You seem to think that if you define strong atheism as x, then x is my definition and not yours. I do not think that what you seem to think makes any sense.

 

[ChristineM]

Lol, are you serious?

If you define strong atheism as a person claiming no god exists, then I am by your definition a strong atheist.

The above is a complex sentence, but I am not sure why you seem confused by it. Do you know how conditional sentences function?

I used the above conditional sentence. You seem to think that if you define strong atheism as x, then x is my definition and not yours. I do not think that what you seem to think makes any sense.

Why do you find it so difficult to grasp basic concepts?

I am not querying the definition, i am querying your claim of being strong atheist.

And childish ad hominem is not going to improve your arguments.

 

[Curious George]

Why do you find it so difficult to grasp basic concepts?

I am not querying the definition, i am querying your claim of being strong atheist.

And childish ad hominem is not going to improve your arguments.

You are off on a tangent of our tangent now. Are you now agreeing that it is your definition.

If you would have taken that root in the first place. It would have been much easier. Ok so you think that I am lying in my claim that no god exists.

Well I can't really help you there. Incidently, I haven't known any god believers to act as god deniers. Nor can I think of any benefit that I person might derive from such a claim.

Therefore if you believe that I secretly believe in god but lie about it for no apparent reason, I cannot imagine anything I can do to change that.

Your motivation is much easier to see. Instead of aknowledging you are wrong, it is much easier to call me a liar.

Oh well.

Cheers

 

[ChristineM]

You are off on a tangent of our tangent now. Are you now agreeing that it is your definition.

If you would have taken that root in the first place. It would have been much easier. Ok so you think that I am lying in my claim that no god exists.

Well I can't really help you there. Incidently, I haven't known any god believers to act as god deniers. Nor can I think of any benefit that I person might derive from such a claim.

Therefore if you believe that I secretly believe in god but lie about it for no apparent reason, I cannot imagine anything I can do to change that.

Your motivation is much easier to see. Instead of aknowledging you are wrong, it is much easier to call me a liar.

Oh well.

Cheers

Will you go away copulating about "my" definition, i don't have a definition, i use the ones that already exist in dictionaries.

As for the rest of your self serving hyperbole, i provided evidence, you provided incredulity despite repeatedly claiming you would provide evidence. You failed repeatedly and I'm done because you offer nothing new, nothing to back up your claims, just the same old discredited nonsense.

Cheers to you.

 

[Curious George]

Will you go away copulating about "my" definition, i don't have a definition, i use the ones that already exist in dictionaries.

So, your definitions are the ones that already exist in dictionaries. They are the ones you use. Therefore, they are your definitions.

As for the rest of your self serving hyperbole,

Hmm
i provided evidence, you provided incredulity despite repeatedly claiming you would provide evidence.
[/quote]
Still waiting for you to articulate your misconception of court systems.

You failed repeatedly and I'm done because you offer nothing new, nothing to back up your claims, just the same old discredited nonsense.

Cheers to you.

Lol. I have explained that no matter what evidence you use, you will ultimately have to rely on eye witness testimony. There is no other way to introduce evidence. You have then claimed that the physical evidence supports the testimony. It is not so. If you introduce a knife found at the crime scene how are you going to prove that it was found at the crime scene? There is no physical evidence to support the claim that the knife was found at the crime scene. Well you could introduce more physical evidence, like pictures of the knife being found at the crime scene, but how are you going to prove that physical evidence is what it is claimed? You need eye witness testimony. Now it is possible that you could claim a heresay exception. But you still need eye-witness testimony to prove that the document such as routine pictures are something that fits within a heresay exception. Otherwise they could not be introduced.

Don't be mad.

Cheers

 

[ChristineM]

So, your definitions are the ones that already exist in dictionaries. They are the ones you use. Therefore, they are your definitions.

Hmm
i provided evidence, you provided incredulity despite repeatedly claiming you would provide evidence.

Still waiting for you to articulate your misconception of court systems.

Lol. I have explained that no matter what evidence you use, you will ultimately have to rely on eye witness testimony. There is no other way to introduce evidence. You have then claimed that the physical evidence supports the testimony. It is not so. If you introduce a knife found at the crime scene how are you going to prove that it was found at the crime scene? There is no physical evidence to support the claim that the knife was found at the crime scene. Well you could introduce more physical evidence, like pictures of the knife being found at the crime scene, but how are you going to prove that physical evidence is what it is claimed? You need eye witness testimony. Now it is possible that you could claim a heresay exception. But you still need eye-witness testimony to prove that the document such as routine pictures are something that fits within a heresay exception. Otherwise they could not be introduced.

Don't be mad.

Cheers[/QUOTE]

I seem to have pushed the button that makes you protest too much

And still no evidence, thanks

 

[Curious George]

Still waiting for you to articulate your misconception of court systems.


Don't be mad.

Cheers

I seem to have pushed the button that makes you protest too much

And still no evidence, thanks[/QUOTE]
Well I am glad you have calmed down.

Perhaps you can calmy rexamine our exchange and see my collected responses and your slightly more abrasive comments.

I can't say that you have pressed a button. I would say that I have found some of your responses slightly humorous. Specifically, me copulating with definitions and my self serving hyperbole. That was quite colorful. It is hard to get your buttons pressed when someone uses colorful language (especially online).

Regarding the evidence, what would you like? Rules of evidence? You never did answer.