O'Donoghue Not Guilty of Murder

It wasn't me! · 24-01-2008 06:43PM

Boggles wrote: »

So you think the law is infallible and above reproach?

Nope, but I do think that we have no right to have a tantrum when someone far, far more qualified than us makes a decision based on wisdom we don't have. To do so makes you look like a mewling child.

PeakOutput · 24-01-2008 06:48PM

Boggles wrote: »

In which way would they be better?

they are either going to have to move on at some stage or lead a miserable life. forgiveness can be a first step to moving on. it dosnt have to be but it can be and i would say they have a greater chance of moving on after having forgiven.

Boggles · 24-01-2008 06:48PM

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Nope, but I do think that we have no right to have a tantrum when someone far, far more qualified than us makes a decision based on wisdom we don't have. To do so makes you look like a mewling child.

This persons wisdom has been questioned and his decisions overturned many times.

PeakOutput · 24-01-2008 06:48PM

Boggles wrote: »

This persons wisdom has been questioned and his decisions overturned many times.

generally when they have been overturned it has been because they were considered too harsh

Boggles · 24-01-2008 06:51PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

they are either going to have to move on at some stage or lead a miserable life. forgiveness can be a first step to moving on. it dosnt have to be but it can be and i would say they have a greater chance of moving on after having forgiven.

What Twaddle, have you children?

Boggles · 24-01-2008 06:51PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

generally when they have been overturned it has been because they were considered too harsh

His decisions were still questioned, I wasn't debating the result.

It wasn't me! · 24-01-2008 06:52PM

Boggles wrote: »

This persons wisdom has been questioned and his decisions overturned many times.

By people with legal qualifications. Most judges face scrutiny, and in a lot of cases, the sentences they impose are considerably reduced, including many of Carney's. Of course, the key point is that this person's judgements are questioned by people who are also infinitely more qualified than you or I. What I have a gripe with is the holding of convictions by people who have no right to be heard speak about a subject. How many people here condemning Carney are practising high court judges? Or even barristers? Are you either of the above? Most people have no right to an opinion, but all too few realise it.

It wasn't me! · 24-01-2008 06:53PM

Boggles wrote: »

What Twaddle, have you children?

Have you a notion of how this works? Your personal feelings are utterly irrelevant, and your thoughts of what should be considered just based on personal feelings are null and void.

Boggles · 24-01-2008 06:54PM

It wasn't me! wrote: »

By people with legal qualifications. Most judges face scrutiny, and in a lot of cases, the sentences they impose are considerably reduced, including many of Carney's. Of course, the key point is that this person's judgements are questioned by people who are also infinitely more qualified than you or I. What I have a gripe with is the holding of convictions by people who have no right to be heard speak about a subject. How many people here condemning Carney are practising high court judges? Or even barristers? Are you either of the above? Most people have no right to an opinion, but all too few realise it.

So to have an opinion you have to have a Law Degree or above?

Boggles · 24-01-2008 06:56PM

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Have you a notion of how this works? Your personal feelings are utterly irrelevant, and your thoughts of what should be considered just based on personal feelings are null and void.

What are you talking about, of what works?

Forgiveness of the person who was responisble for your childs death?

PeakOutput · 24-01-2008 06:57PM

Boggles wrote: »

What Twaddle, have you children?

weather i have children or not is irrelevant but to humour you no i dont have children. i cant wait to hear what patronising crap your going to come out with that i can never imagine blah blah blah.

i dont need to imagine how i would feel in that situation. I know people who have lost children I know people who have lost direct relations(even lost them due to illegal activity and due to other peoples fault). I know people who have the capability to move on and those that do not and i know who is now leading a more fullfilling life.

it is very convenient for you to disregard my opinion now because you know I do not have children of my own and if that makes you feel like you have "won" the debate then more power to you.

Boggles · 24-01-2008 06:58PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

weather i have children or not is irrelevant but to humour you no i dont have children. i cant wait to hear what patronising crap your going to come out with that i can never imagine blah blah blah.

i dont need to imagine how i would feel in that situation. I know people who have lost children I know people who have lost direct relations(even lost them due to illegal activity and due to other peoples fault). I know people who have the capability to move on and those that do not and i know who is now leading a more fullfilling life.

it is very convenient for you to disregard my opinion now because you know I do not have children of my own and if that makes you feel like you have "won" the debate then more power to you.

Thank you, I'll take every victory i can.

It wasn't me! · 24-01-2008 07:00PM

To have a useful one, yes. Who are you to question the law? Really? It's arrogant and insulting to assume you have the right to tell a high court judge he got it wrong. Would you also tell an artist you could do better? Or a writer? Or a chef? And no, I meant the legal process, that thing we're trying to discuss. Well, that thing at least one of us is trying to discuss, and the other is just looking for petty revenge. The problem is, your petty concerns would hamper the law, so they're considered irrelevant. The sooner you deal with that, the happier we'll all be.

It wasn't me! · 24-01-2008 07:01PM

Boggles wrote: »

Thank you, I'll take every victory i can.

Funny, I don't see you collecting one there. Unless of course you had nipped down to Paddy Power to have a few quid on his not having children?

Boggles · 24-01-2008 07:06PM

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Funny, I don't see you collecting one there. Unless of course you had nipped down to Paddy Power to have a few quid on his not having children?

Read the all posts mate, it was said in jest.

Boggles · 24-01-2008 07:07PM

It wasn't me! wrote: »

To have a useful one, yes. Who are you to question the law? Really? It's arrogant and insulting to assume you have the right to tell a high court judge he got it wrong. Would you also tell an artist you could do better? Or a writer? Or a chef? And no, I meant the legal process, that thing we're trying to discuss. Well, that thing at least one of us is trying to discuss, and the other is just looking for petty revenge. The problem is, your petty concerns would hamper the law, so they're considered irrelevant. The sooner you deal with that, the happier we'll all be.

You share the same view as Hitler. Do you have a small moustache?

It wasn't me! · 24-01-2008 07:09PM

No, fairly full one. Do you feel you are adequately qualified to question the decisions of a high court judge? Second question: If the answer to the above is yes, what's your SPSV licence number?

Boggles · 24-01-2008 07:16PM

It wasn't me! wrote: »

No, fairly full one. Do you feel you are adequately qualified to question the decisions of a high court judge? Second question: If the answer to the above is yes, what's your SPSV licence number?

It is nothing to do with being qualified, being a peer or wearing a black cape. Just because you don't know every little detail of how something works, doesn't mean your right to question something is waived.

I'm not qualified to a run this country, does that mean it can be run without question?

In my opinion, this lad got off very lightly for what he did. You don't have to be Matlock to see that.

It wasn't me! · 24-01-2008 07:23PM

It really is to do with being qualified. You can vote for who you want, and you can ask them to make appeals to the Dail for you, but it's a tribunal, not you, who will investigate allegations of wrongdoing, because YOU'RE NOT QUALIFIED.

People like you, who think they can question things they know little to nothing about, are a burden on society.

Boggles · 24-01-2008 07:26PM

It wasn't me! wrote: »

It really is to do with being qualified. You can vote for who you want, and you can ask them to make appeals to the Dail for you, but it's a tribunal, not you, who will investigate allegations of wrongdoing, because YOU'RE NOT QUALIFIED.

People like you, who think they can question things they know little to nothing about, are a burden on society.

To summise.

Never Question Anything.
What we say goes.
Your opinion means nothing.

No thanks, Adolf.

Edit: Just noticed your username, I'm completely convinced now.

It wasn't me! · 24-01-2008 07:28PM

Nope, not really what I said at all. I'm sure there's somewhere in the Education category that'll direct you where to go to learn to read.

PeakOutput · 24-01-2008 07:29PM

Boggles wrote: »

In my opinion, this lad got off very lightly for what he did. You don't have to be Matlock to see that.

you see thats the only part of what your saying that I cant agree with you are fully entitled to your opinion but your not entitled to imply that people who dont share your opinion are somehow automatically less intelligent than you.

you make it sound like your point of view that he got a light sentence should be a given. some sort of standard at which every other point should originate and if you do not believe that then you are a fool.

while i dont necessarily believe you are doing it consiously it seems to be an inherent problem of dealing with matters like this subjectively and not objectively

Dudess · 24-01-2008 07:34PM

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Nope, not really what I said at all. I'm sure there's somewhere in the Education category that'll direct you where to go to learn to read.

Careful now.

Boggles · 24-01-2008 07:44PM

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Nope, not really what I said at all. I'm sure there's somewhere in the Education category that'll direct you where to go to learn to read.

Haha!

Beelzebub · 24-01-2008 07:47PM

daithifleming wrote: »

Well, if you knocked a child down in a car accident, would you call yourself a child killer?

If the child died as a result, others namely the child's family probably would.

Boggles · 24-01-2008 07:47PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

you see thats the only part of what your saying that I cant agree with you are fully entitled to your opinion but your not entitled to imply that people who dont share your opinion are somehow automatically less intelligent than you.

you make it sound like your point of view that he got a light sentence should be a given. some sort of standard at which every other point should originate and if you do not believe that then you are a fool.

while i dont necessarily believe you are doing it consiously it seems to be an inherent problem of dealing with matters like this subjectively and not objectively

Think you took the Matlock line up wrong, I wasn't the one saying you needed a law degree to have an opinion.

Okay Objectively, he got a light sentance.

Subjectively he got a light sentance.

Standing on my head, He got a light sentance!

PeakOutput · 24-01-2008 07:55PM

Boggles wrote: »

Okay Objectively, he got a light sentance.

show me why and saying anyone can see its a light sentence is not an objective argument

Boggles · 24-01-2008 07:58PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

show me why and saying anyone can see its a light sentence is not an objective argument

Didn't say 'anyone', It''s my opinion, I'm not speaking for anyone else.

As far as show you, I don't think I need to do this, read my previouse posts for the past week.

PeakOutput · 24-01-2008 08:04PM

just because you didnt use the word anyone does not mean that is not what you were implying.

I have not seen one verifiable fact from the he got a light sentence side all iv seen is feelings. I am asking you to show me one verifiable fact that implies he got a light sentence or one verifiable and uncounterable fact that the judge in question is unfit to decide the sentence in the case(or any case for that matter).

for the record im bed bound till sunday that is why im still here debating away i cant stand to watch day time tv and iv already watched 4 films today.

Boggles · 24-01-2008 08:12PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

just because you didnt use the word anyone does not mean that is not what you were implying.

I have not seen one verifiable fact from the he got a light sentence side all iv seen is feelings. I am asking you to show me one verifiable fact that implies he got a light sentence or one verifiable and uncounterable fact that the judge in question is unfit to decide the sentence in the case(or any case for that matter).

for the record im bed bound till sunday that is why im still here debating away i cant stand to watch day time tv and iv already watched 4 films today.

Sorry to hear of you illness.

How about the fact that he could have got life for what he did. From that fact alone 3 years is light.

O'Donoghue Not Guilty of Murder

Comments