I haven't disagreed with that, have I?
You said the following:
This is nothing but speculation.
You do not know if they got it right or wrong this 'moment'.
I've already shown that it was speculation that they got it right this momment. So you are mistaken.
Those other crimes only have a little bearing, in comparison to this case, to that of which I am speaking.
That is the way that women are treated and considered, not only by the government and the culture but by the legal system which has been brought about by their culture.
Women are treated as second class citizens. Women are only valued as half that of a male. Their word in court is automatically treated as having half the value of a man's word.
By their own standard, they used half valued words to convict her.
Uh, hello; I have already addressed this.
It doesn't matter, because people also say they have committed crimes they haven't committed.
Regardless, her claim is still evidence that should have been considered (but wasn't), and treated equally as the confession.
Gee? I really don't know if I know.
Why don't you start another topic and tell me about it with factual information.
Once you start digging up the information I am sure you will find that amongst all convictions, it, as well as the claims of innocence by the convicted, is very much smaller than the media driven hype you seem to have bought into.
If you start digging further into actual cases, you will find that it is the prosecution that gets away with wrong doing more than defense attorneys ever do.
Are you not following the conversation?
I am saying we don't have the evidence that the court had. So we don't know.
All we do know is what has been posted on the net, which is an incomplete record.
There you go speculating again.
You do not know it is "bs". You believe it is "bs".
Your statement is nothing but speculation based on your own preconceived biases.
Again. Not in how they value a woman and her word.
No it doesn't.
And I have already given you examples where none is required.
But you just go ahead and hold steadfastly to your misbegotten biased belief.
Wow, you really impressed me.
I guess you missed the compliment I gave.
Regardless; You know its use is nothing but vitriol, and amoral.
I happen to know for fact that humans are not bags of scum. They are made up of flesh and bone.
Although I am sure that there are those out there that would use the word 'scumbag' to describe people who use such vitriol, I am not not of them.
That would be as juvenile, uneducated, and a sign of a hateful, irrational and convoluted mind, as using it in the first place.
If I were to use it, I could imagine my creator judging me just as harsh, if not more harshly than those who have committed crimes, just for calling his/her creations such, instead of just calling their actions for what they were.