freediver wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2020 at 7:05pm:


FD, Are you compelled by Freeeedom to uphold the supremacy of your fellow decent white people everywhere?

Do you think there is evidence?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

It is a lie because it is not true Gandalf. You need to think outside the Quran. It is a made up statistic with no basis in fact. If it were true, you would not have to offer feeble excuses for saying it.

I notice you dodged the question (again) of what you think the legal principle of presumption of innocence actually means. I think it's time you explained. It might clarify why you think it can turn a lie to truth.

freediver wrote on Dec 4^th, 2020 at 6:54pm:


What you mean to say is, I answered it (reply#462) but you didn't like the answer. As usual, your reply to my direct answer was a variation of "you're wrong, so there". Here's a novel thought: if you think my answer doesn't answer the question, or is in any way insufficient, you might actually point out why, instead of just repeating the inane "you're wrong, so there" like a grinning idiot for another 33 pages.

It has occurred to you that you have never once brought an actual argument to this thread right FD? Worth checking.

What might "clarify" the pertinent issue for you is if you actually stopped dodging my question I keep asking you, namely - do you actually understand the fact that anything above 0% constitutes a crime under our law? It really does go to the heart of why this claim is equivalent to the legal concept of innocent until proven guilty.

freediver wrote on Dec 4^th, 2020 at 6:54pm:


Profound.

Actually, I should commend you for so eloquently summing up your entire argument in 33 pages of waffling.

freediver wrote on Dec 7^th, 2020 at 6:49pm:


It has everything to do with it.

As soon as you ask how much money a group of people are sending to terrorists, you are asking a legal question about their guilt or innocence in an actual crime under our laws. Its actually very simple FD: saying 0% is saying they are (legally) innocent, and saying anything about 0% is sayng they are legally guilty.

You are quite literally asking if these halal certifiers are guilty or innocent of a crime under our laws. It really is that simple. You are not speculating about how many times they pick their nose on any given day - in which case stating '0 times' would indeed by making crap up (assuming you really had no idea).

So to answer your question in a broad sense - the legal definition of the presumption of innocence holds that the burden of proof lies with the person(s) accusing someone of a crime. If that proof is not presented, then by default the accused is presumed to be innocent.

In our specific case, this means that by default the halal certifiers are legally presumed to send 0% of the fees to terrorists (a crime under our law), until such time evidence is presented proving otherwise.

Therefore the question "what percentage of halal certifier's fees goes to terrorists" - is a question of legal innocent or guilt, where 0% = "innocent" and anything above 0% = "guilty". The correct, and in fact only answer that is acceptable when no evidence proving their guilt of this crime is presented - is "0%"

freediver wrote on Dec 7^th, 2020 at 6:49pm:


Oh look, FD answers once again with an inane variation of "you're wrong, so there".

Tell me FD, has it been your intention from the start to spend 6 month+ and 33 pages in the same thread failing to make even a single argument? Or has that fact not quite dawned on you yet?

John Smith wrote on Dec 8^th, 2020 at 10:14am:


I think its the level of chutzpah he displays while failing so embarassingly at debate - is what never fails to surprise me.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 8^th, 2020 at 10:12am:


So why do you keep dodging the question of what the legal presumption of innocence means? Are you trying to tell us that it means whatever BS a Muslim is trying to spin at the time?

Quote:


You are incorrect Gandalf. I can see now why you dodged for 30 pages. If the proof is not presented, they are found innocent. The concept of presumption of innocence applies prior to a verdict being passed. A person can still be found guilty after being presumed innocent. The presumption of innocence has nothing to do with either actual innocence or the eventual finding of the court.

Quote:


I think I see the problem. At least in the west, we don't do collective punishment. As far as the legal presumption of innocence goes, it does not even make sense to ask if a broad group of people are guilty of a specific crime. This is just you trying to misrepresent what is actually going on so you can use the presumption of innocence to justify telling lies.

Should we be surprised that after 30 pages it turns out that the Muslim completely misunderstood two fundamental concepts of modern justice?

Quote:


Fake false question, fallaciously trying to infer anti-islam people are white supremacists.
=================

Since it is forbidden for muslims to take Jews and Christians as friends, in the qur'an.

Since muslims are told it's quiet O.K. to lie to people, in the qur'an.

Since islamic terrorism is caused and motivated by the qur'an.

Since muslims are told to commit human rights atrocities in the qur'an.

How do we know that all muslims are not shunning us as friends, lying to us about halal funding and terrorism, supporting human rights atrocities being committed against us, by muslims who are following the qu'an to the very letter?

Given the world wide problem of muslims raping torturing and murdering innocent men women and children, why is it not quiet understandable, that honest people view islam as an evil and dangerous death cult?

Why are the loony leftards going out of their way to hide the atrocities of the muslims around the globe every day of the year?