Bin Laden's dead

[Gwence]

Originally Posted by Turtles [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Lulz. Learn English.

And no, there aren't two sides to every story. Take your 9/11 conspiracy theory horseshit elsewhere.

jeez I graduated from arizona state, and I feel sorry for you


IVYYY LEAGUEEE YEAAAAAAA

[wehrmacht]

Originally Posted by Turtles [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And no, there aren't two sides to every story. Take your 9/11 conspiracy theory horseshit elsewhere.

How exactly would you know anything about 9/11? Your only knowledge of the event is a video of a plane flying into a building. Everything else you claim about 9/11 is based around your assumption that it's not possible for a government intelligence agency or TV network to lie to you.

No matter what story you believe, the majority of people walking the earth are unable to back up their claim due to the limited data on the subject available to them. You are choosing between two conspiracy theories. Those are the facts.

Some of the only objective data available on the subject are things like the amount of time it took building 7 to collapse.

NIST originally claimed the building took 40% longer than free fall speed to collapse. Physics teacher David Chandler measured the actual speed being within 1% of free fall speed.

His youtube video showing the free fall measurements: http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotat...x7I&feature=iv

So yea, there aren't two sides to every story, otherwise objective reality would back up both sides of the story but it doesn't.

[naez]

wehrmacht i've found it isn't even worth the energy to educate the sheep, they enjoy being fleeced up the pin to the slaughter

[wehrmacht]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Turtles]

Originally Posted by Abacab "The REAL truth" [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That is history 101, and you should've learned that in your core electives... It is even more troubling how you don't believe there are "two sides to every story" yet you're in law school which any attorney worth his salt will try and push his clients story as fact, even against what the prosecutor and evidence says in contrary.

To further explain the two sides...

In America the revolutionary war was considered "freedom fighting" in England it's written down as lawlessness which is paramount to terrorism, which would be a perfect example of having two sides to the same story.

In otherwords, drop your Ivy League education and go back to highschool because you missed some key points here and there.

Jesus Christ, are you kidding me? The Revolutionary War? Dude, I'm playing chess and you're playing Connect-4. You haven't even graduated to checkers yet. I understand that you're a smart enough guy, but I'm not some idiot hipster you ran into at IHOP -- step your game up. Do you think that's some profound point you just made? The comparison between "terrorists" and "freedom fighters" is made every fucking day. And guess what? It's not two sides to a story. It's two interpretations of the same story.

American colonists: We dumped some motherfucking tea in the motherfucking harbor.
British: They dumped some motherfucking tea in the motherfucking harbor.

Same story. The difference was how that act was interpreted. There is no dispute over the fact that the tea was dumped.

Similarly,

Al Qaeda: We flew some motherfucking planes into some motherfucking buildings.
US: Al Qaeda flew some motherfucking planes into some motherfucking buildings.

Same story.

And you obviously don't know dick about being a lawyer. Pushing your client's argument as fact, when the opposition has overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is the #1 way to put your client in jail, or lose a case. The easiest thing in the world is to prove someone is lying or their story is false. You weren't in 7/11 at 9:28 PM on the night of July 2nd, 2010? Oh, that's funny -- here's security footage of you, in 7/11. And here's security footage of your car, with your license plate, parked outside. At that point, nothing anyone else says matters. You've lost, because the assumption is that if you're lying, there's a reason. You're also no longer trustworthy in the eyes of the Court.

What you do is poke holes in the evidence and try to raise reasonable doubt over whether or not the evidence proves anything with 100% certainty. If your client says he didn't have 8 pounds of cocaine on him, and two cops say he did, your client is fucked. If you try to argue he didn't, your client is even more fucked. The best you can do is question how they can be 100% certain it was actually his (ie: was it in the trunk? Under a car seat? Could've been stashed by someone else), or attack the search procedures, ie: was he illegally searched?

You're welcome.

[Abacab "The REAL truth"]

Originally Posted by Turtles [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Jesus Christ, are you kidding me? The Revolutionary War? Dude, I'm playing chess and you're playing Connect-4. You haven't even graduated to checkers yet. I understand that you're a smart enough guy, but I'm not some idiot hipster you ran into at IHOP -- step your game up. Do you think that's some profound point you just made? The comparison between "terrorists" and "freedom fighters" is made every fucking day. And guess what? It's not two sides to a story. It's two interpretations of the same story.

American colonists: We dumped some motherfucking tea in the motherfucking harbor.
British: They dumped some motherfucking tea in the motherfucking harbor.

Same story. The difference was how that act was interpreted. There is no dispute over the fact that the tea was dumped.

Similarly,

Al Qaeda: We flew some motherfucking planes into some motherfucking buildings.
US: Al Qaeda flew some motherfucking planes into some motherfucking buildings.

Same story.

And you obviously don't know dick about being a lawyer. Pushing your client's argument as fact, when the opposition has overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is the #1 way to put your client in jail, or lose a case. The easiest thing in the world is to prove someone is lying or their story is false. You weren't in 7/11 at 9:28 PM on the night of July 2nd, 2010? Oh, that's funny -- here's security footage of you, in 7/11. And here's security footage of your car, with your license plate, parked outside. At that point, nothing anyone else says matters. You've lost, because the assumption is that if you're lying, there's a reason. You're also no longer trustworthy in the eyes of the Court.

What you do is poke holes in the evidence and try to raise reasonable doubt over whether or not the evidence proves anything with 100% certainty. If your client says he didn't have 8 pounds of cocaine on him, and two cops say he did, your client is fucked. If you try to argue he didn't, your client is even more fucked. The best you can do is question how they can be 100% certain it was actually his (ie: was it in the trunk? Under a car seat? Could've been stashed by someone else), or attack the search procedures, ie: was he illegally searched?

You're welcome.

Holy semantics Batman!


Let's say "different interpretation" instead of "two sides". let's say "poking holes in evidence" instead of "blurring the truth"

You're coming at me with paragraphs twisting words to suit your argument, we all know lawyers, police officers, judges and prosecutors are lying, extorting pieces of shit, we also know there will always be two sides of every story because it's a moniker for interpretation and anytime you deal with a dispute there will always be several different "views" depending on whom you ask.

You're just raging, and for the sake of arguing.... semantics

[Japan]

damn turtle abacab's wrecking you, even without a million dollar education in arguing bullshit. Where's that godly intellect that earned you a spot in the ivory tower?

[Bloodshot]

Turtles you prove a good point, but Abacab has you got you there.

Basically, ask yourself;

Is there two sides to every story

or

One side with two interpretations.

If you had to even answer that question, you fail. Interpretations are representations of a story, thus naturally creating 1, 2, 3 sides etc. They're one in the same.

If you really want to get that philisophical and test the nature of my allegation, go ahead. Its completley subjective at this point and near impossible to argue.

[Bloodshot]

Just realized that was completely pointless, my bad.

Go ahead and continue on with the intellectual ridicule.

[wehrmacht]

He skipped my post and went for the soft target, abacab.

I don't even know why you're bringing up the legal system. This argument is objective vs subjective reality.