Quote:
Originally Posted by Coonskinner
He cited the instance in question as an explanation for the kind of things that cause some men in some locales to seek out alternatives for fellowship.
I fail to see how that smears the entire UPC.
Let's see...we have two accusations:
1.Someone spoke negatively of the UPC.
If we are going to crucify everybody on this site that does this, we are going to be needing a lot of crosses. You yourself have roundly criticized the prganization. Steadfast cited a couple of anecdotal incidents of which he has personal knowledge--and you try and spin that into "He smeared the UPC."
As if that had ever been a rarity around here anyway...
2.Steadfast has reported something that did not happen. Where I come from we call that lying. He isn't saying "I heard..."; he is telling us what he knows.
Your first accusation is unfounded, and minor anyway.
But when you continue to insist that he isn't telling the truth, that is more serious.
|
In our courts of law there are charges that can be made of lesser or greater severity. This arrangement is needed for us to even begin to attempt to dispense justice in our courts.
A jury may hear a case where a man is charged with "murder in the 1st degree." However, in the course of the trial they may hear testimony and see evidence that makes them question the severity of the charge.
Perhaps the accused did "pull the trigger" but what were the exact circumstances? If it was in a sudden passionate fit of rage, then the charge of "1st Degree Murder" with its premeditation requirement doesn't stand. Unpremeditated murder almost always requires a lesser charge.
And what if evidence is introduced that it was an act of self defense? Then the charge of murder is vacated and the accused goes free. Also, society doesn't call the accused a "murderer" because the knowledge of the circumstances has cleared his name.
I feel that a similar case can be heard here. Steadfast has made a charge in the context of men being "almost pushed out" of the UPC because of the conditions that he says exist.
I say that if the jury could hear more evidence in the case that they will find that the sinful circumstances are not what they have been alleged to be, but that there is mitigating and even exculpatory evidence that will show that no one is "almost being pushed out" of fellowship over the toleration of "shacking up" and "social drinking" in the UPC.
I further submit that there exists mitigating and even exculpatory evidence that would exonerate Steadfast from your charges of "lying." I submit that when he went to the defense of his friends he "exaggerated" the circumstances. As I said before, I do not believe that deceit entered into his heart. It appears that it was only the thought of his friends.