My response (jc) to Sebastian Borges (SB) SB 1: Re: Caste system - If you deplore the mention of any term, I would say that the best course for you would be to desist from participating in any discussion wherein the term is necessarily used.
jc1: My suggestion: Rather than make a "simple matter complicated", please "read and digest the matter" and please avoid "shooting from the hip". Until you have "read and digested the matter", consider inviting yourself to please "desist from participating in any discussion" on that matter. I re-repeat what I stated: I absolutely deplore the mention and use of The Hindu Caste System wrt Christianity, be it for subjugation OR for the purpose of gaining special privileges by way of Reservations" Please feel free to intentionally or negligently misrepresent what I have written. That would be your choice. BTW: It is a technique which I expect hacktivists and politicians to utilise, NOT an educated person. SB 2: As far as "special privileges by way of Reservations" is concerned, let us not forget that an injustice was done to Christian dalits by the makers of the Constitution of India under the influence of the Christian members of the Constituent assembly who claimed that caste discrimination did not exist among Christians. One of these was a Catholic priest. JC 2: Was Goa a participant in that Constituent Assembly? If not, why is that argument being placed here? SB 3a: Re: documentary proof - a person who himself knows that he is guilty, or his lawyer, can take shelter under this axiom and demand documentary proof; would this not signify a criminal bent of mind? Is it not, therefore, a convenient argument for a criminal or his lawyer to escape punishment? SB 3b: It is not always possible to provide documentary proof JC 3: I am still not sure IF you realise that you are now governed, in criminal matters, by a Common Law form of justice. SB 4: I have related a reported act of Fr. Conceicao D'Silva, that he carted away the paraphernalia of the disbanded maandd in Kumbiabhat. JC 4: So, I assume that you have reported this alleged act to the Police. SB 5: (your hypothetical) - Should the pickpocket be declared innocent for want of documentary proof, in spite of being caught with the res furtiva? JC 5: Please "read and digest" your question before answering it yourself. Would not res furtiva (stolen goods) be the documentary proof required by law? SB 6: The third incident occurred over 400 years ago. If I am not able to produce documentary proof would it mean that this incident did not actually occur? JC 6: How do you know for sure that it occurred? Hey, have you not heard that in Dec 1961, Portugal had amassed battalions of soldiers in Goa and had set about massacring thousands of innocent Goans. Was it (is it) true? In my two disciplines, I have been taught NEVER to Jump to conclusions, rather to look at ALL THE FACTS of the case. Remember, while individuals with Pneumonia almost invariably present with a cough, NOT ALL individuals who present with cough suffer from Pneumonia. There are two major points in common law WHY this thing called PROOF (incl. significant circumstantial proof) is required before rendering a guilty verdict: a: The Accused has the right to cross examine the Accuser (exceptional cases having been noted) b: The myriad of Wrongful Conviction case. http://www.innocenceproject.org/ SB 7: Hope I have clarified the matter to your satisfaction. If not, would be pleased to clarify further. Do advise. JC 7: My satisfaction is irrelevant to the topic. What is more important is: Are we analysing ALL the available facts of cases OR are we rushing to judgment on the basis of Hearsay? jc
