I know that in the UK, the judiciary is based on the common law system. This was brought to the colonies, of course, and the judicial system in the US is a codified version of that.

But the basic judicial concepts enshrined in common law in the UK are essentially the same as the ones codified in the US.

US, that’s true. But I would expect it to be the same in the UK, since our concept of the judicial system really hasn’t diverged much, historically speaking.

To expand on this, even if you are caught dead to rights in whatever crime you’re charged with, you plead not guilty at arraignment. Because once you plead guilty, it’s over. You can always change your not guilty plea to guilty later on, if a plea deal negotiated with the prosecutor is satisfactory to you. If you just plead guilty, your ability to negotiate charges and consequences are nilch.

Any time you read “So-and-So pleads not guilty” in the news, it’s not news. It’s just what you do when you are charged with a crime.

Eh, that one sounds like he was being an asshole to get a reaction, got a reaction, then harangued the person about it. People laugh in a a lot of “unfunny” situations.

Stop asking me questions!

Top tip!

Abagnale is a bit of an unreliable witness. He blatantly overstates his “exploits”.

It’s like the crawler that takes launch vehicles to the launching pad at Cape Canaveral.

I have an HO gauge rail that takes me from my couch to the refrigerator.

I am reminded of the meme with the left/right spectrum, and the weird curving line above marked “Whatever the fuck tankies are.”

Trains never crash.

.ml is that way —->

That’s called lying.

Okay then, how many angels can dance on the head of a small block Chevy?

That was clarification?

… if A is true … then B …

Okay, for starters, that’s different from “if you believe A is true, then B”. “If A then B” can be logically sound without A being true - or with A being false (those are two different things). In such a case, it would follow that B cannot be said to be true, because A is either false or cannot be shown to be true. Side note, if there is no way to demonstrate that A is false, then A is “unfalsifiable”, and the whole thing is not even worth considering.

Anyway, if A is unfalsifiable or false, then B is undefined. B would be true if A were true, provided that B necessarily follows from A. For this case, you’d need to demonstrate that A is true for further consideration to be warranted.

Your comment as stated, paraphrased, says that “if you believe A, then B is true.”

A belief in A does not make B true. While you may have meant “if you believe A, then you believe B is true”, that’s not what you said.

My position is that “evil”, and its counterpart “good”, are human concepts that imply agency. People have agency, and the actions of people can be described as “good” or “evil” in this way.

Human brains really like things to happen for a reason, to the point where if something happens without a clearly comprehended reason, a reason will be invented to fill that void, and it doesn’t matter whether that reason is actually true.

… only it also happens amongst the athiests.

I’m not sure what you mean by that bit.

Of course if you believe “God” set all of this in motion and with foreknowledge then even those seemingly random events have god’s intent behind them, yes?

No, it means that you believe that “even those seemingly random events have god’s intent behind them”. A person’s sincerely held belief is not necessarily objectively true.

We also have a concept of Russell’s Teapot, which is far more likely to exist. That doesn’t mean that the possibility of the Teapot actually existing is worthy of attention or consideration.

It appears that your post is making an unfounded assumption as support for the conclusion that a deity exists and has certain qualities. That’s not how that works. Starting with a desired conclusion, then building a set of “if this then that” premises may be logically valid, but it’s not logically sound.