RPK wrote that in the ding-dong battle between Mahathir and Najib, with regards to Mahathir's accusations against Najib, it's not up to Najib to prove his innocence but rather for Mahathir to prove his accusations are true.
This has always been the fundamental basics of Western adversarial laws.
More interestingly, RPK also has written, among the Mahathir versus Najib verbal stoush:
More interestingly, RPK also has written, among the Mahathir versus Najib verbal stoush:
So the onus is on the accuser to show proof and not on the accused to prove anything ... yadda yadda yadda ... It is like when you say God exists. Then you need to prove the existence of God. I do not need to prove that God does not exist since I am not making any claim.
I like such Western laws, yes sir I do, especially when I am an atheist, wakakaka.
Now, for example, some of my Christian friends would raise their hands to the beautiful sunset and looked at me pointedly, and then asked "Guess who made that?"
I would then ask in turn, "Guess who made that Boxing Day Tsunami in 2004 which killed reputedly more than half a million people?"
But there is always an answer for everything. They would cleverly but evasively reply, "God worked in mysterious ways?", meaning "STFU kaytee", wakakaka.
I personally reckon followers of the Abrahamic religions, especially Christians, have themselves to blame, by painting themselves and their God into a corner, when they made God infallible.
Let's put yr spurious atheist claim aside.
ReplyDeleteComing back to the beef of yr story (though u try so mischievously to slip through) - the fundamental basics of Western adversarial laws.
The mom is wrong, thus u!!!!
In truth Western adversarial laws when someone is been slanted, the accusee would seek action through a neutral medium (court/champion) to clear his/her honour by demanding the accuser to show concrete proof.
1) take actions, legal or other means
2) in neutral ground
3) only then demands proofs
If the accusee remains silence, THEN all bets r off.
So, did pinklips do any of the above?
Mom twisted the rules half-way to meet his kpi, while u swallow the whole boat..tsk...tsk, apa tu???
there is no necessity for honour to be redeemed UNLESS the accused wants to. there is no obligation for him or her to demand honour - you have shot off at a tangent
DeleteThen could there be a possibility that the accusee is hiding from the truth by NOT demanding redeem?
DeleteWhy the silence??
Do remember the subject here is the fundamental basics of Western adversarial laws that u brought up!
Or u r trying to twist the subject AGAIN?
Flying off the tangent??? Bloody hell, where the point of contact on the circle le?
Tak pandai ni!!!!
wait a second did I read this right, using adversarial law to proof god exist in an argument? the judge who recites the case has got to be god himself or maybe rpk because what he says is gospel to some
ReplyDeleteatheist claim god dun exist, ada proof?
ReplyDelete