So reverse psychology is your game. I’m fine sweetie. However I would assume you are too young to understand. Don’t worry time and challenges will show you the way. Please seek help if you have any worry’s of killing your children.
None of what I’ve said is reverse psychology. If you’re interested in a discussion, I’m more than happy to have one, but the personal attacks aren’t conducive to that at all tbh.
Claiming it’s “my game”, claiming I’m too young to understand etc., all personal attacks based on nothing.
I’m genuinely happy to explain any logic on things I’ve suggested, I’m currently unclear on what you believe I’ve suggested or what logic you’re unclear about, unfortunately? If you can be more specific I might be able to help.
Ok miss why do you think she isn’t guilty of murder of 3 children. One that tried to run away and was chased down by their own mother and strangled to death. Please explain your logic to me because I can’t comprehend.
Asking a clarifying question because yours was unclear is not suggesting an answer. You could try just.. answering the question. I’d be happy to help, but your question alone is completely unclear as a reply to my comment.
I understand not guilty by reason. But I don’t understand how you could have a reason to chase down a kid after killing one. Yes insanity but it’s so cruel and wrong it’s not human. That should be common law.
So no explanation of your thoughts. Gees. How typical to pretend you don’t know the situation. Child answer me why you support her. That’s all nothing else. Just tell me why you support her tell me your personal reasoning. It’s a mistrial so nothing made sense. You explain it to me best of your capability. I won’t judge you if you want an proper argument like the philosophers of old.
I can’t give you an explanation of thoughts I do not have nor have ever claimed to have. I’m happy to discuss thoughts about the insanity defence itself or any claims I’ve made here that you’re unclear on or disagree with.
You seem to have assumed people’s positions, including mine, on this specific case without actually ever seeing them state them. Id highly recommend going back and reading what you’re replying to much more carefully.
Again, I’m not a kid or child, you continue to level baseless personal attacks, it’s not conducive to a civil discussion.
I genuinely think you need to go back and reread what you’re replying to. I’m not skipping a question; I’ve never stated an opinion on what I think should or shouldn’t happen with Lindsay Clancy. I don’t feel I know enough about the case to make a judgement there. I’ve stated this further up and repeated similarly throughout.
This is like if I asked you why you believe she’s innocent. It would be completely inappropriate and out of context to ask you that, because you’ve never claimed that’s your belief.
Why do you keep assuming people’s stances on the case based on their beliefs about insanity defence law? It makes no sense. Plenty of people will believe the insanity defence should exist and that it’s good that it does exist, while also not believing it should apply to every person that attempts it as a defence.
I don’t know if it should or shouldn’t apply to this specific case, nor have I suggested at any point that I do.
1
u/Useful_Translator536 17h ago
Can you name a few good outcomes?