An Introduction to the Moral Standing of the two opposing groups in the case McC

[debunker]

For the past years since the disappearance of Madeleine McCann the case has dominated a small part of the internet via forums and blogs. There are two broad factions, known as the Pros and the [ censored word]. Both sides have participated in a dialogue of the deaf and the forums are now totally separated with Pros only posting on Pro Forums and [ censored word] only posting on Anti forums with no real dialogue. This is maintained by the banning of anyone who offers views contrary to the beliefs of the majority of the posters on that forum. Each side has constructed a set of myths that describe the case from their own point of view and because contrary views are censored, no real testing of information occurs. All that is left is meaningless support for their own side. It has resulted in much heat and little light. Imagine a political forum which only allowed members of one party to post, or a football forum which only allowed the fervent supporters of one team to post.

What does this matter to you? It is important that you grasp the basic beliefs of both sides. The Pros accept that a legal process has resulted in no criminal case to answer in two countries. The [ censored word] claim, in astounding language, the possible guilt of a group of people for the most horrendous crimes despite the fact that after investigations, neither Portugal nor the UK has even charged, let alone tried, any of these people.

Most of the cases here are about people probably wrongly convicted (and necessarily wrongly charged) people. The [ censored word] posting here are advocating for criminal sanctions against people who have been investigated and insufficient evidence to charge for any criminal offence. Morally, then, you are now dealing with people advocating an even more stringent position than people who support the miscarriages of justice exhibited here. They claim the right to publicly condemn people held innocent in law. I will leave it to posters here to decide if this world view is Moral. I find it reprehensible and see it as part of the mindset that leads to the miscarriages of justice againsr which you campaign.

[debunker]

One of the major conflicts between the two sides of the debate revolves around the concepts of Justice, evidence and certainty.

Most Pros are essentially skeptical of evidence, consider that Justice requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, and maintain a low level of certainty about what happened. Despite accusations from [ censored word], Pros rarely argue for the certainty of abduction, merely for its possibility; they are skeptical about scenarios requiring extremely odd explanations- conspiracies, politics, class etc.

Most [ censored word] are gullible about evidence, consider that Justice requires punishment rather than proof, and maintain "certain" views well beyond the available evidence.

[stephen25000]

Debunker. your stance ids not in the middle. You clearly back the Mccanns.

I have seen no criticism from you towards the 'pros'.

Personally, I have seen a load of rubbish and hatred spew from both sides of the fence.

You like to use the word 'evidence', yet when asked for something concrete as regards 'abduction', youn reply with hyperbole.

You do not know the Mccanns or their associates told the truth, you assume they did.

If Madeleine died as the result of an accident in the apartment as I believe she did, then the Mccanns would have good cause to lie, and to a lesser extent their associates.

[Chinagirl]

You do not know the Mccanns or their associates told the truth, you assume they did.

And you don't know that they didn't - you simply choose to believe so.

There is NO evidence to suggest that they did not tell the truth, or that they faked an abduction to cover up a death.

[debunker]

Debunker. your stance ids not in the middle. You clearly back the Mccanns.

I have seen no criticism from you towards the 'pros'.

Personally, I have seen a load of rubbish and hatred spew from both sides of the fence.

You like to use the word 'evidence', yet when asked for something concrete as regards 'abduction', youn reply with hyperbole.

You do not know the Mccanns or their associates told the truth, you assume they did.

If Madeleine died as the result of an accident in the apartment as I believe she did, then the Mccanns would have good cause to lie, and to
a lesser extent their associates.

You are wrong on every count.

I believe there is insufficient evidence to prove either abduction or harm by people close to Madeleine.

I do not assume the McCanns 'told the truth'.

I do criticise the Pros and have been banned from Pro boards for critiquing their myths.

I do not back the McCanns; I do support their rights under the law.


I suggest that your view is warped by your own assumptions, myths and prejudices.

[Meadow]

Here we go again

''Friday, 28 August 2009
This whole saga started when I noticed the high emotions surrounding the Madeleine McCann Case. I lecture and research in Social Psychology and have a particular interest in fixed belief systems – how they start and how they are defended. The dramatic arguments between the groups that became known as the Pros and the [ censored word] in the McCann Case were excellent material for recording the initiation, growth, continuation and decline of belief systems and particular sub-system beliefs.
I have posted very occasionally on Discussion Boards but have used PMs and emails at great frequency and length to discuss posters' emotions, beliefs and actions.''
http://beachydebunkeddebunkerbeached.blogspot.co.uk/2009/08/this-whole-saga-started-when-i-noticed.html

''I am a retired NHS Clinician and University Lecturer. I used to get my kicks pointing out fallacies in Fascist and Racist Right Wing sites and DeBunking their CRAZY ideas. Then I found the Madeleine Forums and saw the same CRAZY reasoning and applied the same treatment to them on Sky, Mirror and eventually on the3Arguidos. Before this no DeBunker existed and references to other DeBunkers are fallacious. I hold no brief for the McCanns. I post merely to expose the wild theories and anti-libertarian views of the [ censored word ]s- those who believe that being judged guilty by a small group of extremists allows them to destroy the life of a suspect. ''

http://daily[ censored word ].blogspot.co.uk/2008/05/debunker-starts-thread-reintroducing.html

So here we have the wonderful world of the academic social equalizer on the case  of missing Madeleine McCann. 

Whooooosh no pro or anti debate.   No chewing the cud looking for ambiguities - but cosh bang the heads of the idiots together.

Sit back and watch the flames fly.

Or is the forum being used as another academic study with a few students strategically placed to help the observation, evaluation along for an outcome that you'll never know the answer to.

[stephen25000]

Debunker. your stance ids not in the middle. You clearly back the Mccanns.

I have seen no criticism from you towards the 'pros'.

Personally, I have seen a load of rubbish and hatred spew from both sides of the fence.

You like to use the word 'evidence', yet when asked for something concrete as regards 'abduction', youn reply with hyperbole.

You do not know the Mccanns or their associates told the truth, you assume they did.

If Madeleine died as the result of an accident in the apartment as I believe she did, then the Mccanns would have good cause to lie, and to
a lesser extent their associates.

You are wrong on every count.

I believe there is insufficient evidence to prove either abduction or harm by people close to Madeleine.

I do not assume the McCanns 'told the truth'.

I do criticise the Pros and have been banned from Pro boards for critiquing their myths.

I do not back the McCanns; I do support their rights under the law.


I suggest that your view is warped by your own assumptions, myths and prejudices.

As to criticizing the 'pros', I have yet to see on example, and as to your being removed from boards, we have only your word for that.

Also, a pertinent point statistically, most disappearances/abuse/neglect of children occur within the family.

[debunker]

Here we go again

''Friday, 28 August 2009
This whole saga started when I noticed the high emotions surrounding the Madeleine McCann Case. I lecture and research in Social Psychology and have a particular interest in fixed belief systems – how they start and how they are defended. The dramatic arguments between the groups that became known as the Pros and the [ censored word] in the McCann Case were excellent material for recording the initiation, growth, continuation and decline of belief systems and particular sub-system beliefs.
I have posted very occasionally on Discussion Boards but have used PMs and emails at great frequency and length to discuss posters' emotions, beliefs and actions.''
http://beachydebunkeddebunkerbeached.blogspot.co.uk/2009/08/this-whole-saga-started-when-i-noticed.html



''I am a retired NHS Clinician and University Lecturer. I used to get my kicks pointing out fallacies in Fascist and Racist Right Wing sites and DeBunking their CRAZY ideas. Then I found the Madeleine Forums and saw the same CRAZY reasoning and applied the same treatment to them on Sky, Mirror and eventually on the3Arguidos. Before this no DeBunker existed and references to other DeBunkers are fallacious. I hold no brief for the McCanns. I post merely to expose the wild theories and anti-libertarian views of the [ censored word ]s- those who believe that being judged guilty by a small group of extremists allows them to destroy the life of a suspect. ''


http://daily[ censored word ].blogspot.co.uk/2008/05/debunker-starts-thread-reintroducing.html

So here we have the wonderful world of the academic social equalizater on the case  of missing Madeleine McCann. 

Whooooosh no pro or anti debate.   No chewing the cud looking for ambiguities - but cosh bang the heads of the idiots together.


Sit back and watch the flames fly.

I stand by all of that.

I am not and never have been Beachy. I do know who she is IRL.

[Chinagirl]

As to criticizing the 'pros', I have yet to see on example, and as to your being removed from boards, we have only your word for that.

I can assure you that this is so!

[debunker]

Debunker. your stance ids not in the middle. You clearly back the Mccanns.

I have seen no criticism from you towards the 'pros'.

Personally, I have seen a load of rubbish and hatred spew from both sides of the fence.

You like to use the word 'evidence', yet when asked for something concrete as regards 'abduction', youn reply with hyperbole.

You do not know the Mccanns or their associates told the truth, you assume they did.


If Madeleine died as the result of an accident in the apartment as I believe she did, then the Mccanns would have good cause to lie, and to
a lesser extent their associates.

You are wrong on every count.


I believe there is insufficient evidence to prove either abduction or harm by people close to Madeleine.

I do not assume the McCanns 'told the truth'.

I do criticise the Pros and have been banned from Pro boards for critiquing their myths.


I do not back the McCanns; I do support their rights under the law.


I suggest that your view is warped by your own assumptions, myths and prejudices.

As to criticizing the 'pros', I have yet to see on example, and as to your being removed from boards, we have only your word for that.

Also, a pertinent point statistically, most disappearances/abuse/neglect of children occur within the family.

Chinagirl backs me up on being banned from STM for arguing that technically there was evidence against the McCanns (just not adequate to prosecute or even charge) and for pointing out that having the investigation shelved does not mean that the McCanns have been absolved. I have been refused p posting rights on .....2.

Statistics are not predictive of individual events- anyone studying statistics is reminded of  that as soon as the study begins. Exceptions and outliers always occur.

[stephen25000]

Debunker. your stance ids not in the middle. You clearly back the Mccanns.

I have seen no criticism from you towards the 'pros'.

Personally, I have seen a load of rubbish and hatred spew from both sides of the fence.

You like to use the word 'evidence', yet when asked for something concrete as regards 'abduction', youn reply with hyperbole.

You do not know the Mccanns or their associates told the truth, you assume they did.


If Madeleine died as the result of an accident in the apartment as I believe she did, then the Mccanns would have good cause to lie, and to
a lesser extent their associates.

You are wrong on every count.


I believe there is insufficient evidence to prove either abduction or harm by people close to Madeleine.

I do not assume the McCanns 'told the truth'.

I do criticise the Pros and have been banned from Pro boards for critiquing their myths.


I do not back the McCanns; I do support their rights under the law.


I suggest that your view is warped by your own assumptions, myths and prejudices.

As to criticizing the 'pros', I have yet to see on example, and as to your being removed from boards, we have only your word for that.

Also, a pertinent point statistically, most disappearances/abuse/neglect of children occur within the family.

Chinagirl backs me up on being banned from STM for arguing that technically there was evidence against the McCanns (just not adequate to prosecute or even charge) and for pointing out that having the investigation shelved does not mean that the McCanns have been absolved. I have been refused p posting rights on .....2.

Statistics are not predictive of individual events- anyone studying statistics is reminded of  that as soon as the study begins. Exceptions and outliers always occur.

I look at the balance of propbability.

For reference purposes, I  am well versed in Statistics amongst other subjects.

[debunker]

On the balance of probabilities, murderers are overwhelmingly likely tobe male.

Therefore any murder must be by a man.

You are mistaken when you say you understand statistics.

[stephen25000]

On the balance of probabilities, murderers are overwhelmingly likely tobe male.

Therefore any murder must be by a man.

You are mistaken when you say you understand statistics.

Incorrect yet again.

I suggest you read up on hypothesis testing procedures, including Significance Testing, to evaluate the test result.

You might learn something.

[debunker]

On the balance of probabilities, murderers are overwhelmingly likely tobe male.

Therefore any murder must be by a man.

You are mistaken when you say you understand statistics.

Incorrect yet again.



I suggest you read up on hypothesis testing procedures, including Significance Testing, to evaluate the test result.

You might learn something.

Statistical inference is ofton proved false by specific events. Basic rule of statistics.

[sika]

Forgive me for butting in.

Stephen, did I miss your views on the evidence given by the Smith family? (Regarding the sighting by the beach).