Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by tom sarbeck on July 9, 2011 at 3:28am

Certainty without [having heard the] evidence?

Is that like faith?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by D R Hosie on July 10, 2011 at 1:46am

Everyone who watched the live coverage of this trial, saw and heard all of the evidence.

But why would anyone question 'certainty', based on a preponderance of the virtual mountain of physical, scientific, and behavioral evidence that was presented at trial?  Would that be indicative of either not having seen the evidence one's self, or simply of one's ability to be badly confused by the defense?  One who's strategy could be best characterized by the adage that, "If we can't dazzle you with the details, we certainly expect to baffle you with the bullsh!t."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by tom sarbeck on July 14, 2011 at 12:36am

"Everyone who watched the live coverage of this trial, saw and heard all of the evidence."

I question your certainty because, though you might have watched the live coverage, you heard none of what the jurors said during their deliberations. They probably did not share your absolutism.

 

"...based on a preponderance of the ... evidence?

Another reason to question your certainty: you know the Anthony trial was not a civil trial. Your outrage appears to be so great that you are thinking and writing carelessly.

 

A third reason to question your certainty: you don't accept the idea that it's better to free a guilty person than to convict an innocent person. The law is less mechanistic than you want it to be.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by D R Hosie on July 16, 2011 at 3:03am

Tom,

The original question was "What (stuff) do you believe ... even though you don't have evidence ..."

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but in a criminal trial surrounding a circumstantial case, one would generally be expected to evaluate a preponderance of the evidence, in order to arrive any finding of guilt or innocence. And if guilt should be determined, that it should be beyond any reasonable doubt.

Now, I can't speak for the juror's in this case - nor was I attempting to; I simply do not agree with the reasoning (of lack of reasoning) behind their verdict.

But by all accounts, they appear to have been sufficiently "baffled by the BS" to, to have precluded any rational debate among themselves. (And whatever actual discussions were held, it seemed obvious to me - maybe not to you - that precious little time was given to "examining the [actual] evidence" that was presented at trial.)

And, while the law is certainly not "less mechanistic than (I) want it to be," I find the argument for two wrongs somehow inferring a 'right,' to be some cold comfort whenever an egregious miscarriage of justice manages to prevail.

But, again - and as it was originally put forth - these are my opinions, which I put forth as holding "beyond any reasonable doubt."

But rather than play mattress police, by presuming to parse and mischaracterize my ability to formulate and hold an opinion in the first place, or my right to express that opinion in the second, I'd much rather see you take a more straightforward - and less high-handed - approach to dialog.  One where you would be willing to share your own thoughts and insights concerning particular points of the case at hand - or even your own feelings about, for instance, the verdict reaction in this case.

(I find the approach useful as a kind of personal litmus test; to know whether you're speaking up because you have something to say, or just talking to hear your ears rattle.)

Peace.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by tom sarbeck on July 16, 2011 at 4:09am

Not talking; writing. My eyes rattled.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric on July 16, 2011 at 2:41am

I'm a naturalist, so I believe in nothing without proof. There simply is no reason to. I think that aliens probably exist, but not without evidence. It's really a game of probability for a lot of these things. Most supernatural beliefs are simply things that make people feel special or relieve themselves of the truth.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alice on July 16, 2011 at 3:43am

I'm a Naturalist too - and it was a relief 5 years ago when I came accross Naturalism on my internet searches for athiesm - that I didn't any more need to rack my brain thinking about whether we did or didn't have a soul - or could or couldn't astral travel - having previously not had the company or access to the internet to easily research the matters.  It was such a relief for me to be able to have connect with other naturalistic thinkers who fully supported my idea that there wasn't a god or any other supernatural entity that existed.  It was like coming home - very reassuring - and I'm still very grateful for all your company and influence :)

 

The Internet is a great tool for those who wish to learn and find information and research on any topic.  It really is an information revolution.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joshua Billingsley on July 20, 2011 at 3:41pm

Well, I guess I believe in the idea that people are trying to do what is right. Some people think it is to make money to show standing in the world, or save trees, or cleanse the gene pool, or whatever. They may be misguided or crazy or have a huge chip on their shoulder and think the world screwed them but they are not evil.

My crazy belief is that people are good unless they are confused somehow. I have been very angry. I have hurt people. I did not get enjoyment out of that. Putting them in their place, or giving them their come uppence or to settle the score. My belief is that there is no evil. No bad for bads sake. Call me crazy....

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by tom sarbeck on July 20, 2011 at 7:01pm

Though my views differ a bit, I won't call you crazy.

Some actions help others; some actions harm others; some actions do both or neither.

The key words are "help" and "harm" or their synonyms.

I believe "good" and "evil" are political words; people use them to influence others.

The words "right" and "wrong" serve similar political purposes.

The above is a result of forty years in American politics, some of those years in hardball politics. Pre-political folk might call me crazy. Academics might say my views are simplistic.

 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 9
• 10
• 11
• Next ›
• Page