S
SwizzleStick
Guest
Again? Read the thread.
- Status
G
gnjsdad
Guest
Yes. We probably never will know. The great tragedy is that 17 yr old TM lost his life. He got into a fight with the wrong guy. From all the evidence brought out at trial, the jury had no choice but to vote not guilty.
I also believe Rachel Jenteel knows a lot more than she’s telling.
S
SwizzleStick
Guest
And now for something completely different and a break from flogging the dead horse.
Here is a pretty good blog entry regarding being open-minded.
The appeal to be open-minded
All skeptics have heard this from someone at some point in a debate: “You need to be more open-minded” or “You’re too closed-minded”. This is presented as though it is actually a valid argument. In reality it just shows they have run out of arguments. They hide behind it to disguise the complete lack of any rational reason for you to accept what they are telling you. It’s the last resort of someone who has nothing – if they had evidence they would obviously present it.
Even so, it can seem compelling, since calling someone closed-minded is pejorative. But it’s fallacious rhetoric: doubting something is not necessarily closed minded. In fact, the closed minded ones are the believers who insist some fantastic story is true despite a complete lack of evidence to support it. They are too closed minded to accept that their fantasy might be false.
An open mind is…
Here’s the thing. An open mind is open to all ideas, but it must be open to the possibility that the idea could be true or false. It is not closed-minded to reject claims that make no sense. If you can’t accept the possibility that an idea might be false, then you are the closed minded one. An open minded person will critically examine all claims but will not accept them if there is no reason to believe they are true or if there is reason to believe they are false. To do so would be fallacious. And credulous.
The real problem
The “have an open mind” crowd are more than just logically wrong. Their way of thinking is actually destructive to good ideas. Bad ideas should be discarded - by weeding out bad ideas the good can flourish. An earlier version of this argument would have gone, “You’re closed-minded in saying that humors don’t exist” to justify bloodletting. But by focusing uncritically on bloodletting, germ theory would never have been discovered. Germ theory was discovered by skeptical scientists who insisted on evidence, not by new-agers with open minds.
If you accept something when there is no reason to believe it is true you are just credulous. And if you will not reject something when there is no reason to believe in it then you are in freefall – you will believe in anything. This way of thinking is a complete dead end. Or to put it another way, don’t be so open minded that your brains fall out.
Mind_too_open
That’s better – my mind is now completely open!"
Source link for blue quote: skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/10/the_appeal_to_b.html
Now, back to flogging that horse.
Here is a pretty good blog entry regarding being open-minded.
The appeal to be open-minded
All skeptics have heard this from someone at some point in a debate: “You need to be more open-minded” or “You’re too closed-minded”. This is presented as though it is actually a valid argument. In reality it just shows they have run out of arguments. They hide behind it to disguise the complete lack of any rational reason for you to accept what they are telling you. It’s the last resort of someone who has nothing – if they had evidence they would obviously present it.
Even so, it can seem compelling, since calling someone closed-minded is pejorative. But it’s fallacious rhetoric: doubting something is not necessarily closed minded. In fact, the closed minded ones are the believers who insist some fantastic story is true despite a complete lack of evidence to support it. They are too closed minded to accept that their fantasy might be false.
An open mind is…
Here’s the thing. An open mind is open to all ideas, but it must be open to the possibility that the idea could be true or false. It is not closed-minded to reject claims that make no sense. If you can’t accept the possibility that an idea might be false, then you are the closed minded one. An open minded person will critically examine all claims but will not accept them if there is no reason to believe they are true or if there is reason to believe they are false. To do so would be fallacious. And credulous.
The real problem
The “have an open mind” crowd are more than just logically wrong. Their way of thinking is actually destructive to good ideas. Bad ideas should be discarded - by weeding out bad ideas the good can flourish. An earlier version of this argument would have gone, “You’re closed-minded in saying that humors don’t exist” to justify bloodletting. But by focusing uncritically on bloodletting, germ theory would never have been discovered. Germ theory was discovered by skeptical scientists who insisted on evidence, not by new-agers with open minds.
If you accept something when there is no reason to believe it is true you are just credulous. And if you will not reject something when there is no reason to believe in it then you are in freefall – you will believe in anything. This way of thinking is a complete dead end. Or to put it another way, don’t be so open minded that your brains fall out.
Mind_too_open
That’s better – my mind is now completely open!"
Source link for blue quote: skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/10/the_appeal_to_b.html
Now, back to flogging that horse.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Like what?
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
The thread is biased with GZ’s perspective on things.
B
BroomWagon
Guest
Was the Prosecution able to prove any of this? And I’m sure this would be more pertinent to the Murder charges:
No, so I would surmise we have bits and pieces of evidence and the Defense was able to use what was available in a beneficial way. But I’m not sure if it validates that Zimmerman used “Self-Defense”, only that an intent to murder could not be proven.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
I believe GZ knows a lot more that he’s not telling too.
S
SwizzleStick
Guest
Sigh.
L
lcburgundy
Guest
Life is too biased with reality. However, my faith in the existence of unicorns and leprechauns with funny little hats continues unabated. No one here can prove these things don’t exist, and therefore, my perspective is valid and correct.
S
SwizzleStick
Guest
I too have pondered that idea. The “creepy *** cracka” revelation came out of nowhere, then the “gay rapist” slant was revealed. Wonder if she’ll keep talking?
S
SwizzleStick
Guest
Stop being so logical because that is biased!
:tsktsk:
Funny, I was thinking of unicorns earlier while reading this thread, but not leprechauns until I read your post. Odd, but now I am thinking about “Lucky Charms” cereal
.
M
maryjk
Guest
She better be careful if she does.
It seem the more she says the worse Martin looks.
If she keeps on talking it might take away the narrative of Al Sharpton and the like.
B
BroomWagon
Guest
To me though, the existence of unicorns and leprechauns does not have the same gravity as a boy or man being shot through the heart: news.uk.msn.com/world/trayvon-martin-shot-through-heart-1
And again:
L
lcburgundy
Guest
I honestly have a hard time believing anything she says, no matter how juicy it is. Her story changed and changed and continues to change. I think her continued featuring on news programs is rising to the level of near-exploitation of someone with pretty obviously limited mental faculties.
L
lcburgundy
Guest
Yeah, and those other neighbors’ eyewitness testimony were generally discredited, I believe, when one of them admitted they decided who was on top based upon a photo on the news of a 12-year-old Trayvon, and didn’t the other think TM was shot in the back? Neither’s account comported with physical evidence.
These facts all came out in trial anyway - what are the fruits in second guessing it again?
S
SwizzleStick
Guest
Zimmerman’s injuries–evidence–and the expert testimony–more evidence–supports that his head was slammed into the sidewalk.
Good saw Martin on top before the shooting–evidence (witness testimony)–supports that.
S
SwizzleStick
Guest
I agree that she is not credible. I also agree that her limitations likely do encourage exploitation from unethical folks, so it would not surprise me if we continue to hear revelations from her. When we do, credible information may be forthcoming.
C
Cider
Guest
meltzerboy
New member
Social psychologists have demonstrated time and again in numerous studies that eyewitness testimony is notoriously inaccurate and unreliable even if there are corroborating witnesses. This is due to several reasons, including cognitive expectation and error, motivation, cultural background, visual perception, and so forth. Seeing is NOT believing, but often believing is seeing. See the research of Elizabeth Loftus, for example.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
That’s my take as well, except for the bolded. It is “-]near/-]-exploitation.”
- Status