by minimus 42 Replies latest jw friends
The jury of peers system we have in place is extremely flawed, but we've failed to come up with a system as humane and more efficient.
I believe that it there are plenty of people who through life experience or by nature are extremely in tune with themselves, and the thoughts and feelings of others. As has been said though, there is a large majority still at the 'hunter gatherer' stage in the evolution process. frog
So many people, usually women I have known , {admitedly dubs] claim to have an "instinct" for knowing people and judging them accordingly. I have known them be spectacularly wrong but that does not stop them.
I couldn't agree more. Women's intuition is a bunch of BS.
Women constantly claim to know their kids. "I know my son wouldn't do anything like that". 99.9% of the time, they're wrong. I do it all, Mom!
This goes for more than children. I hate to say it, but many women claim to know "abusive" men and get duped into entering domestically violent relationships. Shouldn't this intuition tell them that their boyfriends have the potential to be violently dangerous? Then their 'intuition' tells them that their significant other will change, yet the abuse never stops.
Just an example; I know that every situation is different. Claiming to ever know another person is ignorant, regardless of who's making the claim.
which is why men cannot form a rational opinion about a woman he wants to sleep with.
Where were you when I was 17?! That one would have come in handy!
Of course I probably wouldn't have heard what you said, because I would have been thinking about sleeping with you.
You and I "know" that Michael Jackson was guilty.
We believe we know that the same way we "know" that O. J. Simpson was guilty. Their respective juries may have ruled differently - but we are sure that Jackson and Simpson did what they were accused of doing.
Just because we believe we "know," should Jackson have been convicted of molesting the young man in question? I don't think so. I think the jury made the right decision.
How can that be? How can I argue on one hand that Jackson is guilty and argue on the other that the jury was right in finding him not guilty?
If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit. That's the long and short of it.
It's easy to forget that in these celebrity cases and it is especially easy to forget when the accused is as weird as Michael Jackson.
Here's a guy who admits that he shares his bed with young boys and even seems proud of it. (Actually, the prosecution might have done better to bring charges against the parents of those kids, but that's another story.)
Here's a guy who has already shelled out millions of dollars to settle previous abuse charges. Here's a guy who shows up almost a half-hour late to his own verdict. He's one weird dude.
Frankly, I didn't pay all that much attention to the trial while it was going on. This celebrity trial of the month routine is getting boring and, if you've seen one television shot of Michael Jackson wearing pajama bottoms to court, you've seen as many such shots as you need to see.
But, it is important to all of us that a jury from a very conservative community ruled unanimously that before the state can put a man in jail it must prove its case.
Would Jackson have been so fortunate if he wasn't a rich celebrity? The question is irrelevant. If he weren't a rich celebrity those weird parents would never have let their children sleep in his bed and there would have been no case to try.
One thing we do know for sure, however, is if the rich and famous can't be guaranteed the presumption of innocence, there will be no hope at all for the rest of us.
\ Reach Bill Wineke at [email protected] or 252-6146. Read his views daily in Bill Wineke's Blog at www.madison.com.
I don't think MJ was "guilty" of child molestation in this case.
Very interesting topic.
The principles also apply to what we want to be true. When I explained to my Mum that I believed this life, here and now, is all we get and that we shouldn't waste it arguing and disagreeing all the time she asked me "Why would you believe that? Don't you want to live forever in paradise?"
Well, even assuming that that is what I want, it still wouldn't make it true. We cannot choose our reality based simply on what we want, we may all percieve it and interpret it differently but reality is what it is. By our own effort and charity we can affect reality - but not by simply wanting it to be a certain way!
To adapt Min's excellent topic title, 'Just because you "want"' something to be true doesn't make it so.'
He's one weird dude.
Who creates the definition of weird? It's all a matter of perspective.
Apparently Jackson doesn't think like the average joe. Although he's been around the world more times than I can count, he also seems to have had a very sheltered life. I don't think he should be judged because of whom he shares is bed with or because a bunch of twisted parents let their kids sleep at Never Never Land just to swindle him out of some cash. Parents sleep with their kids all the time, but that doesn't mean that anything shady's going on. He may see things from a paternal standpoint, or even that of a child. People are too quick to judge before giving people the benefit of the doubt.
Now OJ's a different story. Blood in the car, running from the cops, DNA evidence, etc. I believe he was found innocent mainly due to the recent turbulence over the Rodney King verdict.
Someone I know is a staunch believer on the gut instinct. She read a book about it and she's convinced she can figure out any and all situations just by following her gut.
Problem is, she has a paranoia disorder. Her gut instinct is totally skewed around paranoid delusions. She has a gut instinct that someone is betraying her, then watches for any signs they are doing so. There are no signs, so she thinks they're hiding it. She starts to be nasty to them to get back at them for perceived wrongs. Then they react angrily when they've had enough of her unwarranted bs. Then she says their angry reaction is proof they were betraying her in the 1st place.
It's all a self-fulfilling prophecy, one we could all be guilty of at times.
Rebel, I know persons like that. OMG! Don't they suck to be around??
Terry, I think you're ignoring instinct that is not learned.
Define:
INSTINCT
"an unlearned, genetically coded behavior pattern that is internally motivated and characteristic of the species; the innate capacity of an animal to respond to a given stimulus in a relatively fixed way"
Minimus,
Kind of like a round circle?
