Friday, July 26, 2013

Why is it so hard to just ignore these people?

Another Trayvon-Martin-esque case sprung from the bowels of Florida once again. November 23rd 2012 Seventeen year old Jordan Davis was shot to death whilst sitting in the back of a vehicle. The shooter was 45 year old Michael Dunn. He drove a black Jetta. Below is the CNN video. If the link does not work, click here: LINK

Forward to 1:24 of the CNN video. "Police say what happened was a verbal altercation between Dunn sitting in his car and the other teens sitting in theirs." According to Dunn, one of the teens was trying to escalate the confrontation threatening to kill him.

At the 2:00 mark, Dunn explains that he said to the teens, "excuse me, but are you talking about me?" According to Dunn one of the teens said, "kill that bitch." Then the boy allegedly reached down and grabbed something. 

When confrontations happen, egos hijack common sense. People need to learn to take the high road and walk away. Speaking only for myself, I went to an awful inner city high school in Seattle. There were some gang-bangers and many bratty kids who started problems. My solution was simply to ignore them. They are morons. They are retarded people making retarded choices. As such, they do not deserve my attention or my words. 

Some would argue that Dunn should not have to move his car, the teens should have been decent human beings. The fact that the teens were acting like a bunch of hood rats is doubtless. However, this is an example of that situation where one must be the bigger person and walk away. It is not about "accepting defeat", it is about being smart. 

If a fight or argument ensued, my job was to stand up, gather my belongings and walk away. One time, a black kid (they type with his pants hanging halfway down his ass) actually came out yelling at me because I ignored him. "You ain't deaf!" As much as I wanted to say, "Ain't is not a word, please learn the English language if you want to address me." I remained silent and continued to ignore him. We never spoke to each other and that is exactly how I like it. 

The kid with his pants hanging down his ass is not the only one I ignored. There were also a group of trailer trash girls that I would also ignore. 

I had a small circle of friends: two white females, one black female, two Hispanic and a few Vietnamese girls. That was it. I had some male friends as well, they too were from different racial backgrounds. The point is, do not be so politically correct that you fail to identify the people in this world who are not any more valuable than a stinking pile of shit. Shit people start fights. Shit people actively seek out things to be upset about. Shit people are never happy. Shit people are crabs in a bucket. Shit people rarely amount to anything in this world. Identify the shit people and ignore them. 

So what is the point of all this. Some shit punks will play their radio loud. Some will verbally accost you, and many will do it particularly because you are white. I was targeted many times because I am white.  Be the bigger person and ignore it. 

Some people are not worth the air consumed to speak their name. Some people are not worth your time or your words. These are the low class people who have nothing positive to contribute to society. 

Some people deserve to be ignored until they are ready to enter civilized society. Just look at the video below. Why would you consider even speaking to these people? There are millions of people in this world far better than this. The fact that any person would even engage in this activity and not walk away from it shows their true value to society. 

Sunday, July 14, 2013

Common Trial Objections


Logic is a wonderful thing. Logic brought me to my default position of agnostic, atheism. Logic brought me to a place of default skepticism about any proposition one asks me to accept. When we are growing up, we tend to be credulous about things people tell us: parents, authority figures, politicians, television, YouTube and the internet. Without a solid foundation in logic (philosophy) we are gullible apes. 

We cannot change the fact that we are apes, but the gullible part we can change. 

Logic has two realms. The first realm: how do we reason? Which mode of reasoning is valid and/or fallacious  For example, we know that there are flaws of inductive logic, because when a person's behavior does not match our expected outcome, we realize that our entire system of thinking must be recycled and replaced. Studying modes of thought is not easy, but it is something we must do if we are to become smarter, more rational people. 

The second realm of logic questions what we do with valid reasoning. So before we begin with the substance of this essay, which is, trial objections and the logic behind them, lets first watch Michael Shermer Bullshit Detector Kit to refresh our  understanding as to, why being a rational thinker is very important. 

I am writing about common trail objections today, because I want to better understand the logic behind them. Bye that, there is a reasoning mode behind each one of them. One person objects because the other person is asking a logically unfair question. 

Tuesday, July 9, 2013

John The Other is one special guy :-)

There is something deeply wrong with John the Other. This man has no confidence in himself and some serious mental issues. I think that he suffers from a low self-esteem. Take the brief comment exchange above. For months ago, I politely asked him to explain a word he used. He waits FOUR MONTHS to post a response. As you can read, he completely ignored the question.

This man likes to string together words, "gender ideological characterization", to make himself sound smart. Then, when someone like me....(a female!) politely asks him to explain what that three-word term actually means, he calls me illiterate. Having read many of my blogs in the past, he knows that not only am I literate in English but I know a few other languages as well.

The truth is, John reminds me a lot of my father. In one sense, he is a smart guy who is trying too hard to be something he isn't. He tries to be part of a group he considers the 'intellectual elite'. I do not think that the intellectuals are any more valuable than the rest of us regular folk. It is sad when I think about it.

I hope he finds something in this world he is truly good at doing, and feels comfortable enough in himself to stop pretending to belong to a group that he does not belong to.

Monday, July 8, 2013

American Hysterics

American people also have short memories and an insatiable thirst for pop culture criminal courts. Public dialog about these pop-culture criminal courts became a hodgepodge of uniformed people, speculating about things that they clearly do not understand.

Minha Kim of Sungkyunkwan University in Seoul set out to study “whether or not objective reporting actually inhibits political participation.” Seventy students taking a course in news writing were divided into two groups. Half were given a “straight news” article about a 2008 controversy in Korea — the country’s importation of beef from the U.S. despite consumer protests that it wasn’t safe — and half were given an opinionated one.

The students who were politically knowledgeable “were immune to the agitating voice” of the opinionated article, Kim found. But nonobjective stories “exerted profound persuasive impact” on those who were not “sufficiently politically equipped to guide their judgments and actions by self-organized mature knowledge.” Those students were far more likely to attend a protest against the government importing American beef.

In addition, Kim found that the type of media that students consumed influenced their actions.

Traditional media such as newspapers and television did not significantly influence the subjects’ attitude toward the protest. It was the Internet and interpersonal communication that resulted in the subjects’ criticism of the Korean government policy to import U.S. beef. The more frequently subjects used the Internet; the more positive they were toward the protest.

If you accept that discussing political issues is an adequate measure of political engagement, then opinionated journalism was more influential for those who weren’t engaged. More-knowledgeable consumers valued fact-based reporting, whether they decided to go to the protest or not.

Who here remembers who Lizzie Borden was? Think about it before googling her name. She was the O.J. Simpson of the 19th century. The year was 1893. Lizzie Borden was an upper-class American woman accused of murdering her father and step mother with an axe Two days after her parent’s murder, papers began reporting evidence that thirty-three-year-old Lizzie Borden might have had something to do with her parents' murders. There was no evidence against her. A jury of twelve men could not see how a young female could possibly have committed such a heinous crime. The story hit newsstands across the country. Everyone had an opinion. It was a national obsession.

National obsessions used to hit every decade or so. The media choses one case, and sensationalizes it. As our attention span has become much shorter, and our memories much shorter, national obsessions are happening every few months instead of every decade.

I think back in our caveman days, we enjoyed village gossip. Knowing what others were up to was an important part of our ability to survive in a group. We are social animals.  Occasional, sometimes I am told something I wish I never heard. There have been many moments when I wanted to be ignorant. But the lives of other people, their movements, plots, deceptions, and crimes are as meaningful in our lives as any other natural force. Obsession with sensationalized new stories simply takes our natural interest in the lives of others to a larger scale.

From the Minha Kim of Sungkyunkwan University in Seoul study, we conclude most uninformed people are not qualified to form opinions. They uninformed are swayed by the agitated voice in reporting. In short, “rabble rabble (pitch fork) rabble rabble rabble.” For example, one guy on Facebook posted a comment stating that the only objective of the Trayvon Martin case was to prove that a seventeen year old black boy has the right to buy something at the store without being shot and killed.

This case is not about skittles, ice tea or the marijuana in Trayvons system. This case is not about whether or not Zimmerman was right/wrong for following the boy. Last I checked, following someone is not illegal.  (The following does not fit the definition of stalking)

The case is about this: was George Zimmerman defending himself, yes or no. That is it.

Paranoid people speculate that Zimmerman inflicted his own head wounds and broke his own nose. People who make speculations are in no position to provide legal opinions about any proposition.

Public dialog has become a hodgepodge of uniformed people, guessing about things that they clearly do not understand. Seriously, how many of these people have even taken a measly paralegal class at a community college, let alone opened up a copy of a legal dictionary?

Does it matter Zimmerman was following Martin? – No! The behavior was within his rights, and does not qualify as stalking. Following someone is not a criminal offense. It is not even a misdemeanor. It is creepy, and it certainly offended Martin. I would be offended too. But it is not a crime, as such, it is not relevant in the deliberation room.

Trayvoon Martin does not have just cause attacking Zimmerman just because he was following him. I have been followed by men plenty of times. (I am a woman and have a lot more to fear). I have never attacked anyone following me. Men have even followed me off the freeway. Did I attack them? No - I didn't. 

What I find amazing is that people with no legal training get so emotionally offended and caught up in a case spoon fed to them by the media. 

One person wrote, “well, the dispatcher said do not follow him.” That is true. The dispatcher did say that. However, I know of no law that says we have to listen to a dispatcher. Still – no law was broken. Being upset that you are being followed is not cause to attacking someone. As I said before, I am female and I have been followed many, many, many times by men. Never once did I attack someone following me. I am surprised people are unable to see this clear logic. 

My prediction about the George Zimmerman case is that the jury will find reasonable doubt. The injuries he sustained indicate a physical altercation. He will be found not guilty, and we will probably see some riots. Eventually, it will all blow over and everyone will forget about it.

In no time at all, Nancy Grace will be on TV all pissed off that some white woman is missing, and the Martin case will be a distant memory.