Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kitsune
It's just TV, folks! Fiction!
|
Well let's examine the deductive powers of everyone here. Everyone was on a murder trial once. It was called Saddam's WMDs. They did not exist. Facts that said WMDs existence were in some cases nothing but speculation and in other cases outright and bogus lies. Accusations for WMDs were "they should exist, therefore they must exist". How many here had sufficient deductive powers to immediately see through that spin? And welcome to the jury.
Those who were seeking irrefutable facts also got 'big eyes' when details from places such as the advanced physics labs said those aluminum tubes could not be used for WMDs. Well published fact back then. So why was it ignored? Emotion is sufficient for logical deduction? It does not mate properly with your emotional perspective; so it was ignored? Yes. Many do not take a realists attitude. They feel - like a Barbara Walters or Oprah Winfrey - rather than demand specific facts. Does that sound like an OJ jury?
People who decide by 'feeling' can be convinced that Jews are the dirty vermin who created Germany's woes. It’s that easy when so many use and an English major's or an Oprah Winfrey analysis. They cannot put facts together in a jigsaw puzzle of reality. They even run about Europe looking for evidence of the DaVince Code. Even though they admit it was only fiction, their need to think emotionally has them looking for a ‘DaVince Code’ reality.
Insufficient grasp explains why so many like and read so much fiction. Reality violated by a bad story and the illogical does not bother them. They must have DNA because they cannot make rational and deductive reasoning.
Michael Crichton discovered the problem when submitting work to an English professor in Harvard. Rather than be judged on facts, consistency, and logic, Crichton was apparently criticized for things that don't matter such as sentence structure, grammar, and the biases of his grader. So frustrated was he as to submit an
Quote:
|
essay by George Orwell as his own. The professor doesn't catch the plagiarism and gives Orwell a B-. This experience convinces Crichton to change his field of study
|
Crichton's grammar and sentence structure was so bad as to become a wealthy author of Jurassic Park and many other best selling novels.
But then he was submitting work to an English professional - one from a field more interested in feelings rather than in reality, the 'irrefutable fact', and deductive reasoning.
Again, how would you have done on a murder trial jury? You were on one. Did you have sufficient grasp to see through outright and intentional lies from a president? Why not? There was no smoking gun. There was insufficient evidence to condemn 98,000 Iraqis to death. Remember, I called it a murder trial. We Americans created the death of 98,000+ Iraqis in less than two years because “we knew Saddam must have WMDs". How many of us here in The Cellar were so easily manipulated by emotional hype when I can personally assure you that the facts were also provided here. How many here knew "Saddam has WMDs only because he should have WMDs"? Now how often does such spin and lie become a jury verdict?
Everyone reading this was on that jury. Were you guilty of not separating fact from emotion? 70% of us demonstrated such great mental deficiency as to advocate the Pearl Harboring of Iraq. And yes, it was just as despicable as what Japan did in Hawaii. Welcome to the jury. How did you do when faced with ‘following the evidence’? CSI is fiction. But CSI demonstrates how to think logically rather than emotionally. Too many – like a Harvard English professor - just don’t get it. Instead we want to see DNA? Instead we miss the point? Another question that begs "do we think using logic or think using emotional perceptions"?