I agree. You can go down some fucked up rabbit holes in your own head depending on the circumstances. But in your saner and more clear moments you understand the truth. I personally can be extremely contradictory depending on my mood and “mEnTaL hEaLtH.” But isn’t that kind of normal?
I agree. You can go down some fucked up rabbit holes in your own head depending on the circumstances. But in your saner and more clear moments you understand the truth. I personally can be extremely contradictory depending on my mood and “mEnTaL hEaLtH.” But isn’t that kind of normal?
But which was which is the question in her case.
With no real understanding of this case but what has been presented here I bet my left nut she didn’t do shit.
I spent four days in a county pen without bail once. I wasn't altogether innocent. I had gotten blasted and was confronted by police outside my off-campus house at the Univ. of Maryland circa 2001. I did not handle it well. And neither did the po-po. They beat the snot of me, leaving me black and blue from head to toe. Eight months on, I got pulled over for speeding, yadda yadda... county pen.
To head off the possibility that my white ass might file a complaint, they made up five bogus assault charges -- one first degree -- and then for fun added "Attempted Escape" which is what led to the no-bail thing. Worse, I got taken in late on Thursday, which meant I wouldn't see a proper judge for four days.
One of the things I found myself thinking about quite a lot during that time was how I was going to reorient my brain to survive in case none of what followed went my way.
I wonder what I would have written down on paper if a county therapist had advised me to record as many of my thoughts as I could capture.
The judge released me on my own recog with a court date in 6 months -- still took another day to get released though. Innocent though I was, I agreed to a stet docket arrangement. Why would I do that, MoonDog! I was innocent!
Much of the opposition one finds when reasonable doubt about the correctness of a verdict emerges requires willful suspension of the ability to imagine more than one inch past one's nose.
Do you know anything about the trial apart from the latest articles and this podcast? I'd encourage you to listen to the podcast that explains every single piece of meticulously gathered evidence against her before you go endangering your left nut!
The fallacy your are exploring here is that someone cannot hold an opinion until they have consumed the same information that you have. Jesse touched on this when he noted how gender ideologues often refuse to believe any study that isn't peer reviewed to their precise specifications.
Deal with what MoonDog said. How a person goes about processing their reality is not linear and its verisimilitude is not dependent of what can be dreamt of in your philosophy.
It could be as simple as Ms. Letby figuring out how she's going to live with herself if she's found guilty.
It's not a fallacy to say that someone will have a better idea of whether the outcome of a trial was correct or not once they have listened to and processed all the evidence, plus all the arguments, counter-arguments and cross-examinations of that evidence.
I agree. You can go down some fucked up rabbit holes in your own head depending on the circumstances. But in your saner and more clear moments you understand the truth. I personally can be extremely contradictory depending on my mood and “mEnTaL hEaLtH.” But isn’t that kind of normal?
But which was which is the question in her case.
With no real understanding of this case but what has been presented here I bet my left nut she didn’t do shit.
I spent four days in a county pen without bail once. I wasn't altogether innocent. I had gotten blasted and was confronted by police outside my off-campus house at the Univ. of Maryland circa 2001. I did not handle it well. And neither did the po-po. They beat the snot of me, leaving me black and blue from head to toe. Eight months on, I got pulled over for speeding, yadda yadda... county pen.
To head off the possibility that my white ass might file a complaint, they made up five bogus assault charges -- one first degree -- and then for fun added "Attempted Escape" which is what led to the no-bail thing. Worse, I got taken in late on Thursday, which meant I wouldn't see a proper judge for four days.
One of the things I found myself thinking about quite a lot during that time was how I was going to reorient my brain to survive in case none of what followed went my way.
I wonder what I would have written down on paper if a county therapist had advised me to record as many of my thoughts as I could capture.
The judge released me on my own recog with a court date in 6 months -- still took another day to get released though. Innocent though I was, I agreed to a stet docket arrangement. Why would I do that, MoonDog! I was innocent!
Much of the opposition one finds when reasonable doubt about the correctness of a verdict emerges requires willful suspension of the ability to imagine more than one inch past one's nose.
Do you know anything about the trial apart from the latest articles and this podcast? I'd encourage you to listen to the podcast that explains every single piece of meticulously gathered evidence against her before you go endangering your left nut!
The fallacy your are exploring here is that someone cannot hold an opinion until they have consumed the same information that you have. Jesse touched on this when he noted how gender ideologues often refuse to believe any study that isn't peer reviewed to their precise specifications.
Deal with what MoonDog said. How a person goes about processing their reality is not linear and its verisimilitude is not dependent of what can be dreamt of in your philosophy.
It could be as simple as Ms. Letby figuring out how she's going to live with herself if she's found guilty.
It's not a fallacy to say that someone will have a better idea of whether the outcome of a trial was correct or not once they have listened to and processed all the evidence, plus all the arguments, counter-arguments and cross-examinations of that evidence.