Unethical Blog Post of the Week: “But What About Caylee?”

Sad but true: the trial's purpose was not to find justice for Caylee.

If I responded to even one out of a hundred ethically muddled, logically addled posts by the hoard of bloggers in cyberspace, I’d have time for nothing else. Now and then, however, I am directed to a post that typifies the kind of free-floating, fact-starved gut sentiment that rots public discourse in America and that helps keeps the public confused and panicked.

In this case, I was directed to the post by the blogger herself, who managed to annoy me by accusing my post on the Casey Anthony jury of being callous to the victim in the case, two-year old Callie. I re-read my post; there wasn’t anything callous toward the child in any way. Puzzled, I went to the blogger’s page, a blog by someone who calls herself wittybizgal, and called Wittybizgal. Sure enough, there it was: an anguished lament about the verdict in the Casey Anthony trial entitled, “But What About Callie?”

The post is frightening, because I am certain that this kind of non-reasoning is epidemic in the United States, nourished by touchy-feely bloggers, pundits and columnists and made possible by the ingrained habit of having opinions without knowledge. Since their opinions are not supported by facts or reasoning, they can’t be debated. If you aren’t persuaded, you’re just mean, that’s all. That’s no way to decide what is right and wrong, but it certainly a popular way. Here is wittybizgal’s argument, one fallacious step at a time:

1. Pronouncing herself “disgusted” by the Casey Anthony verdict, wittybizgal finds herself transported back to the O.J. trial—the current cliché among those who are outraged that Nancy Grace wasn’t able to get Anthony convicted of murder by edict.  Of course, there is no similarity between the two trials in substance at all, and making the comparison amounts to misrepresentation. The prosecution proved O.J. guilty but was sloppy about it, and when a bad jury, an over-matched judge, a brilliant defense team and the cognitive dissonance advantage all celebrities have in criminal trials were added to the mix, O.J. walked. The prosecution didn’t prove that Casey Anthony killed her daughter. That’s why she was acquitted.

2. Noting that Casey was found guilty “of only lying to police,” wittybizgal says, “Slap on the wrist, anyone?” No, the jury wasn’t finding Casey guilty of  lying to the police as a substitute for finding her guilty of murder; they were finding her guilty of a crime she actually was proven to have committed.  A slap on the wrist is when someone receives an inappropriately light punishment for an offense he or she was found guilty of committing. The “slap on the wrist” canard presumes that the jury was letting Casey off with less than she deserved. But the American justice system, which wittybizgal should understand a little better because, after all, she lives here, doesn’t regard someone as deserving punishment for a crime until it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt in court. There was no “slap on the wrist”

3 “What were these twelve people thinking?”, wittybizgal asks. Easy: exactly what the judge told them to think in his instructions. You can read them here.  What they weren’t thinking was what wittybizgal would have been thinking, which is why she would have been an unethical jury member: “How can we avenge the terrible death of that little girl?”

4. At this point, wittybizgal’s excuse for an opinion devolves into bathos. “What about Caylee?” she cries. Well, what about her? A murder trial is for the purpose of determining guilt, and it doesn’t matter whether the victim is 2, 20, or 102, a little girl, a gang-banger, or a Nobel prize-winner. What does Caylee have to do with it? The verdict won’t bring her back. She’s not on trial. The age, innocence and vulnerability of the murder victim should not change the standards that the jury must apply to the evidence.

5. Apparently wittybizgal also thinks that the defense attorneys should be remorseful for successfully defending their client, and should be thinking of Caylee too, writing “While the defense team has the audacity to stand in front of cameras and take an undeserved bow, what about Caylee?”  This show her complete ignorance of the adversary system. Casey Anthony’s lawyers have no duty to Caylee, absolutely none. They had one job, which was to show that the prosecution hadn’t proven its case. Caylee doesn’t and shouldn’t matter to them.

6.  Wittybizgal, in truth, seems to think the justice system is like an Agatha Christie novel, and is obligated to tie-up crime stories in a neat, clean conclusion.  “Tell me, jury, if her mother didn’t kill her, who did?,” she asks, accusingly. The jury doesn’t have to know that or decide that. That’s not their duty. It isn’t even their duty to decide whether Casey Anthony was the most likely killer—and she was. The jury’s duty is to weigh the evidence and determine whether the intentionally high bar of “proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” has been cleared by the prosecution. Not to solve the crime, not to make Caylee’s grandparents feel better, not to satisfy the bloodlust of Nancy Grace.  To say that they aren’t sufficiently sure Casey did murder her daughter does not require that the jury have a better candidate, as good a candidate, or any candidate at all. Wittybizgal’s question is ignorant.

7. So is the next one—“And who will take responsibility for tracking them down and seeing that they are convicted?” The case is closed, WBG. The police and the prosecutor have determined who killed Caylee, they just can’t prove it sufficiently. Nobody will take responsibility for tracking the killer down, because Casey is almost certainly the killer, and she can’t be tried again“Who will see that justice is pursued from here on out? We’re waiting…” Well, you’re going to be waiting forever. I’ll try again: not all criminals can be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Go ahead, bay at the moon about it. Scream and curse. That’s a fact, and it has always been so. It is not up to the jury, or the judge, or the court to fix the lack of a good case by illicitly convicting someone because “everybody just knows” they are guilty.

8. “It seems like this happens more often than not…people do awful things and get away with them, seemingly, in this lifetime at any rate.” Oh, does it? How odd then, that the U.S. prison population is the largest of any first world nation, and that crime rates here are declining rapidly. In fact, citizens being wrongly convicted is a bigger problem than guilty criminals getting acquitted, especially since our traditions hold that avoiding unjust punishment for one innocent citizen is worth 100 guilty parties escaping justice.

9. Wittybizgal concludes, “Quite frankly, I doubt that any punishment that would have been doled out to the individual who killed Caylee, or at least neglected her to the point that she died accidentally, would have been adequate anyway. But, today, I sure would have liked to see twelve among us at least try to balance those scales…”  With or without sufficient evidence, apparently. She is advocating a version of the jury’s function that is flat-out mistaken, and one that far too many others believe. The objective of the jury system isn’t justice for the victim. Its objective is justice for the accused, and society.

Yes, I know, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But some bloggers, spreading facile opinions on the internet without research, study, knowledge or comprehension, are the intellectual equivalents of Typhoid Mary.

81 thoughts on “Unethical Blog Post of the Week: “But What About Caylee?”

  1. Casey Anthony’s pattern of behavior is quite indicative of guilt, and there is a strong likelihood that her involvement in her daughter’s death goes beyond being told that her daughter’s body was found.

    And yet I am a regular visitor of Reason.Com. I have read Radley Balko’s columns titled “This Week in Innocence”. I read about Timothy Cole and Steven Hayne. And commenters on Reason.Com regularly remind me that, on average, prosecutors are out for convictions, not justice.

    I can not say with any certainty that the jury got it wrong on this case.

  2. It was an opinion piece. I don’t write blogs which are strictly about ethics–never said I did. The fact that you don’t see that your attack piece on me and my opinions is a tad unethical is both ironic and priceless. But, thanks for the plug–you’ve increased the traffic to my blog! And, I’ve learned a valuable lesson as well…always read the “About Me” on a blogger before responding to their writing. If they seem unreasonable, or like they are simply looking to argue and attack, then it’s best to skip it.

    • WBG – this does not appear to me to be an “attack piece.” Jack points out, with clarity, the difference between looking at the verdict emotionally versus viewing it with a well-developed knowledge of how the justice system is supposed to work in our country. From the standpoint of the law, things in Florida happened as they should whether we like the result or not. It doesn’t reduce the sympathy for Caylee one bit. Jack points out – rightly – that this is one of those tragic situations where it is what it is. From an ethics point of view (and his is an ethics blog), that’s what you pay attention to, not what we would wish things to be as can be found in your own – by your own admission – opinion piece. There’s space for both points of view, but be prepared for a more black and white approach if you chose to argue the ethics – very little gray around here and no one on either side of an issue is spared.

      • Hi Mark, oh yes, I do understand that. And I appreciate that someone can have a different take on things. That wasn’t the issue for me. It was the implication that those of us with emotion and feelings about the verdict are somehow stupid or dangerous. This simply isn’t so, yet he’s reiterated it today–tenfold. As you say, there is room for both perspectives. But, this blogger doesn’t seem willing to make any room–at all. And, yes, today’s piece is definitely an attack piece. Why go out of his way to make me the target today? Although, I am flattered to be in the same category as a national news anchor. At any rate, it’s all fine. Obviously, people who read this guy’s blogs regularly will think I’m an idiot and he is a hero. That’s okay too. I’m a big girl, and I can take it. Anyone who puts their writing out there for the world had better have the guts to take criticism. It comes with the territory.

        • The problem, and the reason that I wrote the post (“attack piece” is not unfair) is that the reverence given to uninformed, misleading opinions that make people, literally, dumb as bricks needs to be curbed. Opinions based on reality and careful analysis are good and useful and provocative. Opinions unmoored to any facts and that actively misrepresent what is being opined about are irresponsible, and quadruply irresponsible to put into print, where it can do more damage and support the uninformed opinions of others who want to weigh in with opinions on things they know nothing about at all.

          When someone comes here and calls me an “ass” and “callous” for doing my job and pointing out where the ethical issues lie, they better have more to offer than a non sequitur “What about Caylee?” that is as relevant to the matter under discussion as crying, “What about the Lindbergh baby?” or “How about those Phillies?”

          Feelings are perfectly acceptable to be the topic of a blog post. A post that masquerades as analysis when all it consists of is emotion is misleading and irresponsible. “I hate the verdict” is a legitimate opinion. “The verdict is wrong,” however, requires more support than the fact that you hate it.

          • Nope, it really doesn’t. I stated my opinions and my feelings in my blog, and I don’t have to support those with factual information. And I thought it would be okay to post an opinion in response to your blog. I was wrong there, and had I read more of what you’d written previously, your bio, etc. I would have just moved along. But I can’t go back. It happened, so I’m choosing to learn from it. And, I’ll say it publicly–I apologize for calling you an ass. I really shouldn’t have done that…my bad and my fault there…it was those inconvenient emotions talking. But, Jack, really…I rather doubt it’s the first time anyone has ever called you an ass. Logically speaking, that is…

            • This is great…an “everybody does it” rationalization (the “I’m sure this isn’t the first time” variation.) following an “apology” ! Don’t see that every day.

              In fact, I have been called an ass (or the equivalent) too many times to count. And when I have actually engaged in speech or conduct that justified that assessment—which is often—there is nothing unethical about calling a spade a spade.

            • Jack says: “‘I hate the verdict’ is a legitimate opinion. ‘The verdict is wrong,’ however, requires more support than the fact that you hate it.

              wittybizgal says: “Nope, it really doesn’t. I stated my opinions and my feelings in my blog, and I don’t have to support those with factual information.”

              That’s exactly the problem. You think that emotion and feelings lead to factual conclusions.

              Do you really not understand the

                • Oops. That last phrase was part of a previous response that I was unclear and much harsher. I blame the commenting system jumping around. I may have to start writing even my short comments in notepad.

                  • Yeah, me too – on my longer comments, my dialogue was under the boxline, so I’d have to constantly use my down arrow to know what I was typing. Weird. But hey, check out that link – as an atheist or non-denominational, you’ll dig it. Super cool and hopeful.

                    • I’m really sorry about that…I’ve complained to WordPress about it. It’s happened to me, too, though if you hit the return, the line under the box does come up. I swear…I’m working on it!!! (By the way, for comments you can use Word as well as Notepad.)…

                    • Yeah, I got tah typin’ and it just started happening. I’ve gotten into the habit of taking it to a mail draft and saving them – lost a few lengthy comments along the way, and almost tossed my laptop out the winder in the process.

            • Have you ever heard of the Sam Sheppard trial? There’s a perfect example of what happens when the cops, the prosecution, the media, and “everybody” is sure of someone’s guilt – except that they were all wrong.

              It doesn’t matter if you “feel” the accused is guilty, even if you feel “certain” about it – the standard for a criminal conviction is that you must find that the prosecution has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the charges are true. That means, if you have any “reasonable doubt,” you must acquit.

              Now it would be interesting to see if Casey can be found liable in a civil case for the death. I’m sure she would be, but who would bring the case?

    • As I wrote in my reply to your comment on the original post, you appear to have no idea what unethical means, or ethics, or any word with an e, t, h, i, c and s in it, for all that I can tell. There is nothing unethical whatsoever, for example, with dissecting a published blog post that is misleading about the news event and the justice system, that adds to misconceptions about what criminal trails are about, and that casts blame and and denigration on people who did their jobs well, such as the jury and the defense attorneys. In fact, it is unethical to write such a post….which is what puts the issue in my court.

      You are, in truth, hopeless. When I challenged you on your absurd contention that my explaining why the verdict was an ethical one was “callous” to the victim, your response was 1) “you have a typo” 2) “How can you criticize the ethics of someone you’ve never met”, and 3) to call me an “ass”…and now you say that you should have known that I would be “unreasonable.”

  3. Pingback: Emotions Declared Unethical–Alert The Media! « wittybizgal

  4. Hey WBG – Don’t sweat the fact that Jack raked you over the coals – that happens to me quite frequently in regards to the subject matter that I happen to pop in and contest him about. And when I do, it is my opinion, but based on facts I have gathered from credible Scientists, as much as possible.

    And I will say this – Jack is, for the most part, very reasonable and very fair, BUT – and it is a giant, ‘Merican fast-food junkie big ass BUT – he does ignore, in my opinion, certain facts about any case that he “Believes” to be outside of his realm of understanding, and if it falls falls outside of his own personal belief system based on his preconceived notion that “people aren’t that diabolical” or “This Could Never Happen”, etc. etc.
    The same goes for this Casey Anthony distraction… a modern day Lizzie Borden case. My heart breaks for that adorable little girl, don’t mistake my sympathy… but that family, is the poster-child of dysfunctionality, and the reich-wing media is only too happy to blather incessantly on and on about this non-issue to keep all their secretive bilderberg-agenda-ed NWO BS out of the public discourse.

    That being said, Miss Anthony ( who is the baby’s father, BTW?) was tried in a court of law with the evidence presented, she was found not guilty, a verdict I agree with – but I do believe that she was negligent in regards to her death, for sure, and was completely cold-hearted, diabolical and completely irresponsible in her actions expo facto.

    Grief is unique for every individual, and everyone has different ways of handling it. But in her case, she has proven without a reasonable doubt what she is, a narcissistic, self absorbed, totally selfish self-promoter. I really think she is in for a rude awakening when she regains her “freedom” – she is going to be marked for life with her “guilt in the court of public opinion.” Her life will be filled with cold stares and hostile outbursts, at least for the immediate future.

    And, as her former Fiance stated this morning on the Today show, let’s hope she grows into her remorse and repents for her hideous, inhuman behavior.

    • Thanks for your reply! It was the perfect mix of logic and human emotion and compassion. I think that’s what we should all strive for…I’m not worried too much about what Jack thinks of me. I think it’s fairly clear to any reasonable person who stumbles upon this mess that I obviously had NO idea who I was commenting to originally. Like I say, lesson learned on my part. Now that it has blown up, I’ll ride it out and see it through, but it probably won’t happen again. I do agree with you that Jack is clearly highly intelligent–by standard testing anyway. There is a little something called Emotional Intelligence that is equally important with regard to human interaction though, and there appears to be a deficit there. And I also agree that he seems to be conveniently ignoring some pieces of the case which do not fit within his personal paradigm. There seems to be a rather rigid interpretation of reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is somewhat of a subjective concept. And jurors are subjective creatures to begin with–not computers. In my opinion, there was not any more reasonable doubt in this case than in many other cases where the jury chose to convict instead. But, that’s just my opinion, and it doesn’t make me a raving lunatic or an imbecile either.

      • I do not disagree with anything you said in your response, and thank you for the compliments. Your observations of Jack are spot on – but with his profession and lawyer mentality, he purposely does avoid the “personal” opinion. But yes, I do agree with you – lacking Benevolence and not letting any Altruistic sediments into your judgment or season your opinion is, IMHO, not advancing the cause of humanity… it hinders our spiritual evolution to a more “perfect” existence – check out my link to a video I source – let me know what you think!

        http://bit.ly/theStructureofThoughtPK

        blakeArt

    • FYI on Lizzie Borden: Bill James’s new book has a long and thorough dissection of the evidence in that trial, and concludes that Lizzie had to be—innocent. And I must say, as usual, his analysis is persuasive.

      “But what about Mister and Mrs. Borden????”

      • Jack – Agreed. Human life is human life, the same in value if you’re an overweight, mean-spirited middle-aged wife abuser, an adorable 2 year old, a well-to-do blond college coed, a 45 year old heroin-addicted lead singer, or a 9 year old black little girl. I’d push it out to the value of all Earthlings – we and all the animals on our planet. The research I have been doing on Consciousness backs up this Fact – Darwin aside, this reality is of our own making, and the Omniverse with “judge” us on how we have acted within this particular reality. Maybe we graduate to the next thing, or, pay a huge Karmedic Debt in consequent existences. Just a theory.

        http://bit.ly/theStructureofThoughtPK

        Check out my video I made that touches upon this point of view… would love any feedback your professional opinion might give.

        • Darwin aside, this reality is of our own making, and the Omniverse with “judge” us on how we have acted within this particular reality.

          You actually meant: Evidence and logic aside, here’s some complete BS. Just a theory.

              • tgt – point taken… I’m not German, but sometimes I capitalize for emphasis, and I am a kook. At least I’d like to think I am a well-informed kook.

                And I don’t know if I agree with your consensus that features ‘True Reality.’

                I was in a convenience store the the other day, and this little black boy cut right in front of me with is candy bar and a dollar.

                He didn’t acknowledge me, but he kept looking at me out of the corner of his eye, waiting for me to confront him. He couldn’t have been more than twelve years old, he could fit under my chin in height with room to spare.

                At first I was pissed – the Nerve of this little shit! What was his problem? He was obviously looking to get a rise out of me, and see what he could get away with.

                I squelched all my aggressive feelings inside, leaned into this poor kid and said, “you are more than welcome to go ahead of me.” it defused the entire situation, he paid for his candy bar and ran out of there.

                I’m not putting myself on a pedestal. I just want to acknowledge – This kid’s reality is completely different than mine, Com-plet-ely.

                He might fear for his life everyday. He might be beaten by his family or ‘friends.’ He is BOTH a product of his environment and genetically programmed thru his unique DNA. But I am not going to pretend he lives in the same reality as me.

                I can influence his reality by my actions ( or non-actions ) – I could have tried to lecture him on why what he did was rude, and that he needed to be polite. But he also influenced my reality, because I had to think about what his motivations were. He might have been trying to get a confrontation, or maybe he really had to go to the bathroom ( he was fidgeting like crazy ), but was too shy to say anything. But he also could have had a weapon. Living in the city, violence here is on the rise. People are running out of options. And this is effecting our reality.

                And this particular brand of reality, I don’t like it, and I do not accept it… I love my OWN reality, and I own my own mind and opinion. But this “Brand” of reality being force-fed to us is complete and utter B.S. – and it is being done to us On Purpose.

                I hope this makes my point – basically, my counter to this argument is being backed by scientific evidence, which points to the Fact (& it’s a Fact) that our Brains are receptors and transmitters, not just Storage Devices. In other words, we have WiFi in our brains, not just a hard drive.

                This is what the Ancients thought as well, and was either forgotten or squelched. Case in point – here is a great TED talk by the author of Eat Pray Love, Elizabeth Gilbert. It’s a great perspective… and it also shows that it’s how you look at things makes a huge difference in your perception of that thing.

                just sayin’… I really could go on and on, however, I will spare you.

                But here’s my mission statement, basically: If we are kept in the state of fear, we will be stuck in 1st gear perpetually. We have the potential to be in 8th gear, we as spiritual beings have that potential in this physical “realtiy” we all share. But the powers that be, and the ARE, don’t want that, for whatever reason. But that little kid who cut in front of me will not advance, grow and learn if he is kept in perpetual fear state, as well as the rest of the planet.

                • Person A’s reality is not reality. Please don’t equivocate. When you talk about person A’s reality, you’re really talking about their situation, upbringing, perceptions, and impressions. You are not talking about actual reality.

                  Actual reality. The actuality of the world is, by all accounts, fixed. This IS the world, even if different people perceive parts of it differently.

                  I hope this makes my point – basically, my counter to this argument is being backed by scientific evidence, which points to the Fact (& it’s a Fact) that our Brains are receptors and transmitters, not just Storage Devices. In other words, we have WiFi in our brains, not just a hard drive.

                  Yes, we have receptors and transmitters in our brain. That’s how our brain communicates with itself and with the rest of our body. No, we do not have WiFi. We do not send particles with decodable information outside of our brains.

                  This is what the Ancients thought as well, and was either forgotten or squelched. Case in point – here is a great TED talk by the author of Eat Pray Love, Elizabeth Gilbert. It’s a great perspective… and it also shows that it’s how you look at things makes a huge difference in your perception of that thing.

                  Are you really referencing the author of Eat Pray Love to back up your science? Well, you make it look that way, but you’re just references her frame of reference and perception.

                  But here’s my mission statement, basically: If we are kept in the state of fear, we will be stuck in 1st gear perpetually. We have the potential to be in 8th gear, we as spiritual beings have that potential in this physical “realtiy” we all share. But the powers that be, and the ARE, don’t want that, for whatever reason. But that little kid who cut in front of me will not advance, grow and learn if he is kept in perpetual fear state, as well as the rest of the planet.

                  We are not spritual beings. The rest is just basic pop psychology. It’s not even anything new.

                  • tgt – my path is different from yours, that’s a fact. I am a dreamer, and I dream every night. I am a skeptic, but of authority, and I question all things, not just the status quo – especially the status quo.

                    I have had a near death experience, I have been out of my body and seen it on the ground. I know I exist outside of my physical “container” which happens to be this body. I’ve done Lucid Dreaming research… had at least 20+ lucid dreams, where there is no way on Earth I could have thought of that BS (that’s where Schrooms grow, BTW, plus it’s food for all plants that thrive – something to be said for that, and I do believe that is a huge lesson there for humanity to learn) that I saw in those dreams and influenced my art…

                    The author of Eat Pray Love talks about outside influences, things that “Come” to people, while being creative or during dreams… many scientific advancements too numerous to mention here have been influenced by dreams… a famous example from a literary standpoint is from Dante Alighieri’s the Divine Comedy, just off the top of my head: a major part of his original manuscript was missing, after he passed on, until one of his sons had a dream of his father coming to him and showing him a secret compartment in a stairwell in their castle that housed the document. When the son awoke, he went there and found it, exactly where the dream told him it would be.

                    http://www.dreaminterpretation-dictionary.com/famous-dreams-4.html

                    Or a scientific example – the famous Dmitri Mendeleev dream:

                    http://www.dreaminterpretation-dictionary.com/famous-dreams-6.html

                    So I don’t know what kind of world you live in, but mine is alive, with infinite possibility. Humanity is capable of doing so many beautiful things, and our existence could and should be infinitely easier, more benevolent, altruistic, and yes, tons more fun.

                    But being stuck in “fear” constantly is the plan for the masses at the moment, and at that vibration we will always be “stuck in stupid,” never advancing past being controlled by a privileged few. I myself refuse to give in to that, as someone who strives for self-actualization. So I will agree, there is only this reality that we all collectively share – but that doesn’t mean others do not exist within the infinite Omniversal Structure of Thought™.

                    Something to ponder: I love the line from the movie Contact when Matthew McConaughey’s (meh) character asks Joidie Foster’s science only, ‘need physical proof skeptical’ character – ‘Did you love your father?’

                    ‘Yes, very much’ was her reply.

                    ‘Prove it.’

                    Some things just can’t be proven with… proof. This world is the choice I make, the one I manifest. A much more fun, joyful, interesting place. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that… if you choose to look down your knose at my ‘Liberal Artsiness’ feigned as ignorance – that’s your right.

                    And it’s also your problem, not mine.

                    Love the discussion! Keeps the mind sharp, Donut?

                    • tgt – my path is different from yours, that’s a fact. I am a dreamer, and I dream every night. I am a skeptic, but of authority, and I question all things, not just the status quo – especially the status quo.

                      Sure. No problem there.

                      I have had a near death experience, I have been out of my body and seen it on the ground. I know I exist outside of my physical “container” which happens to be this body.

                      Really? Some OR’s now have pictures near the ceiling to verify if someone actually has an out of body experience (they’d be able to see the picture). So far, none of the people claiming such have been able to verify it. Your out of body experience is just the mind playing tricks on you.

                      Anyway, I can picture myself floating above my body whenever I want. I’d be surprised if an artsy person’s brain couldn’t.

                      I’ve done Lucid Dreaming research… had at least 20+ lucid dreams, where there is no way on Earth I could have thought of that BS (that’s where Schrooms grow, BTW, plus it’s food for all plants that thrive – something to be said for that, and I do believe that is a huge lesson there for humanity to learn) that I saw in those dreams and influenced my art…

                      Lucid dreaming is evidence that the brain controls dreams. Not exactly a shocker.

                      The author of Eat Pray Love talks about outside influences, things that “Come” to people, while being creative or during dreams… many scientific advancements too numerous to mention here have been influenced by dreams… a famous example from a literary standpoint is from Dante Alighieri’s the Divine Comedy, just off the top of my head: a major part of his original manuscript was missing, after he passed on, until one of his sons had a dream of his father coming to him and showing him a secret compartment in a stairwell in their castle that housed the document. When the son awoke, he went there and found it, exactly where the dream told him it would be.

                      http://www.dreaminterpretation-dictionary.com/famous-dreams-4.html

                      So, if the story is to be taken at face value, isn’t it more likely that Dante had told his son about where he kept his papers (or the son had seen them at one point) and that his brain put 2 and 2 together?

                      Or a scientific example – the famous Dmitri Mendeleev dream:

                      http://www.dreaminterpretation-dictionary.com/famous-dreams-6.html

                      So, his brain ordered elements by the counting numbers? I don’t see anything odd there. Any 4 year old could have done that.

                      So I don’t know what kind of world you live in, but mine is alive, with infinite possibility.

                      We live in the same world, you just have faith in nonsense.

                      Humanity is capable of doing so many beautiful things, and our existence could and should be infinitely easier, more benevolent, altruistic, and yes, tons more fun.

                      I’d excise the word “infinitely,” but otherwise, I agree.

                      But being stuck in “fear” constantly is the plan for the masses at the moment, and at that vibration we will always be “stuck in stupid,” never advancing past being controlled by a privileged few.

                      At that vibration? You’ve moved off into loony land again.

                      I myself refuse to give in to that, as someone who strives for self-actualization. So I will agree, there is only this reality that we all collectively share – but that doesn’t mean others do not exist within the infinite Omniversal Structure of Thought™.

                      Unless you redefine reality, your comment is inherently inconsistent. Also, by TM marking your term, you’ve displayed that you see it as a fiction of your mind, not an actuality. (I’m assuming you’re not just making the basic statement that we can imagine other realities.)

                      Something to ponder: I love the line from the movie Contact when Matthew McConaughey’s (meh) character asks Joidie Foster’s science only, ‘need physical proof skeptical’ character – ‘Did you love your father?’

                      ‘Yes, very much’ was her reply.

                      ‘Prove it.’

                      Some things just can’t be proven with… proof.

                      No proof, but evidence to strongly suggest. Actions, minutae of movement, facial expressions, and how they have interacted over the years (both with each other and with 3rd parties). Beyond that, as we learn more about the brain, we may at some point be able to prove feelings such as love based on nuerological activity.

                      In any case, it’s a stupid comparison. Whether I feel X or Y is not at all similar to whether the sky is blue.

                      This world is the choice I make, the one I manifest. A much more fun, joyful, interesting place. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that…

                      In other words, you don’t like reality, so you make stuff up.

                      if you choose to look down your knose at my ‘Liberal Artsiness’ feigned as ignorance – that’s your right.

                      You just said that you pretend to be ignorant. I don’t think you had a very good liberal education.

                      And it’s also your problem, not mine.

                      As I have noted repeatedly, irrationality is a threat to everyone.

                      Love the discussion! Keeps the mind sharp, Donut?

                      Your post is evidence to the contrary.

                    • I think everyone on this thread would benefit from viewing the Robert Anton Wilson documentary “maybe logic”….

                      “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cock-sure, while the intelligent are full of doubt.” Bertrand Russell

  5. Did you ever think maybe that picking someones blog apart and calling her all those names, might be considered slanderous and defamation of character… hmmm… you might want to rethink your way of trying to make yourself feel better… this could possibly land you in the same courtroom Ms. Anthony was in. Now, that’s something to think about.

    • Hmmmm.. you might want to do some research on what constitutes defamation and slander (you mean libel). I didn’t call the blogger any “names.” Accurate descriptions, or even opinion-based characterizations, are neither unethical nor actionable. Dissecting a silly blog post in no way makes me feel better. Seeing fewer such posts would make me feel better.

    • Now that would be FUN! I can see it now, “Punch and Judy Go to Court”…But, I’m not feeling particularly litigious at the moment. Plus, Jack is way too entertaining to sue. He might stop saying all these unintentionally funny things and that’d just be a tragedy. 🙂

      • I’d argue that “look bad” is a subjective characterization. If one approaches this whole thing from only Jack’s perspective, then I probably do look bad. And silly. Let’s not forget silly. However, if one takes and step back and (objectively) analyzes what he did, which was pick apart my admittedly highly opinion based, highly emotional blog posting as if I meant it as a piece of academic writing which could stand up to Harvard Law School peer review scrutiny, then it would be Jack who looks bad by most people’s standards. And silly. Really, really silly.

        • I doubt most people’s standards find that requiring some connection between an opinion and facts is “silly.’ but you have accurately stated why I started this blog, and the lazy attitudes toward assessing what is right and wrong it is attempting to combat. It is both hilarious and alarming that you would characterize an attempt to bring published analysis in line with reality as “my perspective” and call requiring minimal attention to the standards of the justice system by anyone who purports to criticize it “Harvard Law School peer review scrutiny.”

          • Does wittybizgal’s “argument” remind you of anything? X is true because I believe it; there’s no need for evidence or reality.

            • Well, actually, I think it’s substantially lamer than religion, which is at least based on something—tradition, ancient documents, etc.The faith in something that isn’t fact-based is the same , obviously, but raw emotion isn’t backed up by anything at all.

        • Objectively, I’m looking at what he did, and he doesn’t look bad. What looks bad is this:

          While the defense team has the audacity to stand in front of cameras and take an undeserved bow, what about Caylee?

          Your use of the word audacity indicates that the defense team should be feeling shame. Your description of them taking a bow in front of cameras is inaccurate. Maybe I missed it. Did someone actually bow like they gave a great performance?

          Now, I understand that your writing is emotional, but that’s only what caused it to be a poor reflection upon yourself. It’s not an excuse. An excuse would be this: “If I didn’t write those exact words I would have thrown myself off a cliff.” That’s self-preservation, that’s an excuse.

          Just because your emotionally charged words were aimed to impugn the defense team (…and others…) doesn’t mean that your words should be free of critique or rebuttal. Words hurt and you shouldn’t let your emotion get the better of you.

        • Have you ever heard of Dunning’s Law? I strongly believe it applies to your posts.

          “You can ignore reality, but you can’t ignore the consequenses of ignoring reality.”…Ayn Rand

          Scott Clark

          • Why thank you, Scott. And Ayn. Actually, quite the opposite…I haven’t ignored much of anything. I’ve faced it all head on, but it’s getting old. I don’t have to apologize for my feelings, OR for my original post, which was feelings based. I never said it was anything otherwise. Your pal Jack, however, got a bee in his bonnet and decided that he was going to “teach me a lesson”. And then a few of his snottiest friends joined in to pile it on, just to be sure I’d know my place. My blog isn’t inherently controversial, either the post he was referring to, or any of my others. That’s not what I’m here for. Actually, it was Jack who behaved inappropriately, not me. I defended myself as best I could (mostly alone), but I see that is a huge waste of my time and energy. It was hurtful (yes, I DO hurt, so now you have something more to skewer me over). Besides, Jack has moved on to Marcia Clark now. WOW! I truly am flattered to be thrown onto the insult sacrifice pyre with famous people. But, speaking of silly, it’s time for me to acknowledge to myself that me coming back here to answer all of your inane insults and comments is just crazy, and not healthy for me, or productive in the least. So, truly, this will be my last one. If I could only figure out how to stop getting them in my email. Arrggh! As someone else mentioned, WP is very un-user friendly sometimes. Earlier today I actually clicked the wrong box and subscribed to this nasty, hateful, negative blog. God help me! If you want to keep trashing me, feel free. Have fun…hope it makes you feel all superior and warm and fuzzy inside! 🙂

            • Why thank you, Scott. And Ayn. Actually, quite the opposite…I haven’t ignored much of anything. I’ve faced it all head on, but it’s getting old.

              You still don’t even realize why you’re being criticized. You’re not being attacked for feeling; you’re being attacked for displaying horrible ethics. You let your feelings override reason. Just because you feel strongly doesn’t make ethical considerations go away.

              I don’t have to apologize for my feelings, OR for my original post, which was feelings based.

              You don’t have to apologize for your feelings. You should apologize for turning feelings into fact, and then attacking the people who (validly) called you out on the horrible results it led to.

              Your pal Jack, however, got a bee in his bonnet and decided that he was going to “teach me a lesson”. And then a few of his snottiest friends joined in to pile it on, just to be sure I’d know my place.

              Either that or your post was a good representation of bad ethics in general, and then you made some illogical arguments defending yourself. Characterizing valid criticism as piling on is not going to convince anyone. The ad hominem attacks aren’t going to help either.

              My blog isn’t inherently controversial, either the post he was referring to, or any of my others. That’s not what I’m here for.

              No. Your post was cut and dry. You were just on the wrong side of the fence. That you don’t realize it just proves Jack’s point all the more.

              Actually, it was Jack who behaved inappropriately, not me.

              Since when is accurately criticizing a blog post inappropriate? Apparently, I’m inappropriate on this blog daily.

              I defended myself as best I could (mostly alone), but I see that is a huge waste of my time and energy.

              Yes, defending indefensible conduct is a waste of time and energy.

              It was hurtful (yes, I DO hurt, so now you have something more to skewer me over).

              Nobody has skewered you for feeling. Haven’t you figured that out yet?

              Besides, Jack has moved on to Marcia Clark now. WOW! I truly am flattered to be thrown onto the insult sacrifice pyre with famous people.

              Play the victim much? It’s not like you’re an innocent here; you’re being accurately criticized for your public comments.

              But, speaking of silly, it’s time for me to acknowledge to myself that me coming back here to answer all of your inane insults and comments is just crazy, and not healthy for me, or productive in the least.

              We can try to get through to you, but you can’t teach someone who is unwilling to learn.

              So, truly, this will be my last one. If I could only figure out how to stop getting them in my email.

              To unsubscribe, click the “Manage Subscriptions” link in one of the emails. From there, you can manage individual subscriptions or unsubscribe to all blogs as a whole.

              Earlier today I actually clicked the wrong box and subscribed to this nasty, hateful, negative blog.

              Still the victim. WP has many flaws, but those options are pretty clearly labeled. Also, the characterization of this blog as nasty, hateful, and negative seems to be way off.

              God help me!

              Hey! No wonder you think reality needs to line up with your beliefs.

              If you want to keep trashing me, feel free. Have fun…hope it makes you feel all superior and warm and fuzzy inside!

              Mostly, it makes me feel bad to allow misinformation and bad behavior to go unchallenged.

              ————————————–

              wittybizgal’s post is a good demonstration of why I fight against religion. It’s not religion per se, it’s the validation in belief contrary to evidence.

              • I really admire your perseverance. I didn’t want to let that last comment go so I’m glad to see it already addressed.

              • I looked at wittybizgal’s post that she made as a response to this one, and in the comments, she says that, “Apparently God, and the belief in God does not pass muster with Jack Marshall’s groupies’ high ethical standards either. Why am I not surprised?” No offense to the lady, but with the way that she can overgeneralize based on the comments of one particular poster, I think that only bolsters Jack’s case.

                Now excuse me while I laugh myself to death thinking about how Mr. Pilling would respond to her comment.

                P.S. Great response.

                • I like the picture of “me” that she posted…she also searched the web for the links to the flaming I got from the Greenberg/Tannebaum/ Bennett trial lawyer blog access as a result my botched posting—and subsequent apology to the lawyer I unfairly impugned—about lawyers using their websites for hoaxes. The feeling, emotional, oh so compassionate blogger’s response to being rightly and civilly called out on a mistaken, irresponsible post is to be personally insulting and nasty—which is often how deep these “good” instincts go. And what God has to do with Casey Anthony, I’ll never know.

          • Meh… Anyone who quotes Ayn Rand I immediately file under ‘Machiavellian’. Just because you are effective, or gain power, it doesn’t mean you are in the right, or proper, correct, or Ethical.

            Plus, ‘Reality’ we are learning scientifically is malleable, especially by those who hold power. This particular ‘reality’ we are experiencing has been shaped by Hedge-fund managers, corrupt politicians of either ‘side’ of the aisle, assorted black ops thru the years, oligarchs, etc etc – especially in the US, where those in power are effectively trying to ‘break’ the political and economic power of the middle class. They want the sheeple desperate, fearful and yes, Malleable, to do their bidding.

            A historical example – before the latest wave of ‘the white man’ who landed in the new world, the Native Americans in both the North and South American continent were completely different within 100 years of their landing here, and with the introduction of Smallpox thru infected blankets, wiped out a huge % of their populations, effectively changing their realities collectively.

            And – Western society Forced their version of Reality upon the indigenous people of the New World, no doubt, just as the NWO Oligarchs are doing the same thing to the Good People and Creatures of Planet Earth today.

            IMHO, as a ‘classically self-trained’ artistic Liberal, and Qualified, mind you – and striving for a more benevolent, altruistic Reality, with our Technology, Knowledge, People and Scientific Prowess, I can only conclude that the love of Power and Money are the only things holding us back from a completely EASIER existence, collectively.

            Still stratified, mind you, but not by Birth and Privilege but by Age, Skill and Effort, among other variables… Check out my site and video link provided – would love to hear your critique and feedback.

            http://bit.ly/theStructureofThoughtPK

            http://www.theStructureofThought.com

            • Meh… Anyone who quotes Ayn Rand I immediately file under ‘Machiavellian’. Just because you are effective, or gain power, it doesn’t mean you are in the right, or proper, correct, or Ethical.

              Attack the argument. Not the speaker. I ravenously disagree with SMP most of the time, but he does occasionally pull out a nugget I agree with.

              For the rest, Scott Clark nailed it below: “Perception is malleable, true reality is not.” Though I would add in that capitalizing random words makes one look like a kook. It doesn’t mean one is a kook, but it gives off that impression.

  6. The real questions I have for you Jack, is:

    If the sentencing for the lying to police charge was maximized, would that be the reverse of the “slap on the wrist”? (I suppose her lying was probably bad enough to warrant the maximum anyway….)

  7. I too often find myself embroiled in emotional opinion, with no basis in facts. It’s easy here: an adorable and completely innocent, dependent little girl was killed. Virtually every human, particularly parents, want to see that vindicated, justice found and brought. That somehow makes it better. But you know what? It doesn’t make it better to go racing off on just a blazing gut reaction, not when people’s lives are affected by our lack of thought and analysis. I was a juror in a kidnapping and murder trial. It was an immensely difficult two weeks, and the decision was agonizing. Luckily, it was also popular; it would have been awful to suffer through loud, manic public criticism of our reasoned decision on top of the process … loud, manic public criticism by people who weren’t there, who knew less (or at least differently) than we did. We have a jury system for a reason, 12 people found Casey Anthony not guilty (13 if you count the alternate juror) and we have to trust them.

    Personally, I appreciate Jack’s cooler head prevailing when my mother’s heart is shrieking.

  8. To be honest Jack, it does look a bit like you were spoiling for a fight, but it did have entertaining results.

    Oh, have you heard? One of the jurors is shopping around trying to sell an interview. Won’t someone think of his bank account?!

    • I really wasn’t, though. I was indeed annoyed by the reflex reactions of the Nancy Grace crowd,but it took someone calling a good faith effort to explain the jury’s duties as “callous” and being an ass to prompt me to check out the source of the criticism. I didn’t know how someone would justify such an attitude, but I was willing to accept a legitimate effort, even in light of the gratuitous insult. But that post was at once too much, too uninformed, and too typical. It was also too easy to take apart, and, oh, ok, ok…kind of fun.

      • Come on Jack, you’ve been on the internets long enough to know that if you call out someone about their blog once, any subsequent posts are going to draw them out again. And they get sanctimonious. Part of you posted your follow up just to see how ridiculous this would get.

        It transcended ridiculous, and become what us kids call “ridonkulous.”

        Anyway, itt was refreshing to see so many measured responses.

  9. I will only add here that the jury has decided. Casey is free, Caylee is still in her grave, and the jury has gone home. Now all the principals stand to make millions! Life goes on …

  10. Thank God there are other people around where I’m currently typing, otherwise I’d be leaving a forehead-shaped dent in the desk. While other people have already taken apart WBG’s commentary, I would like to mention, just for people visiting this blog for the first time, that Jack is actually pretty civil at dealing with dissenting comments (if you look at Jack’s first post about Casey Anthony, he and ‘lizzie’ actually have a pretty civil conversation despite their heavy disagreement). Most of the regulars here are also pretty comfortable about dissenting from his take on things (for example, I still think he’s dead wrong about Tera Myers). Heck, tgt is one of Jack’s favorite commentators, despite the fact that they seem to disagree with each other vehemently every other blog post. There’s a reason the regulars here run the gament from Christian conservative to atheist liberal. The lesson here: don’t make all sorts of judgements about someone simply because they happen to disagree with you on one particular issue, and don’t take dissent as a personal offensive (considering how many times this crap happened, Jack, you should really make a post about it; it’s a lesson that most people, myself included, probably need to be reminded about).

  11. I completely agree. This blog welcomes and respects some fairly diverse viewpoints. I tip my hat to Jack for his hard work and keeping a high level of civility and intellect on this blog.

    As someone with a heavily science oriented education, I see things differently than folks like blameblakart. While I seriously consider his views, I doubt we will agree on many scientific issues, since I don’t accept data without reproducible, controlled trials/observations, randomization, proper use of statistical analysis or something objectively equivalent. I’ve never been called Machiavellian before..ouch. Perception is malleable, true reality is not.

    Thanks again to tgt, I couldn’t have said it better. Wittybizgal unwitting proved Dunning’s law, QED.

    Scott Clark

    • Hey Scott –

      Great reply, glad to know you read and acknowledged my efforts. There are many times my replies are dead enders – no one says a word after my brand of BS. So thanks for that. And I agree with you – perception is malleable. But what is ‘true reality’.

      I really urge you to check out the link I left for tgt earlier, Thunderbolts of the Gods is a total game changer, and I urge you to look into the research and Theories that are slowly being proven of Immanuel Velikovsky… if everything, including silicon, is electric plasma that is just vibrating energy at a certain frequency, well, what does that say about our ‘real(ities) in general? It validates dreams, ESP, the existence and permanence of the spirit and soul, all kinds of crazy stuff. It’s some mind-blowing stuff, and IMO very hopeful.

      And your Ayn Rand reference – I do speak from a bit of a point of ignorance, since I have not thoroughly read her works, but have watched extensive interviews and biographical stuff about her and her influences. I basically have a Thom Hartmann perspective about her – and the cliff notes sum up of ‘The Fountainhead’ basically deals with the elitist notion that the ultra rich know what is best for all the rest of ‘us sheeple’ . So when someone quotes her, I will assume (sorry) that you are coming from that perspective, and you can shove it. But with your choice of Lubrication… I’d like for you to at least enjoy it. ;^)

      That being said, I checked out your blog – nice job! Especially the latest “Fourth of July Fireworks” article – I’m right there with ya, except Issa is a creep who is the Epitome of Hypocrisy.

      I am all about us as a species snapping out of this funk – and this whole Casey Anthony crappola is just that… a Method of distraction for us to divide and conquer, to confuse an alienate ourselves from each other. It’s done and over with – she is free to be whatever she wants to be for the rest of her life. But I doubt that she will be happy, unless she really reforms and atones for her hideous behavior.

      • Great reply, glad to know you read and acknowledged my efforts. There are many times my replies are dead enders – no one says a word after my brand of BS.

        It’s good that you know that you are spouting garbage.

        I really urge you to check out the link I left for tgt earlier, Thunderbolts of the Gods is a total game changer, and I urge you to look into the research and Theories that are slowly being proven of Immanuel Velikovsky… if everything, including silicon, is electric plasma that is just vibrating energy at a certain frequency, well, what does that say about our ‘real(ities) in general? It validates dreams, ESP, the existence and permanence of the spirit and soul, all kinds of crazy stuff. It’s some mind-blowing stuff, and IMO very hopeful.

        There’s a big non sequitor there. There is no validation of dreams having meaning. There is no validation of ESP. There is no validation of the spirit and soul. None of those follow from the vibrating energy hypothesis. Reality has not changed. Also, the words vibration and frequency in string theory is very different from the vernacular vibration and frequency.

        And your Ayn Rand reference – I do speak from a bit of a point of ignorance, since I have not thoroughly read her works, but have watched extensive interviews and biographical stuff about her and her influences. I basically have a Thom Hartmann perspective about her – and the cliff notes sum up of ‘The Fountainhead’ basically deals with the elitist notion that the ultra rich know what is best for all the rest of ‘us sheeple’ . So when someone quotes her, I will assume (sorry) that you are coming from that perspective, and you can shove it. But with your choice of Lubrication… I’d like for you to at least enjoy it. ;^)

        Again, it doesn’t matter who said X, it matters whether or not X is true. You dodged yet again.

      • I want to start by apologizing to Jack that this post has nothing to do with ethics, but I felt obliged to reply to the above post. I did look at the links you posted and found them…well,,,wanting from a scientific standpoint. If most of the knowledge you use to make arguments comes from Cliff Notes, I can see why you feel it necessary to make ad hominem attacks, since you don’t know enough to make a principled, informed argument. Velikovsky has no scientific stature. I prefer to stick to luminaries like Max Planck, Einstein, Schrodinger, and deBroglie when I talk about quantum mechanics (your reference to silicon and vibrational energy). You really should spend your time productively learning the importance of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and Schrodinger’s wave function. They both use solid mathematics and real science to describe the “mind blowing stuff” you seek. If you really are interesting in learning about this and don’t like the heavy math, I highly recommend Stephen Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time”. It uses laymen’s terms to descibe quantum phenomena. One of the reasons our country makes a number of bad laws and policy decisions comes from people with liberal arts educations pretending to be scientists. I promise I won’t critique your art if you stop pretending to know anything about science.

        As for your reading of the Cliff Nores for Ayn Rand, I suggest that you actually read the material in its entirety before making prejudicial judgements. Ms. Rand was an incredibly prescient objectivist philosopher. She rejected communist and socialist ideals. She also painted a frightening picture concerning the welfare state taken to its ultimate philisophical endpoint. My opinion is that you totally miss the point of Rand’s works if you think they represent condescending, elitist rhetoric.

        Last, I have no idea what blog you refer to as I do not have one.

        • http://scotshonor.com/

          That’s not you?

          Anyway, read your reply. Nice job. I’m not going to feel inadequate for knowing what I know and ‘feeling’ what I feel. The links provided talk from a scientific as well as a historical viewpoint. Not everything that makes this omniverse what it is can be explained in an equation – here I reference Godel Escher Bach – the Eternal Golden Braid buy the Pulitzer Prize winning Novelist Douglas Hofstadter. He seems to be a pretty smart mathematical type of guy – what I am attempting to do is re-arrange the puzzle pieces that people much smarter than me have already thought of, and present them in a new and Exciting fashion. I see no fault in that, and I have nothing to prove here.

          i am very familiar with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Hawking has great points, but to the best of my knowledge many of his black hole and quasar theories are having to be readdressed. I could be wrong. Science is what gives us the the left side of things, what gives us order and solidity in this reality. But the Arts and our Creativeness of being human – that is what makes life worth living, what defines existence itself. This creative spark within each of us is the real “why” behind all that is.

          Consciousness can’t be explained by a mathematical equation, Scott.. and neither can trying to explain that there is a force in Nature throughout the Omniverse that can’t be explained, that is turning out to be electrical plasma in Nature.

          And the compilation of All these topics in this thread have everything to do with Ethics… this is as good a forum as any to hash out differences of opinion… Plato’s ‘Theory of Forms’ for example, the Ether of the Intrawebs. You have every right to believe what you want, as do I… and I won’t apologize to Jack, because I think he probably digs the Traffic. I know I would.

          peace to you – nice discussion. Good luck.

          • A couple quick hits.

            what I am attempting to do is re-arrange the puzzle pieces that people much smarter than me have already thought of, and present them in a new and Exciting fashion. I see no fault in that, and I have nothing to prove here.

            I think XKCD responded best to that: http://xkcd.com/675/

            This creative spark within each of us is the real “why” behind all that is.

            Why does there have to be a why?

            Consciousness can’t be explained by a mathematical equation, Scott..

            …yet.

            and neither can trying to explain that there is a force in Nature throughout the Omniverse that can’t be explained, that is turning out to be electrical plasma in Nature.

            Why do I have the feeling you thought ‘The Secret’ was a revelation?

            And the compilation of All these topics in this thread have everything to do with Ethics… this is as good a forum as any to hash out differences of opinion…

            That you think reality is a matter of opinion says all that needs to be said.

            • I feel a tad guilty about this, but I was actually waiting to see whether you and blameblakeart would start chatting.

              • is it as good as you expected?

                At least I get some examples to show that I’m anti-irrationality in general, not anti-religion specifically.

                • crap, I responded to the wrong thread. Go back up to the top – I wish I’d put it here… I love debating about stuff like this – we as a society need to do this kind of exercising more often, instead of eating cheesy-poofs while watching Dancing with the Stars Reunion crappola.

  12. Pingback: Hamilton Burger Loses Another One | The Pink Flamingo

  13. Can you imagine if we all got into a single room together? I think it would be mass chaos! Thank Moses we have the internet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.