The Alma Mater
25-03-2005, 08:36
[ Note for those who skimm only the first line: this topic is a result of the responses to the Schiavo case. It is not another one about the Schiavo case - though it will no doubt turn into one]
See subject. In all the topics about the Schiavo case people repeatedly post comments like "there are so many things still unknown/fishy", "she can talk, laughs at her mother, cries at her husband" and "only an idiot would deny she shows signs of recovery". As basis they often cite several openly biased (the titles alone are hints) websites.
All these people are in other words convinced that the Courts, having spent several years studying every aspect of the case, are less able to gather evidence - no even incapable of seeing blatantly obvious things - and make objective judgement based on facts than a random group of people with some html skills. They rather trust complete strangers without proven credibilty , "what a man in the pub told me" , than people who - supposedly- have proven to be at least somewhat capable by being appointed judge.
My question is: why ? Why do people think the court consists of blind idiots ? Why are they so willing to believe everything others say without criticism, even if those others obviously have an agenda - as long as what they say goes against the courts ? Is this bigger than the Schiavo case, or is this an isolated incident ?
See subject. In all the topics about the Schiavo case people repeatedly post comments like "there are so many things still unknown/fishy", "she can talk, laughs at her mother, cries at her husband" and "only an idiot would deny she shows signs of recovery". As basis they often cite several openly biased (the titles alone are hints) websites.
All these people are in other words convinced that the Courts, having spent several years studying every aspect of the case, are less able to gather evidence - no even incapable of seeing blatantly obvious things - and make objective judgement based on facts than a random group of people with some html skills. They rather trust complete strangers without proven credibilty , "what a man in the pub told me" , than people who - supposedly- have proven to be at least somewhat capable by being appointed judge.
My question is: why ? Why do people think the court consists of blind idiots ? Why are they so willing to believe everything others say without criticism, even if those others obviously have an agenda - as long as what they say goes against the courts ? Is this bigger than the Schiavo case, or is this an isolated incident ?