Truth is an offense

[death metal black metal]

Pick which is true -- only one, as each source contradicts the other:

(1) http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann
(2) http://crime.about.com/od/death/p/x14_willingham.htm

People choose what they want to believe.

They pick the news station that matches their beliefs.

They read only the sources that match their beliefs.

Truth is not even a goal; it is an offensive concept.

We all live in separate worlds, refractions from the shattered glass of a burning cathedral.

[Sammaellofi]

It is almost to the point where one has to say "Which of these is the least comfortable for me to accept" and then realize that such a choice is probably the truthful one. 

What's even more frustrating is how some people like to talk about themselves so much, mostly building up their own image with lies, in hopes that other people will think these things about them and maybe repeat them.  That is the world we live in.  Where people go to look for comfortable opinions, while they spend their time honing their own image.  The world is not real to them.  They think that saying things enough makes them true.


And on a trivial note, the second link doesn't add up (I read the second first), despite the constant claims of evidence.  It seems too anecdotal, like "This is the reason this guy is an asshole and the other story is wrong", but thanks to the nature of the articles, no truth is here to be found.

[cet30048]

Good point..

People always usually rely on their pretentious belief systems whenever it comes down to deciding truth, problem seems is that they always must come to form an absolute from it, and ignore all other arguments against it being that it is alien to their own. Forming a self opinionated argument today without influence of major media sources or moronic social trends is blasphemous to our culture in America, and almost always will be rejected and continuously pushed into taking either a positive or negative view of whatever the subject may be.

[Ildjicide]

"Truth is an offense"

I think that's a Metallica lyric, regardless, it's absolutely true IF the truth challenges the ego. People will resort to unimaginable acts of stupidity to preserve their egos, which is why we must transcend the ego before we can see truth in its purest form. This is another limit to be pushed - a goal in life rather than an absolute physical state.

[AnHero]

At one point, Jackson [prosecutor] showed Gregory Exhibit No. 60—a photograph of an Iron Maiden poster that had hung in Willingham’s [defendant] house—and asked the psychologist to interpret it. “This one is a picture of a skull, with a fist being punched through the skull,” Gregory said; the image displayed “violence” and “death.” Gregory looked at photographs of other music posters owned by Willingham. “There’s a hooded skull, with wings and a hatchet,” Gregory continued. “And all of these are in fire, depicting—it reminds me of something like Hell. And there’s a picture—a Led Zeppelin picture of a falling angel. . . . I see there’s an association many times with cultive-type of activities. A focus on death, dying. Many times individuals that have a lot of this type of art have interest in satanic-type activities.”

Not only do people believe what they want to believe, they try to force it on others, through hearsay, trying to correlate coincidental events, character assassination, thriving on preconceived notions, etc.

[Gargos]

"Truth is an offense"

I think that's a Metallica lyric, regardless, it's absolutely true IF the truth challenges the ego. People will resort to unimaginable acts of stupidity to preserve their egos, which is why we must transcend the ego before we can see truth in its purest form. This is another limit to be pushed - a goal in life rather than an absolute physical state.

Absolutely beautiful. People will react to abrupt changes with hostility and resentment because it jeopardizes their easygoing way of life. "WHAT? YOU'RE TELLING ME I SHOULD GO DONATE BLOOD OR DO VOLUNTEER WORK? THAT'S RETARDED, WHAT A WASTE OF TIME". In this, the person would rather sit on their ass all day and let their TV entertain their useless brain instead of getting up and putting out some effort to create a positive change in something. I think one of the biggest problems nowadays is that everybody has lost their community, or desire to have one. Working together creates positive change, whereas working seperately makes one person rely on himself for support, which eventually leads to stress and hatred. Completing a project or something with other members is much more beneficial to everyone, and can be a great social activity.

[Conservationist]

http://www.corsicanadailysun.com/thewillinghamfiles/local_story_241210447.html

Statement by the Judge -- lucid.

[The Timekeeper]

Often the truth is most offensive when you introduce to a person a piece of information that is contrary to what they believe.  Or what they might like to believe.  Usually people will call you a dick or demand that you "shut up".  I wouldn't let this be a deterrent though, because if you say nothing at all, the stupidity will continue and things continually worse.

[Jim Necroslaughter]

And on a trivial note, the second link doesn't add up (I read the second first), despite the constant claims of evidence.  It seems too anecdotal, like "This is the reason this guy is an asshole and the other story is wrong", but thanks to the nature of the articles, no truth is here to be found.

you seem to be implying that anecdotal evidence is less truthful than other kinds of evidence.  you're out-thinking yourself and relying on "science" to tell you what truth is.  I was on a jury that tried four defendants on several counts of attempted homicide a few years ago, and anecdotal evidence is EVERYTHING.  we did a blind vote when we began deliberation, and the majority was guilty across the board, the few things we had to hash out were trivial technicalities like ballistics.  thank god we only deliberated for 12 hours or so and sent those bastards down the river.  stop thinking "does the 'science' make sense?" and start thinking "does the STORY make sense?"  GUILTY!

[My AIDS, Your Arse]

Truth is offensive, it's why bored people who play video games all the fucking day think so highly of video games. Any potential evidence that it could be harmful, like television, and they get on the defensive, as if you're attacking them themselves.

Absolutely beautiful. People will react to abrupt changes with hostility and resentment because it jeopardizes their easygoing way of life. "WHAT? YOU'RE TELLING ME I SHOULD GO DONATE BLOOD OR DO VOLUNTEER WORK? THAT'S RETARDED, WHAT A WASTE OF TIME". In this, the person would rather sit on their ass all day and let their TV entertain their useless brain instead of getting up and putting out some effort to create a positive change in something. I think one of the biggest problems nowadays is that everybody has lost their community, or desire to have one. Working together creates positive change, whereas working seperately makes one person rely on himself for support, which eventually leads to stress and hatred. Completing a project or something with other members is much more beneficial to everyone, and can be a great social activity.

'Spergin - You're on your way to getting it, but you're only seeing the outer symptoms.

What I see here in what you described is an inability of people to transcend and use ego to serve themselves and others. They live to serve ego instead.

Often the truth is most offensive when you introduce to a person a piece of information that is contrary to what they believe.  Or what they might like to believe.  Usually people will call you a dick or demand that you "shut up".  I wouldn't let this be a deterrent though, because if you say nothing at all, the stupidity will continue and things continually worse.

This may have to do with the way you present the information. You probably already know how to, but I like to double-check:

Don't present it with the attitude of "AHA I HAVE EVIDENCE THAT GOES AGAINST YOUR WAY OF LIFE!!!" if you don't want them to react to the information negatively. You need to feign neutrality and ask questions as in the Socratic method. Otherwise neither of you learn anything, and you only piss people off. Don't act too dumb, but ask the questions of a genuinely-interested person in a way that will expose the flaws of their own thoughts while sharing this information with them. Practice makes perfect.

In the context of some offensive/truthful information -- If they're confused or mad, be on their side:

"Oh, yeah, I thought Obama would be a promising president as well, but more and more people think he's just all hype. Bells and whistles. They might be right. Hmm.. it's worth looking into."

Let them poke holes in their own beliefs, and patch them up with something that works. You may gain new insights in your own beliefs and thoughts as well. This is more helpful to people that are inclined to seek knowledge though.

Too many people like to assert their beliefs a little zealously, and as a result, push people away. You have to be like an alluring flower to whom bees flock of their own accord and delight.

[wEEman33]

Interesting court case; thanks for bringing this to light.

Just goes to show how the judicial system, like all human endeavors, is prone to mistakes in judgment, whether or not its leaders refuse to admit so.

[Sammaellofi]

And on a trivial note, the second link doesn't add up (I read the second first), despite the constant claims of evidence.  It seems too anecdotal, like "This is the reason this guy is an asshole and the other story is wrong", but thanks to the nature of the articles, no truth is here to be found.

you seem to be implying that anecdotal evidence is less truthful than other kinds of evidence.  you're out-thinking yourself and relying on "science" to tell you what truth is.  I was on a jury that tried four defendants on several counts of attempted homicide a few years ago, and anecdotal evidence is EVERYTHING.  we did a blind vote when we began deliberation, and the majority was guilty across the board, the few things we had to hash out were trivial technicalities like ballistics.  thank god we only deliberated for 12 hours or so and sent those bastards down the river.  stop thinking "does the 'science' make sense?" and start thinking "does the STORY make sense?"  GUILTY!

You are giving me more credit than you think.  My point was the the article seemed like a propaganda report, listing all the reasons why other people are wrong with him, arranged in order of category.  My problem with it was not the evidence, but whether the reporter was being honest and had an agenda.  You asked me if the story made sense, and I thought it didn't, though I guess it is still very possible.

If the things they said in the article were true and confirmed, I would have had no trouble believing in physical evidence. 

And by the way, I don't think bullistics are trivial.

[Jim Necroslaughter]

You are giving me more credit than you think.  My point was the the article seemed like a propaganda report, listing all the reasons why other people are wrong with him, arranged in order of category.  My problem with it was not the evidence, but whether the reporter was being honest and had an agenda.  You asked me if the story made sense, and I thought it didn't, though I guess it is still very possible.

If the things they said in the article were true and confirmed, I would have had no trouble believing in physical evidence. 

And by the way, I don't think bullistics are trivial.

fair enough.  I understand what you're saying is slightly different from what I thought you were saying.  I'm not trying to bust balls, I just think stories can get you just as close to the truth as anything else, which is something people don't seem to buy into that much, reserving physical evidence and science to tell them truth.  I know I'm using the most obvious example in the world, but just think of the OJ Simpson trial.  the story made sense but he got off on bullshit physical evidence aspects.

'trivial' might have been too strong of a word, and don't get me wrong we were good jurors and did our due diligence despite the fact that the vast majority of us knew they were guilty at the beginning of deliberation.  by all means we went through all the evidence, even ballistics.  it's just that in this case, it didn't change a thing (and I knew it wouldn't from the get-go) - see, it would have been a shame if some slight aberration in balistics, or what have you, caused a juror to become skeptical even in the face of other overwhelming evidence.  without expalining the entire case to you, you just have to trust me, in this context, ballistics were trivial compared to a mountain of other evidence and testimony.  I mean one of the defendants dropped his cell phone at the scene of the crime - FAIL!

[Saif al-Fathi]

The two articles show the great difference between optimism and realism.  The first is liberal in tone and places the man in the center of his situation; the second is truthful, simple, and short.  Of course, people do not want to accept the truth, but even if they resist, it is the duty of a proper man to give it to them regardless of their protests.  Even if they do not externally admit to the truth having an effect, it may persist in some minds thereby making your efforts somewhat worthwhile.  The Socratic Method seems like a rather interesting method to use to expose an opponent's faulty argument provided it is used intelligently.  At other times, the truth should simply be used as a bludgeon.

On the convicted himself:
It is good that he was executed, but the method may have been far too civilized.  Executions need to be harsh while also seen to have a deterring effect.  Kindly euthanizing a human being is not going to have as big of an effect as a stoning or a beheading.

[Nile_577]

"Human kind cannot bear very much reality" - T.S Eliot

Still surprised this isn't someone's signature.