Latest Comments

If this man is not allowed in the courtroom with a leather jacket and shades, then justice has truly failed us.

I want Nicolas Cage to play Nicolas Cage in a move.

Posted on Feb 4th
re: Barbara Walters Will Defend Woody Allen Now (61 comments)

It seemed like that was mostly to counteract the stuff people say about Woody and Soon-Yi, as well as to establish that the marriage was already breaking up at some point from both sides, meaning that neither side was a “victim” in the matter. Given that the stuff with Soon-Yi is Allen’s personal life, that’s also irrelevant and shaming Allen for it is a similar move to shaming Mia. That is to say, most of that should be thrown out when considering the Dylan matter. Either way, I’d say it was more of a quarter of the argument he was making; certainly not a majority. He probably put it up front to get it out of the way because it was a weaker point that we should just get over, but, the mistake is that putting it up front means that’s the first impression. People are immediately going to react to that portion and then are already against the article and not giving the rest of it any real thought.

Posted on Feb 4th
re: Barbara Walters Will Defend Woody Allen Now (61 comments)

This is all extremely frustrating. Investigators, doctors, and experts who actually worked on the case couldn’t even come to an agreement on if it did or didn’t happen, but everyone on the internet KNOWS what happened, despite not even being there and the grand majority of which don’t have any expertise.

I don’t know what happened, but I’m able to say that I don’t know. How can i? An article comes out with all comes of stuff that supports one side, and then another comes out and tells you a bunch of stuff that the first article left out and tells you why that first article isn’t to be believed, then an expert comes and says that article isn’t any good, then another expert comes and says that first expert is wrong, and then another expert comes and says that expert is biased, and then another expert comes and say none of them know what they’re doing, and how am I supposed to know who to trust? If 5 different doctors all tell me I have a disease I can’t even pronounce, how can I say “Oh, well, I read a lot of stuff on the internet, so I know that doctor is right.” No. I haven’t been to medical school. I don’t know this stuff. If they each say the other is wrong, I have no way of knowing which one is actually right, if any of them even are.

People are starting with the assumption that something did or did not happen, and then proceed to address how good or bad something is depending upon how it aligns with whichever side they’ve chosen. People HATE to be wrong. HATE IT. There are studies – published studies – that a good portion of people will not change their minds on a matter when presented with credible evidence, and then will not even change their minds when they are actually told, and shown, that they are categorically wrong.

I liked the Weide article myself because it seemed fairly unbiased. It was, for the most part, offering points that defended Woody, but that’s primarily because you hear stuff that condemns him. Someone can reasonably play devil’s advocate to try to balance that out. It’s like I’d hear back in 2004-2008. “Oh, the Daily Show can’t be trusted to be impartial. They’re always making fun of Republicans.” Of course they are, they’re the ones in charge at the time, so they’re the most visible ones. Something can be fairly unbiased, even if it makes a point against one side, if it’s largely acting as a counter-weight to what seems like a loaded environment. Though I will admit that’s a pretty subjective judgment. But, things like that article about the botched investigation. Alright, he’s an expert, I’ll listen to what he says, but if he’s wrong, how am I supposed to know? But he’s obviously saying some reaching things and showing a bias against Woody.

“It would’ve been the perfect time to do it because it was the worst time to do it.” What? No. That just means it would’ve been equally good and bad, which means it’s equally likely to have and have not happened, and therefore is irrelevant. And that’s assuming Woody even had this skill-set to pull such a thing off. It’s just taking a situation and reversing it, which you can do with anything because the glass can be half full and half empty at the same time. You could just as easily say Mia deliberately created suspicious things in her accusations such as the stop-starts in the tape in order to create an opening for Allen supports to gain momentum and become vocal against her so that she could play the victim of the people and curry favor that way. You can’t just say “Well, Woody’s a child molester because child molesters are sneaky and if you were sneaky you could’ve done it so he’s a child molester.” That’s circular reasoning. And the ending was just cheap. “Well, lots of people feel like giving Allen the benefit of the doubt, which is the good and reasonable thing to do, but let’s keep his victim Dylan in mind.” or “I don’t know what happened, but if it was investigated today, there might be a different outcome where Dylan got justice against the man who molested her. Which is Woody Allen.”

Man, no one’s going to read all this, but it’s so frustrating that I feel like I need to vent.

Lots of times I find those “Distracting Beautiful Women” joke pictures to be pretty lame, but this time, I read the comment and said to myself “Terrier? What’s he talking about?”