Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Stacyhs]

Briefly, I am agnostic because there are things in the physical world that I struggle with as much as I do trying to comprehend the existence of a God. Virtually all of the evidence relevant to this discussion falls on the side of science and evolution, but I have questions and life experiences that create an element of doubt about me being here simply by chance.

I understand that feeling. It's the part of us that wants to believe for various reasons. Those include the "what if I'm wrong?" doubts, the comfort of having answers and the comfort of believing a superior being is looking out for us, protecting us. How many of us would choose to have no parents over having one? There is a reason God is referred to as Our Heavenly Father. It's not by chance.

 

[Stacyhs]

This is why I hate the term Agnostic. Allow me to break this down. This comes from the ancient Greek. Gnosticism which means having knowledge of or knowing. Agnostic simply means Not having knowledge of.
One can identify to be:
1. gnostic theist. (One who knows there is a God.)
2. agnostic theist (You believe in God but you don't know)
3. agnostic atheist (You don't believe in a God, but you don't know)
4. gnostic atheist (You don't believe in a God and you know it)


I would describe most atheists as agnostic atheists. This is how I would describe myself if I used the word agnostic atheist. I don't know there isn't a god I just reject the claims of there being a God without evidence and a coherent argument. I see the word agnostic to be a a bit of a misnomer. Usually it's atheiests who just don't want use the word atheist. Atheism has been vilified since it poses a threat to religion.

That is my view, too. I used to say I was an agnostic until I realized I was really simply avoiding saying atheist because atheism has such a negative connotation in my society. Now, I have no problem saying I'm an atheist.

 

[Stacyhs]

I think it's a valid and relevant subject to bring up and discuss - so long as the thread doesn't morph into an in-depth discussion on theism and religious faith systems!

And to expand upon the theme of there being nothing really left to discuss about the Knox/Sollecito case itself, I'd disagree. Of course the heart of the matter is resolved, but there's still an interesting debate to be had about the legal/judicial rulings and ramifications. And there's also Knox's criminal slander conviction and the application to the ECHR. In addition, there are the ongoing (but withering on the vine) satellite trials, and it will also be worth following any accountability/disciplinary processes within the Italian police and judicial communities.

On top of all that, there's the possibility that Guede - the one person who definitely knows what happened - will talk about things when he gets released, although I remain highly confident that he will never tell the truth and continue to seek to (falsely) minimise his role in the murder and make insinuations about Knox, Sollecito and/or others.

Guede will never tell the truth. It's not in his interests to do so. He will continue to claim his innocence and blame Amanda and Raffaele as long as there are idiots who fall for his lies as seen by comments left on his FB page.

 

[Stacyhs]

It's a pity Mez' attackers didn't apply the same principles to Mez.

It's a pity you can't admit your comment was a misleading partial truth. It would be a big step in your personal growth.

 

[acbytesla]

That is my view, too. I used to say I was an agnostic until I realized I was really simply avoiding saying atheist because atheism has such a negative connotation in my society. Now, I have no problem saying I'm an atheist.

Me too. We share a similar experience.

Agnostic seems both wishy washy and not accurate. I'm not saying there isn't a God with my fingers in my ears refusing to consider a scientifically provable assertion that one exists. I'd be excited to read that Nobel Prize winning paper proving that theory. Bring it on!

All I'm saying is prove it to me. So far every claim of a diety doesn't come within a mile of clearing that bar. I'm still open though. But, the moment a God claimant leans on what has been the universally required component, that being "faith, " it's done". I'm not wishing or praying for a delusional reason to believe anything.

 

[Stacyhs]

Stand up?

Raff walks into a restaurant and orders.

"And what would Sir like to drink?"

"Chateau knives du Pape, please."

"You mean Chateauneuf du Papes?"

"You heard."

---

Father Christmas is out delivering presents in the deepest, whitest, driven snow (although who knows who drove it there?), when he trips over a mound of reindeer dung and gets muck all over his bright red costume.

"Who's responsible for this?" he barks, asking his reindeer one by one.

"Not me," says Donner.

"Nor I," says Blitzen.

Then Santa comes to Dalla Vedova (for it is he). Dalla Vedova shuffles his feet, coughs, blushes to his roots and says...







"Rudy did it."


-----


Knock, knock

"Who's there?"

"Amanda, who?"

"Amanda knocks."

______



Raff is throwing a party this weekend. Bring your own knives.

------

What is Raff's favourite fruit?

Manga.

-------


What do you call an FOA professional rock climber?

A window shill.

_____


Amanda is throwing a party this weekend. Bring your own rocks.

____


Papa Raff: What would you like for Christmas, son?"

Raff: " A knife".

Papa: I gave you a knife last Christmas and looka ata whata happens, eh? What's the madda wit' you, hey? Gotta no respect.

Raff: It's all your fault Papa! If you'd let me have those Marilyn Manson tickets when I asked you for them, I wouldn't have ended up at that poxy classical music concert and met that ...<sfx O Sole Mio>

__

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, you have been a great audience <fx dodges rotten fruit and hooligan heckling from the back.

What do you call a person who photoshops disgusting and false images of an acquitted person and posts them on the internet for attention?

Vixatious.

 

[Stacyhs]

Does he still and can we verify that?

I'm sure a Mormon would give a different answer than I would.

 

[Stacyhs]

Me too. We share a similar experience.

Agnostic seems both wishy washy and not accurate. I'm not saying there isn't a God with my fingers in my ears refusing to consider a scientifically provable assertion that one exists. I'd be excited to read that Nobel Prize winning paper proving that theory. Bring it on!

All I'm saying is prove it to me. So far every claim of a diety doesn't come within a mile of clearing that bar. I'm still open though. But, the moment a God claimant leans on what has been the universally required component, that being "faith, " it's done". I'm not wishing or praying for a delusional reason to believe anything.

We are in total agreement.

 

[acbytesla]

Guede will never tell the truth. It's not in his interests to do so. He will continue to claim his innocence and blame Amanda and Raffaele as long as there are idiots who fall for his lies as seen by comments left on his FB page.

I agree. He'll stick to the present story for many years if not for the rest of his life. I still can imagine that some day in a very distant future him admitting his crime fully. But my guess is that people rightfully so would disbelieve him them. I certainly would be as suspicious of his motives then as I am now. And could you blame anyone with that view?

 

[LondonJohn]

What do you call a person who photoshops disgusting and false images of an acquitted person and posts them on the internet for attention?

Vixatious.

And the hilarious irony in that silly post of Vixen's is that the French wine appellation in that first "joke" (especially given that the "joke" depended upon the spelling/misspelling of the appellation) is actually spelled "Chateauneuf-du-Pape" (or "Châteauneuf-du-Pape" if one wants to add the circumflex accent for maximum precision), and not "Chateauneuf du Papes". It's emblematic of the sloppy research and abandonment of attention to detail that plagues the work of so very many pro-guilt commentators. And unintentionally (and embarrassingly) hilarious into the bargain

And not only that, when precision IS employed in a pro-guilt "argument", it's almost always either wrong or misinterpreted. A classic example of course is the blood/water partial print on the bathmat, and its comparison with the reference prints of Sollecito and Guede. And the rather sad parroting of things like "abundant DNA" of Sollecito being found on the bra clasp, and relative dilution sensitivities of Luminol and TMB (on both of which issues pro-guilt commentators fail to understand the wider context and relevance of the numbers, how they apply in the real world to this case, and what their limitations are).

 

[LondonJohn]

I agree. He'll stick to the present story for many years if not for the rest of his life. I still can imagine that some day in a very distant future him admitting his crime fully. But my guess is that people rightfully so would disbelieve him them. I certainly would be as suspicious of his motives then as I am now. And could you blame anyone with that view?

I actually wouldn't be surprised if Guede has by now actually managed to convince himself that he only played a minor and subsidiary role in the attack and murder. That's a not-unknown phenomenon in such circumstances. The mind can play tricks on people, especially those with certain personality disorders (as I suspect Guede has).

But regardless of whether or not that's the case, I fully agree that it's hugely unlikely that Guede will ever tell the unvarnished truth about that night. He simply has nothing to gain by doing so (unless he has some sort of catharsis and need to come clean), and potentially he has things to lose. I think he will long ago have evaluated that his best-case option is to stick rigidly to his story, and let the germ ferment in the minds of the media and public that a) he was only peripherally involved, and b) he was in some way a "decent" person in admitting his (limited) responsibility, taking his (limited) share of the blame, and apologising for his (limited) actions.

 

[bagels]

I actually wouldn't be surprised if Guede has by now actually managed to convince himself that he only played a minor and subsidiary role in the attack and murder. That's a not-unknown phenomenon in such circumstances. The mind can play tricks on people, especially those with certain personality disorders (as I suspect Guede has).

But regardless of whether or not that's the case, I fully agree that it's hugely unlikely that Guede will ever tell the unvarnished truth about that night. He simply has nothing to gain by doing so (unless he has some sort of catharsis and need to come clean), and potentially he has things to lose. I think he will long ago have evaluated that his best-case option is to stick rigidly to his story, and let the germ ferment in the minds of the media and public that a) he was only peripherally involved, and b) he was in some way a "decent" person in admitting his (limited) responsibility, taking his (limited) share of the blame, and apologising for his (limited) actions.

Just think, if Amanda Knox was out of town that week visiting her aunt in Germany, Guede would have had to stick to his "left handed stranger did it while I was listening to my ipod" story that nobody would believe, and all of us would have billions of neurons spared to put to purposes other than the properties of luminol vs TMB and LCN DNA protocols and the intricacies of paragraph 1 vs 2 acquittals in Italy.

 

[andreajo]

Apart from those who go into the priesthood, get ordained, or go sit under a holy tree to mediate on their navel, for most people, religious belief is an acknowledgement of their culture. Their identify, if you like. My Jewish friends call themselves Jewish and and my Muslim friends identify strongly with Muslim culture, even though one of them, a brilliant, talented barrister at a leading Lincolns Inn chambers, is a an avowed atheist and adores Christopher Hitchen's mocking views of Christianity and Islam.

My Jewish acquaintances, also mostly atheist, are forever pointing out they are Jewish.

So, yeah, you need to separate the social from the spiritual.

It is ridiculous to aliken those able to see the pair are probably guilty as fundamentalist bigots.

Certainly. But it is quite reasonable to point out weakness in analytical reasoning in the PG position. I am hypothesizing that many PGP are suppressing analytical reasoning in favour of empathetic reasoning. The summary of the study I cited shows that those who hold religious beliefs tend to do that.

An example that might apply to this case: Can empathy for the plight of the Kercher family and a desire to show solidarity with them by publicly expressing a PG position undermine one's ability to apply intellectual rigour to an objective analysis of the evidence?

If you think that Dr. Peter Gill's opinion should be dismissed because you believe he is a paid shill, then the answer in your case is probably 'yes'. If you think that the bathmat footprint is certainly Raffaele's, then the answer is probably 'yes'. Or if you think the climb is undoable. And so on.

Vixen, are you really only at 'possibly guilty' and not 'certainly guilty'? From the tone of some of your posts, I'd've thought you were immovably certain.

 

[Bill Williams]

Vixen, are you really only at 'possibly guilty' and not 'certainly guilty'? From the tone of some of your posts, I'd've thought you were immovably certain.

The content of Vixen's photoshopping campaign leaves little doubt where she stands on this.

 

[analemma]

OK, my source was wrong. Fair enough.

Vixen is starting to approach Emily Litella credibility.

 

[acbytesla]

Vixen is starting to approach Emily Litella credibility.

Now that's not fair.



to Emily.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Don't tell me, the three co-authors of the book are all in on the conspiracy to frame the kids.

What generally happens, and what happened here, is that there is a single, false (oftentimes leaked, to poison the well and make convictions easier) news report. Then, other news agencies or blogs pick up this information and repeat it, never bothering to check its accuracy or cross-validate with other, more reliable sources. So you now have "multiple sources" that contain false information.

Then gullible people on the internet who don't have much life experience with these things and don't understand that sometimes tabloids can be false, eat it up without bothering to think how reasonable it is and what actual empirical evidence is available. They may or may not join an internet hate cult devoted to smearing the reputation of two innocents. They may or may not be associated with authors who write books about the murder for a quick money grab, and thus have a financial incentive to lie. They may (as a form of projection) then accuse all of the world renowned experts who have unequivocally stated the evidence was misleading and faulty of being "whores" who accept payment for testimony. And published papers and books apparently. Ironic eh?

These crazy people who don't know how to evaluate evidence properly can be ignored though. They rant and rave and gossip a lot, but there is never any substance to their posts.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

OK, my source was wrong. Fair enough.

Do you think your sources never being correct about anything may be reason enough to start rejecting the reliability of the information you receive from them? Do you think it may be a wise idea to check the accuracy of the information you receive before you repeat it on here? Do you realize that when you repeat incorrect information, it becomes a "factoid" that gets repeated ad nauseam and that is exactly how false information gets spread -- and this is how "multiple sources" report the same nonsense?

Do you think top experts in their fields who publish papers in the top forensic journal in the world (specifically about this case) may be a more accurate source of information than your sources who are always wrong? Do you think your sources being wrong (since they have been wrong about everything else) is a more likely explanation than every DNA expert in the world being a paid shill for Amanda Knox?

Some things to think about, Vixen. Although it is amusing to me you need this spelled out for you after all these years.

 

[acbytesla]

What generally happens, and what happened here, is that there is a single, false (oftentimes leaked, to poison the well and make convictions easier) news report. Then, other news agencies or blogs pick up this information and repeat it, never bothering to check its accuracy or cross-validate with other, more reliable sources. So you now have "multiple sources" that contain false information.

Then gullible people on the internet who don't have much life experience with these things and don't understand that sometimes tabloids can be false, eat it up without bothering to think how reasonable it is and what actual empirical evidence is available. They may or may not join an internet hate cult devoted to smearing the reputation of two innocents. They may or may not be associated with authors who write books about the murder for a quick money grab, and thus have a financial incentive to lie. They may (as a form of projection) then accuse all of the world renowned experts who have unequivocally stated the evidence was misleading and faulty of being "whores" who accept payment for testimony. And published papers and books apparently. Ironic eh?

These crazy people who don't know how to evaluate evidence properly can be ignored though. They rant and rave and gossip a lot, but there is never any substance to their posts.

It is amazing isn't it? I wish that schools taught kids to be skeptics and critical thinking skills from day 1 on. It's absolutely flabbergasting to me just how so many people don't know how to think critically. It's a discipline more than it is a measure of intelligence. Although I do believe it leads to a sharper mind.

 

[andreajo]

It is amazing isn't it? I wish that schools taught kids to be skeptics and critical thinking skills from day 1 on. It's absolutely flabbergasting to me just how so many people don't know how to think critically. It's a discipline more than it is a measure of intelligence. Although I do believe it leads to a sharper mind.

I wish I knew how schools could turn magical thinkers into scientific thinkers. I don't have the textbook from my Scientific Thinking course in front of me, but I do recall reading that it's difficult to teach and learn scientific thinking. Students who have established thinking patterns that are not critical or scientific do not easily learn to think critically and scientifically.

I have met some very bright people who don't work very hard at thinking. Critical and scientific thinking, however, requires time and discipline. You need to be willing to ruthlessly examine your own ideas and to take the time to do the research to ensure that your positions are as correct as they can be given the current state of the peer reviewed research and the evidence available.

Kevin_Lowe commented repeatedly on the training and discipline required for scientific and critical thinking in the early threads discussing this case. Here's a sample of what he had to say in the Continuation thread (Part 2, I suppose) when the time of death based on the empty duodenum was under discussion:

Kevin_Lowe on constructive and destructive thinking

Guilters spend a lot of time on purely constructive thinking. They survey a lot of data (sometimes without worrying too much about it's source, verifiability or accuracy) and they weave it together into a story. They act like scientists who are trying to come up with a new theory, in a way, except that unlike scientists they don't check their "facts" against the peer-reviewed literature.​