Casey Anthony.

[Terra Branford]

So you mean to say the money spent publicizing it, harassing both sides, and debating it over this lengthy time, was a good use of resources? Skewed view...

If you think it that way, isn't all Television besides news a waste of money? All that TV you watch you don't even need, and yet you don't mind that waste of money? News will never be a waste of money, especially when it comes to putting a murderer away or setting an innocent free.

ANd yes, but of course then I actually have an attachment to them. Any one I don't care about its just that, someone I don't care about. And even still if someone offed my sister, I'd simply laugh my arse off about it and dance on her grave.

Oh I have the skewed view? Really?

So you could care less about murder, murderers etc because you don't care about the people they hurt? That's just...wrong.

 

[CassinoChips]

If you think it that way, isn't all Television besides news a waste of money? All that TV you watch you don't even need, and yet you don't mind that waste of money? News will never be a waste of money, especially when it comes to putting a murderer away or setting an innocent free.

That's a strawman. The relative worth of TV isn't in question, and Cable news as compared to the rest of the programming are worlds apart.

Except in one area: ratings. If you ask the networks that carried the trial, or reported on it, if they felt it boosted their ratings, they would certainly say it was worth the money.

So you could care less about murder, murderers etc because you don't care about the people they hurt? That's just...wrong.

No, that's just human nature, and Gavin's just more honest than the rest of us when it comes to this sort of thing. You don't care about the guy here in my town that got killed a couple months ago, because you don't know him and have no attachment to him, therefore no reason to care. If I told you about it, you might think "Oh, that's sad," or something similar, but I doubt you'd remember it as more than a passing thought the next day.

 

[Yaoi Master Gavin]

If you think it that way, isn't all Television besides news a waste of money? All that TV you watch you don't even need, and yet you don't mind that waste of money? News will never be a waste of money, especially when it comes to putting a murderer away or setting an innocent free.

Yeah...not gonna bother with a fallacy.

So you could care less about murder, murderers etc because you don't care about the people they hurt? That's just...wrong.

It's human nature, you simply think its wrong because the morals instilled in you say it is. Mine on the other hand shrug and say "...Whatever."

 

[Terra Branford]

That's a strawman. The relative worth of TV isn't in question, and Cable news as compared to the rest of the programming are worlds apart.

Though it had only been an example:

If he cares for the waste of money in publicizing, "harassing" etc for this, he cares for the waste of money in all areas since he even cares for it, though it seems a case of hypocrisy. In was not a strawman argument, far from it actually.

Except in one area: ratings. If you ask the networks that carried the trial, or reported on it, if they felt it boosted their ratings, they would certainly say it was worth the money.

Oh? Cannot the same be said for this case then?

No, that's just human nature, and Gavin's just more honest than the rest of us when it comes to this sort of thing. You don't care about the guy here in my town that got killed a couple months ago, because you don't know him and have no attachment to him, therefore no reason to care. If I told you about it, you might think "Oh, that's sad," or something similar, but I doubt you'd remember it as more than a passing thought the next day.

Human nature not to care for a life? Sounds twisted to me, and most of who I know actually care, so I don't know about it being "human nature" to not care about a life that was taken and then say "The way I see it, its the end of another potential population increase on an already overpopulated world. " That "it" was a living person.

Please don't assume things of my character, Terrible Terry Tate. Had I known a death occurred in your town, I would care as I care when a life is cut short by murder or illness or the like. Memorizing every single death is impossible, of course, but that doesn't mean I don't care for the death that occurs in this world.

And I actually do think about the death I know about a lot and how that person will never get a chance to do what they wanted to do, or have friends, or a job, travel the world or anything else.

Yeah...not gonna bother with a fallacy.

Care to elaborate on how it was a fallacy? You shouldn't post words that doesn't even apply to the situation or to the person you are trying to tack it to. Unless you are a hypocrite, it was not a fallacy. Its easy to claim so, but harder to prove.

It's human nature, you simply think its wrong because the morals instilled in you say it is. Mine on the other hand shrug and say "...Whatever."

You have a misguided view then, Gavin. Its human nature to care for another. I have no idea who "instilled" the notion that its human nature to not care for someone being murdered or that a murderer could be set free, but here's hoping you don't ever become a judge or a member of the jury on a murder case, or even a cop.

 

[CassinoChips]

Somebody was comparing this case to another case (one that I know nothing about), but it brought to mind another case that is a much closer comparison.

For those of you who are old enough to remember, think back to the JonBenet Ramsey case. Everyone swore up and down that the parents were the ones who killed her. They were never convicted (never even arrested, if memory serves) of anything in the case, and everyone thought that was a travesty of justice and that the judicial system was broken, etc. etc.

But then there's this: http://www.9news.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=95438&catid=339

Reason #4509508 we do not convict people based on A) public opinion, or B) what people think has to have happened. That's why we have a court of law. Because you're less likely to fall victim to a mob lynching if there's only 12 people who are sequestered.

If he cares for the waste of money in publicizing, "harassing" etc for this, he cares for the waste of money in all areas since he even cares for it, though it seems a case of hypocrisy.

It's amazing how little sense that makes. Pretty sure most fictional television programs don't "harass" people. And making money off the publicization of the misfortune of a real person, as opposed to making money off the publicization of the misfortune of a fictional person are two wildly different things. Therefore, the two exist independently of one another, therefore the argument is irrelevant, therefore it is a strawman.

Oh? Cannot the same be said for this case then?

The same what? That they wanted ratings? Yeah, that's... pretty much their business.

Please don't assume things of my character, Terrible Terry Tate.

Forgive me, I assumed you were a regular human being that compartmentalized emotions and prioritized their caring like... well... a regular human being. I forgot you were special. Again, thinking it's a sad thing and actually caring are two vastly different things. Like you said, actually memorializing every death you hear about is impossible. You care about the ones that actually matter to you.

 

[Naoto Shirogane]

Terra.

My aunt and Grandmother died.

Dose this affect you in anyway? No. It shouldnt. You did not know them. so you have really no reason to care. You might look at it and say "oh...thats sad." and like. give me a prayer but in all actuality are you going to BReak down and sob because some 46 year old Women died of Cancer?

No. you Should'nt. Because you don't have an emotion attachment to them. Their not trying to say you dont care. Their trying to say is that you shouldnt care TOO much. If it has nothing to do with you. just pass it off. give a quick word of remorse but pretty much go on with life.

anyway.

I think she shouldve been found gulity. It was obvious she killed her (IMO) she went out and partied after the girls death. and still didnt report it. for...what? A MONTH? later. yeah. thats fishy.

plus the fact that she looked up those peices of information...Depsite not putting the fired Gun in her hand(lolmetaphor) certaintly makes her supicious.

Infact. there really wasnt much pointed at anyone else I belive. She had the most fingers pointing. with a Gun loaded.

Now im wondering if a week later Some guy will go after her because he belives she ought to have died.....

 

[Tmoo]

Her verdict is irrelevant at this point. Guilty, she would have gone on the death penalty. Innocent, she now faces the wrath of public opinion, left to ostracism by society (of which the court offers her no protection), and will become a pariah. Her resume is tarnished, her reputation is shot to hell, her social life will be rife with people whispering behind her back everywhere she goes. To cement it, her daughter is dead but not forgotten, living on in her memory, if not as a beloved child, then as the curse that turned her life to hell, lingering on with her for the rest of her days. She will be a shell of a person, and I personally revel a bit at the knowledge that she will suffer the consequences of this for years to come.

That's what you get for partying while your daughter is missing. That's what happens when you fail to report her missing for a month. That's what happens when you don't care for a human life under your responsibility enough to even attempt looking for her. If not outright murder, she is guilty of (in my mind) negligent and irresponsible behavior, and the social backlash is an apt punishment. No, death would be too easy a way out for someone like her.

 

[Terra Branford]

Would have posted earlier, but my connection is slow due to storms and its 2:35 and I'm tired. So I gotta go after this.

It's amazing how little sense that makes. Pretty sure most fictional television programs don't "harass" people. And making money off the publicization of the misfortune of a real person, as opposed to making money off the publicization of the misfortune of a fictional person are two wildly different things. Therefore, the two exist independently of one another, therefore the argument is irrelevant, therefore it is a strawman.

I was quoting, and the bolded "this" as in "THIS subject", aka the Casey Anthony case. If it made little sense to you, I think you need to reread it. Or if need be, I will rephrase it.

Since when did you generalize the TV programs down to fiction and assume the discussion was only about fictional television programs? You realize not all TV programs has or is about fiction, right...?

The same what? That they wanted ratings? Yeah, that's... pretty much their business.

No, TTT. Let me see if I can clear myself up.

If other television programs aren't wasting money with their "fictional" shows etc etc, why is it wasting money for news surrounding the Casey Anthony case? Though I agree that it shouldn't have been on all the time and consuming the day that could have used other news, I want to know why Galvin (and you, if you believe it to be so) thinks its a waste of money yet didn't comment on the waste of money other things produce -- for example -- on other money wasting TV shows, which clearly exist. If its down to for the stations to judge its worth, why did you two feel it differently and the need to comment on this being a waste of money? If your point had been missed, rephrase for me, I'll be glad to read it. Otherwise it makes no sense (as you have currently wrote it in post that is) as its all really down to opinion on what's a waste of money anyway! lol

Forgive me, I assumed you were a regular human being that compartmentalized emotions and prioritized their caring like... well... a regular human being. I forgot you were special. Again, thinking it's a sad thing and actually caring are two vastly different things. Like you said, actually memorializing every death you hear about is impossible. You care about the ones that actually matter to you.

'I assumed you were a regular human being' Really TTT?

No, no, no. I think you need to read the post a little better TTT. I clearly stated I care for it ALL, not "the ones that actually matter to you". All of it matters to me. Just because I know not of every SINGLE death that happens doesn't mean I care less or have the "whatever" emotion or the "one less person for the population blahblah" emotion.

Its weird...you two are the first (well, there was five others) I have met thus far in my life of travel, friendships and many forums, websites (I hang on websites where there are 1000+ people on and chat with nearly 300 of them at a time), chats and more, who thinks its "human nature" to not care for a life. It is so very odd.

@Garland:
Yes, I do care. Its human to care. Of course you shouldn't break out into a sob. I never said that or even came close to saying it, they were just words put into my mouth and an assumption of what I meant. I had pointed out Galvin's extremeness on the subject and how he worded it, which is just really messed up to say about someone dying and their possible murderer being set free.

My argument is that it isn't a "waste of resources" to fund the activities to put a murderer behind bars or to set someone free or to let us, American citizens, to know what happens to a murderer who may or may not be set free among others or maybe even around me, a friend or a family member. It certainly isn't a "waste" to cover it on the NEWS channel. The "caring" subject was just a small discussion on the side with Galvin. lol

*That reminds me. The whole purpose in the court room (even the news) is to "debate" and "harass" the other side. The news is there to be just that, NEWS.

Now im wondering if a week later Some guy will go after her because he belives she ought to have died.....

If Bill O'reily opens his mouth about it (remember the doctor?), it just might happen... >.>

 

[Yaoi Master Gavin]

Care to elaborate on how it was a fallacy? You shouldn't post words that doesn't even apply to the situation or to the person you are trying to tack it to. Unless you are a hypocrite, it was not a fallacy. Its easy to claim so, but harder to prove.

TTT already took care of it for me while I was in the shower.

You have a misguided view then, Gavin. Its human nature to care for another. I have no idea who "instilled" the notion that its human nature to not care for someone being murdered or that a murderer could be set free, but here's hoping you don't ever become a judge or a member of the jury on a murder case, or even a cop.

On the contrary, the human being, left to their own devices will choose themselves over anyone else. That means no religion, no morals, no outside influences. That we care for anyone is a product of years of society ingraining within us a desire to care, that it is 'right' to care.

 

[Roland_Deschain]

The thing that doesn't get me is the fact that she didn't report the shit when it first happened. I don't care who you are, but something should happen to you if you go out and party instead of looking for your own kid.

QUOTE]

This line I can not agree more with. Not only the idea that she did not report it, but the idea that she went out and had a good time represents the darkness this women had, and that a lesson should be taught.

 

[Coco]

It's easy to formulate opinions, especially when you're not directly involved in the situation. I'm not going to say if I like how the case turned out, because I only found out about it last night. I did read up on all articles I can find on it from legitimate sources today, because I was curious. Though it was over, I tried to keep an open mind about it.

I read the allegations and the evidences presented by both sides. From the prosecutor's side about the chloroform searches on Google, duct tape, new tattoo, partying, truck of her car, and so on. At first, I was getting emotional and already forming my on conclusion that she was guilty of first-degree murder. But then, defense stated that when the 'accident' occurred, what simply happened was that Casey took that experience and pretended it didn't happen, then started to weave a complex web of lies.

Some have stated that everything points to her and the answer is ridiculously simple. Since those have already been stated, I won't go into those. I was thinking about that, I'm not saying that she's guilty/not guilty but there's always the small possibility that it was an accident. She just...didn't register what had happened. As do some of us, when something embarrassing or hurtful happens, we put it in a tiny box and just try not to think of it. Then, once you do register it, you don't know what to do anymore. This is of course, a much more terrible situation but again, we don't know. We only really know what we are told: from the attorneys, the media, opinions of others, etc. We don't know what kind of person Casey was before the whole thing started, we don't know her. Some people just never mature, they don't rise up to the responsibilities given to them. This is an extreme and horrifying example, but her negligence and immaturity doesn't automatically mean she murdered her daughter.

But then again, undeniably, all evidence points to her. I couldn't agree more with that, some have already elaborated on how premeditated this murder looks like, I see that clearly. It's so difficult to make a sound decision, I'd be terrified if I were part of the jury. This whole case I think just goes to show that it's not whatever is true or false, but what you can prove in court.

Although, I think however flawed the justice system is, it's still better than taking it down and just letting everyone hack out their own definition of justice by themselves. As some have already stated, whatever happens from now, whether it was her who killed her daughter or not, Casey Anthony is being punished and I don't think it will ever end.

 

[Toshiya]

To be honest, I don't think we should even know the details of the case and the outcome.
I don't think we should even know this case exists.

I mean, come on, there are so many cases of murder/manslaughter/attacks these days and most of them are barely even glanced at. On the news over here you'll occasionally hear that somebody's died from a shooting or stabbing in one of the big cities. Then you'll never hear about that particular case again.
Why is this so well publicised in America? Is it because she murdered her child? If so, what makes the murder of a child worse than the murder of anyone else, a murder that doesn't get reported and this much media coverage? We've had a few cases over here attract lots of media attention and it's quite ridiculous. I never understand why they're set apart from other cases.

In relation to the case itself, I can't comment much, because the first time I'd heard of it was this morning when people mentioned it in the shoutbox. I read over a few replies on here and all I can say is, if the evidence of her killing her child was that strong she would have been done for it. Media sensationalises everything - unless you're part of the investigation team you DON'T KNOW what evidence there is or what it means. So saying you're absolutely 100% certain she's guilty of murder is, in my opinion, pretty ridiculous, when you probably only know 10% of the facts.
I, personally, don't care whether she's innocent or guilty. Of course, as other people have said, if it had been a member of my family that had been murdered, I'd care about the killer being convicted. It's a sad case - the little girl died. That's sad. But I'm not going to fret over whether her killer is brought to justice or not. It makes no odds to me. Stuff happens - sometimes, people aren't convicted for things they did do. But sometimes it's the other way round. I've seen cases on the news where people have been released after 15 years in prison with a 'sorry, we had the wrong guy all along'. That's their lives ruined for something they didn't do.
I say trust the jury's ruling on it, they know more about it than you do.

EDIT: I just remembered the death penalty is in place over there as well. Killing her when you're not 100% sure she did it something you absolutely cannot do. It's one thing releasing someone after 15 years of false prison sentence with an apology, it's another thing realising 15 years down the line you killed the wrong person. You can't go, bummer, rewind 15 years and bring her back. And if you DO kill someone for something they didn't do, well, good luck getting out of THAT media circus unscathed. But I'm not going to go into the ethics of the death penalty, my point still stands, the evidence wasn't there, she didn't get locked up or put to death, the jury know more than you - move on!

 

[CassinoChips]

Would have posted earlier, but my connection is slow due to storms and its 2:35 and I'm tired. So I gotta go after this.


I was quoting, and the bolded "this" as in "THIS subject", aka the Casey Anthony case. If it made little sense to you, I think you need to reread it. Or if need be, I will rephrase it.

Since when did you generalize the TV programs down to fiction and assume the discussion was only about fictional television programs? You realize not all TV programs has or is about fiction, right...?

You see how irrelevant to the discussion this side arc is? A good hint that it's a strawman argument.

No, TTT. Let me see if I can clear myself up.

If other television programs aren't wasting money with their "fictional" shows etc etc, why is it wasting money for news surrounding the Casey Anthony case? Though I agree that it shouldn't have been on all the time and consuming the day that could have used other news, I want to know why Galvin (and you, if you believe it to be so) thinks its a waste of money yet didn't comment on the waste of money other things produce -- for example -- on other money wasting TV shows, which clearly exist. If its down to for the stations to judge its worth, why did you two feel it differently and the need to comment on this being a waste of money? If your point had been missed, rephrase for me, I'll be glad to read it. Otherwise it makes no sense (as you have currently wrote it in post that is) as its all really down to opinion on what's a waste of money anyway! lol

You missed or ignored the point. All tv shows are not the same. Making a farce out of a fictional character's life is much less damaging than what has been done to the Anthony family. Reporting the news is one thing, turning something like this into a circus is ludicrous. In that sense, it's a waste of resources. But comparing a news program to other programming is an apples and oranges situation, because they are fundamentally different, with different purposes and goals.

However, if doing what they did got them a rating boost, I'm sure they were more than happy to use their resources for that purpose.

I assumed you were a regular human being' Really TTT?

No, no, no. I think you need to read the post a little better TTT.

I read it fine the first time.

I clearly stated I care for it ALL, not "the ones that actually matter to you". All of it matters to me. Just because I obie not of every SINGLE death that happens doesn't mean I care less or have the "whatever" emotion or the "one less person for the population blahblah" emotion.

So you are fundamentally different than every other person in history?

As a sports fan, I don't care about the outcome of every game in the US. Is it interesting to me? Certainly. Do I actually care about the outcome? Not unless I have a reason to. This is essentially the same concept.

Its weird...you two are the first (well, there was five others) I have met thus far in my life of travel, friendships and many forums, websites (I hang on websites where there are 1000+ people on and chat with nearly 300 of them at a time), chats and more, who thinks its "human nature" to not care for a life. It is so very odd.

As Gavin said, it's human nature to take care of one's self above all else. No one is saying it's not human nature to care about others. It's just not human nature to care about all others, only those to which you have some sort of attachment or connection.

*That reminds me. The whole purpose in the court room (even Yhthe news) is to "debate" and "harass" other side.

No, the purpose of a court of law is to present evidence for and against the defendant. The purpose of a news organization is to present facts. Debating is left to the pundits.

 

[Dee]

I think the jury was not able to convict her for murder without a reasonable doubt because there was no evidence that linked her to it 100%. Then again, I have not been watching the trial like a hawk; nor was I one of the jurors. So really it would be ignorant of me to accuse her of doing something which I cannot prove she did. Yeah, it does look as though she at least had something to do with Caylee's death. I can see why everyone is certainly hopped up over the verdict. *shrug*

 

[Marquis of Granby]

the media gets involved far too much with this stuff. the jury found her not guilty but as a result of heavy media coverage she is most probably guilty in the eyes of the american public and she'll suffer for it. they take what sells and milk it for all its worth, even if that means destroying someone's life.

a bit off topic buttttttt this:

I never understand why they're set apart from other cases.

its the same with the madeleine mccann thingie tho i suspect the parents pushed this on the media in the first place. if not theyre doing it now 4 or 5 (whatever it is) years on. and for me, thats sickening. i know its their daughter and they shouldnt give up hope but the likelihood of her still being alive after this length of time is very slim. we cant say whether theyre guilty of killing her or they had any involvement in the kidnapped but at the end of the day they left 3 very young kids in a strange environment while they nipped out for a drink. they deserve all they get.

 

[Toshiya]

a bit off topic buttttttt this:



its the same with the madeleine mccann thingie tho i suspect the parents pushed this on the media in the first place. if not theyre doing it now 4 or 5 (whatever it is) years on. and for me, thats sickening. i know its their daughter and they shouldnt give up hope but the likelihood of her still being alive after this length of time is very slim. we cant say whether theyre guilty of killing her or they had any involvement in the kidnapped but at the end of the day they left 3 very young kids in a strange environment while they nipped out for a drink. they deserve all they get.

I know, then they milked it and got loads of money for that daft book that was released.
It's because she went missing on holiday, if she'd gone missing in England or she'd been Portuguese and gone missing in Portugal the most they'd have got was a few policemen trying to track her and a couple of local announcements that she was missing.

Likewise this should have been local news if anything, it doesn't deserve any more coverage than anything else. It's daft.

 

[Mr. Gorilla]

On a side note, it's really fucking sad that Hollywood--considering the magnitude of this case--will probably make a movie out of this mess, portraying Casey as a dastardly villain and the prosecution as heroic fighters for justice. It's sad how quick the American public is to stupidly simplify the whole thing in to black-and-white "good vs. evil." Honestly, the inhuman sadists who are saying she deserves to be a pariah and arguing for someone to "hunt her down and deal justice" are no fucking better than whoever killed the little girl (If it was murder).

In an ideal world, Casey Anthony would be left alone and allowed to rebuild her life; sadly, the bloodlustful won't allow that.

 

[Oliver Queen]

In an ideal world, this shit wouldn't have happened in the first place, because in the ideal world, there is no crime, of course she would be left alone because nothing would have happened.

 

[Mr. Gorilla]

Fair enough, but my point still stands. Why give in to blind, subhuman sadism, and instead be a better person, and forgive?

Society's standards of "justice" are screwed up. It's not about efficiency or repairing individuals; it's some intangible karma/eye for an eye-esque standard.

 

[Naoto Shirogane]

Thats the sad thing.

We can think that societys justice is a mess. but our opinions get us no where because the Majority of the country agrees with it. So we can't really do anything about it. all we can do is just watch and fume at it silently

and our Eye for an eye is a basic human standard. It started since animals exsisted. something inside us gives us a push that makes us want revenge for something. wether to punch someone for punching you. or killing a killer that ended a life. We just got that urge in us.

Some people can have self control and block that urge out. but really. The majority of soceity will punch the guy that punches them. even if their weaker/might get injured.

BTW that urge is Called Anger. and...its not easily controlled. To say the least.