In the courtroom only facts are important.
Social media has great power, as we have seen. In cases like a confession of AREA-51, social media had a vital role in the uncovering the secret, what might be bigger than we ever imagined. This case has been shown that the power of social media has a very large role to force the rulers to tell the truth for the people, and also Brexit has shown the force of this way to share opinions and thoughts.
But the thing is that social media has brought one problem in the mind of people. If we think that so-called traditional media would give one-side information of something, we must realize that the great mass of false information has more effect than the small mass of right information, if people are believing that kind of data. The confession is the key in this kind of way to act. If shared data confess people, it's the same, what people shares.
One way to make people silent is to claim that some people have taken to court because of their opinions. In the court is one rule what people must realize. Prosecuted are innocent until they are proven guilty. And proving the prosecuted guilty must happen by using facts, not appealing feelings. This is the thing, what is normally forgotten.
And that is a really interesting thing in social media. When we want to confess to people that our way to think is the only one and right, we must have only persons, who have authority to the system. Then we can use titles, what is not true, and get those "three persons" who can prove the thing, what has been discussed true. The thing is that those things seem very confessing, but then we can see something, what we don't want to see in this hypothetical case.
First thing is that the faculty or area, where professor works is not mentioned. Second, the source, what is used is somehow unique, it has been some lecture or something, and it has happened before digital recordings or recordings of the lecture have somehow destroyed. The third is that there are great feelings about this kind of cases. That thing is seen in the cases when some war criminal has been arrested.
In those cases, the media was full of brutal details what has been done to the victims, but a couple of things have been forgotten. One is the place where those things have been done, and second is the ranks and units, where those criminals served. Those things are really important for the justice system, which must give the judgment. And even if the cases where the crime is well known, the identities of the criminals must be proven, or those prosecuted persons are free to go. Sometimes I have thought that is the handling of war crimes by using brutal details mission to deny people to see those images?
Well, that thing is a mystery, but the feelings are an extremely good weapon to keep people silent. "I was there myself" is a good argument in media, and "I want to forget". Those things are a good way to close the mouths of the people. We must forget to think about mafia and war criminals some kind of super demons. We must start to think about them as regular criminals, who had great support for their work. When we are handling cases like homicide detectives, we ever ask them to have they ever been battered? This is a really interesting thing to think when we are thinking about investigations and research.
The next there is a small example of about misunderstandings what are connected to Indians. What is the archeologist's relationship with the Mayan culture? Of course, European sociopaths destroyed that nice and famous Indian culture, which ruled the Andes of South America. By the way, Mayan Indians lived in Central America, and their culture was crumbling in when Europeans came. The Indians, who lived in the Andes were Incas and the reason why Pizarro could destroy those people was that Incas were conquered their area, and slaved the other Indians.
That allowed Pizarro to recruit those people in his army. The same thing happened in Central America, where Aztecs slaved other Indians, and then Cortez allowed to use force against Aztecs. But the thing is that the hate was a similar tool in the hands of Conquistadors what it was in the hands of Nazi-Germany and after that Allied forces benefit the hate in their actions. The thing is that crushing other opinions would happen by simply trolling them out from social media.
The second way is to appeal to feelings. If people see something happening that thing has a greater effect than if we would read some reports. If in the court would arrive, some 90 years old woman or man, would the counselor or prosecutors dare to interrogate them with full skills and force. But there is one thing, we can't believe that those old people were young sometimes. We always want to believe that somebody who we might know as the beloved man or woman was monster.
The thing is that the law says that every prosecuted must have the best possible defense. And the thing why defense must be used is that the also prosecuted person must be heard. But the motives have been changed in that kind of cases.
Murder is still murder and serious crime. If the merchandise of the person or the initial capital for business has been earned by using criminal methods, that capital would be returned to the families of victims, and the lawyers would get good profits for those cases. So the lawyer always wins. But the law says that murder can be prosecuted rest of a person's lifetime. This is the thing in law. In the courtroom, the moral has no mean, only facts are things what means something, and the rest of things are meanless. This is the rule in court.
Social media has great power, as we have seen. In cases like a confession of AREA-51, social media had a vital role in the uncovering the secret, what might be bigger than we ever imagined. This case has been shown that the power of social media has a very large role to force the rulers to tell the truth for the people, and also Brexit has shown the force of this way to share opinions and thoughts.
But the thing is that social media has brought one problem in the mind of people. If we think that so-called traditional media would give one-side information of something, we must realize that the great mass of false information has more effect than the small mass of right information, if people are believing that kind of data. The confession is the key in this kind of way to act. If shared data confess people, it's the same, what people shares.
One way to make people silent is to claim that some people have taken to court because of their opinions. In the court is one rule what people must realize. Prosecuted are innocent until they are proven guilty. And proving the prosecuted guilty must happen by using facts, not appealing feelings. This is the thing, what is normally forgotten.
And that is a really interesting thing in social media. When we want to confess to people that our way to think is the only one and right, we must have only persons, who have authority to the system. Then we can use titles, what is not true, and get those "three persons" who can prove the thing, what has been discussed true. The thing is that those things seem very confessing, but then we can see something, what we don't want to see in this hypothetical case.
First thing is that the faculty or area, where professor works is not mentioned. Second, the source, what is used is somehow unique, it has been some lecture or something, and it has happened before digital recordings or recordings of the lecture have somehow destroyed. The third is that there are great feelings about this kind of cases. That thing is seen in the cases when some war criminal has been arrested.
In those cases, the media was full of brutal details what has been done to the victims, but a couple of things have been forgotten. One is the place where those things have been done, and second is the ranks and units, where those criminals served. Those things are really important for the justice system, which must give the judgment. And even if the cases where the crime is well known, the identities of the criminals must be proven, or those prosecuted persons are free to go. Sometimes I have thought that is the handling of war crimes by using brutal details mission to deny people to see those images?
Well, that thing is a mystery, but the feelings are an extremely good weapon to keep people silent. "I was there myself" is a good argument in media, and "I want to forget". Those things are a good way to close the mouths of the people. We must forget to think about mafia and war criminals some kind of super demons. We must start to think about them as regular criminals, who had great support for their work. When we are handling cases like homicide detectives, we ever ask them to have they ever been battered? This is a really interesting thing to think when we are thinking about investigations and research.
The next there is a small example of about misunderstandings what are connected to Indians. What is the archeologist's relationship with the Mayan culture? Of course, European sociopaths destroyed that nice and famous Indian culture, which ruled the Andes of South America. By the way, Mayan Indians lived in Central America, and their culture was crumbling in when Europeans came. The Indians, who lived in the Andes were Incas and the reason why Pizarro could destroy those people was that Incas were conquered their area, and slaved the other Indians.
That allowed Pizarro to recruit those people in his army. The same thing happened in Central America, where Aztecs slaved other Indians, and then Cortez allowed to use force against Aztecs. But the thing is that the hate was a similar tool in the hands of Conquistadors what it was in the hands of Nazi-Germany and after that Allied forces benefit the hate in their actions. The thing is that crushing other opinions would happen by simply trolling them out from social media.
The second way is to appeal to feelings. If people see something happening that thing has a greater effect than if we would read some reports. If in the court would arrive, some 90 years old woman or man, would the counselor or prosecutors dare to interrogate them with full skills and force. But there is one thing, we can't believe that those old people were young sometimes. We always want to believe that somebody who we might know as the beloved man or woman was monster.
The thing is that the law says that every prosecuted must have the best possible defense. And the thing why defense must be used is that the also prosecuted person must be heard. But the motives have been changed in that kind of cases.
Murder is still murder and serious crime. If the merchandise of the person or the initial capital for business has been earned by using criminal methods, that capital would be returned to the families of victims, and the lawyers would get good profits for those cases. So the lawyer always wins. But the law says that murder can be prosecuted rest of a person's lifetime. This is the thing in law. In the courtroom, the moral has no mean, only facts are things what means something, and the rest of things are meanless. This is the rule in court.
Comments
Post a Comment