|
Post by permutojoe on Oct 1, 2018 12:35:39 GMT
Heisenbergs principle means there is no objective reality. How so?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2018 12:54:09 GMT
"We" cannot even know that "we" exist. We may be simulations in a computer program, or some other product of an alien computer or mind that don't "exist" in the physical sense that we regard as reality. Or all of "you" may be a product of my imagination. I have always taken issue with Descartes' "I think, therefore I am." Nonsense. I disagree. We certainly do exist, and the fact that we can contemplate that idea is all the proof we need of that. What we can't know for certain is the nature of our existence. You suggest we may be simulations in a computer program. Perhaps - but if we are, then we still exist. We just exist in a way that's not what we perceive it as being. I could even be a dream somebody else is having; I still exist as a dream capable of thought. No matter what you are, you must exist in some form, or you wouldn't be able to think about whether you exist or not. The same is true if everyone else is a product of your imagination. It's absolutely true that you cannot know that I exist... but if you are imagining me then you must exist, or else there would be nothing to imagine me. Similarly, from my point of view I cannot be absolutely certain of your existence. But I can know for certain that I exist, else I wouldn't be able to imagine you. In fact I'd argue that my existence is the only thing I can claim to know with absolute 100% certainty. Even if I can't demonstrate that fact to anybody else, it absolutely is a fact. Everything else is up for debate, but that's really not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2018 13:07:11 GMT
I feel it is ALL relevant within our journey. How we choose to deal and treat one another and nature is the key. Suffering is the biggest obstacle to overcome and it just keeps on being perpetuated and denied. It simply doesn't matter.
Whether biological life does or does not exist is of no significance to the existence of the universe whatsoever.
The universe would still be the same even if life had never evolved.
Well that's true, but literally nothing matters or is of significance to the universe. Mattering and being significant are functions of thinking... and the universe, that we know of, doesn't think. So nothing matters to the universe, and nothing ever could. Even the universe doesn't matter to the universe! You might as well say that our existence doesn't matter to a table lamp. It's true, but it's also a kind of pointless statement.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Oct 1, 2018 15:27:37 GMT
I would say 70%. I base my beliefs on things that can be observed, verified or proven and there isn't many things I haven't tested or questioned a some point or another. I questioned religion, the "typical" path of life most individuals will go through, my role in society, my family structure and relations, you name it. It's gonna sound obvious or normal but I consciously made the decision, years ago, to see things the way they are, not the way I wish or want them to be. I made that choice because I feel (that sounds subjective but I can't find a way to phrase it differently) that I can't progress, or improve, properly (at work, in my relations, as a human being) if I don't have an accurate "picture" of the world or things. That means I want to know or talk about the ugly and unpleasant side of things too because the beautiful and fun side only make "half" of the picture and I want to see it in its entirety. Now, I'm not saying that I am into deviant, twisted and illegal stuff but to me, they're still part of the global picture. In these times of turmoil, it seems that people are prone to depict the "others" (whether it is the opposing political party, immigrants, criminals, terrorists, neighbors, whatever) as irrational while I sincerely believe that no matter how bizarre, twisted or absurd it may be, there is a rationale behind everybody's actions. There isn't much that happen out of the blue, except maybe for people who suffer from psychological disorders or handicap. Still, the idea is that if you "shut down" any explanation, even if it's unpleasant, by branding people's actions as irrational then you miss on a chance to get better understanding of things and what's happening. If you don't understand properly then you probably don't have an accurate vision or perception of the things in front and around you. Well that was kind of a long loop and answer. ![:-/](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/undecided.png) I appreciate your post. I too try to follow a similar approach like you described, however my end belief about accuracy of what I observe and how I interpret it is much MUCH lower than yours. The trouble is in what we dont know that we dont know, I think. Good test of being able to evaluate things with as little bias and prejudice and emotions as possible is to try and evaluate the Kavannaugh/Ford hearing. I tried to look at it purely from exercise in evaluating things laid before me perspective and engaged with defenders of both sides, in order to hear their arguments. But both presented somewhat flawed logic and emotionally affected answers, so neither was very useful. You sound like you like to engage in analytics, would you be interested in talking about the hearing purely from analytical and observational (as opposed to political) point of view? '' Since I dont know if you naturally lean more toward republicans or democrats, I would like to offer to play the devils advocate and upon analyzing the case I'd "argue" for whatever side would be naturally opposing yours. Game?
|
|
|
Post by mecano04 on Oct 1, 2018 17:01:08 GMT
I would say 70%. I base my beliefs on things that can be observed, verified or proven and there isn't many things I haven't tested or questioned a some point or another. I questioned religion, the "typical" path of life most individuals will go through, my role in society, my family structure and relations, you name it. It's gonna sound obvious or normal but I consciously made the decision, years ago, to see things the way they are, not the way I wish or want them to be. I made that choice because I feel (that sounds subjective but I can't find a way to phrase it differently) that I can't progress, or improve, properly (at work, in my relations, as a human being) if I don't have an accurate "picture" of the world or things. That means I want to know or talk about the ugly and unpleasant side of things too because the beautiful and fun side only make "half" of the picture and I want to see it in its entirety. Now, I'm not saying that I am into deviant, twisted and illegal stuff but to me, they're still part of the global picture. In these times of turmoil, it seems that people are prone to depict the "others" (whether it is the opposing political party, immigrants, criminals, terrorists, neighbors, whatever) as irrational while I sincerely believe that no matter how bizarre, twisted or absurd it may be, there is a rationale behind everybody's actions. There isn't much that happen out of the blue, except maybe for people who suffer from psychological disorders or handicap. Still, the idea is that if you "shut down" any explanation, even if it's unpleasant, by branding people's actions as irrational then you miss on a chance to get better understanding of things and what's happening. If you don't understand properly then you probably don't have an accurate vision or perception of the things in front and around you. Well that was kind of a long loop and answer. ![:-/](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/undecided.png) I appreciate your post. I too try to follow a similar approach like you described, however my end belief about accuracy of what I observe and how I interpret it is much MUCH lower than yours. The trouble is in what we dont know that we dont know, I think. Good test of being able to evaluate things with as little bias and prejudice and emotions as possible is to try and evaluate the Kavannaugh/Ford hearing. I tried to look at it purely from exercise in evaluating things laid before me perspective and engaged with defenders of both sides, in order to hear their arguments. But both presented somewhat flawed logic and emotionally affected answers, so neither was very useful. You sound like you like to engage in analytics, would you be interested in talking about the hearing purely from analytical and observational (as opposed to political) point of view? '' Since I don't know if you naturally lean more toward republicans or democrats, I would like to offer to play the devils advocate and upon analyzing the case I'd "argue" for whatever side would be naturally opposing yours. Game? I don't mind trying but just a few things before it starts:
. I'm Canadian . I'm a centrist
For the subject at hand, I must admit I don't really follow it. My understanding is that Ford claims that Kavannaugh raped her 25-30 years ago and now there are hearings to know if these alleged events make Kavannaugh unfit to be on the supreme court.
Is that the general outline?
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Oct 1, 2018 19:09:07 GMT
I appreciate your post. I too try to follow a similar approach like you described, however my end belief about accuracy of what I observe and how I interpret it is much MUCH lower than yours. The trouble is i Game? I don't mind trying but just a few things before it starts:
For the subject at hand, I must admit I don't really follow it. My understanding is that Ford claims that Kavannaugh raped her 25-30 years ago and now there are hearings to know if these alleged events make Kavannaugh unfit to be on the supreme court.
Is that the general outline?
oh i see. yes you are right. being Canadian or centrist wouldnt be a problem but not following it means you have probably not watched the a DAY of the hearings last week and I wouldnt want to put you through that, so its probably not an ideal match for this game, thank you though. if anyone else is interested in exploring this, i would be more than excited to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2018 19:48:48 GMT
I don't mind trying but just a few things before it starts:
For the subject at hand, I must admit I don't really follow it. My understanding is that Ford claims that Kavannaugh raped her 25-30 years ago and now there are hearings to know if these alleged events make Kavannaugh unfit to be on the supreme court.
Is that the general outline?
oh i see. yes you are right. being Canadian or centrist wouldnt be a problem but not following it means you have probably not watched the a DAY of the hearings last week and I wouldnt want to put you through that, so its probably not an ideal match for this game, thank you though. if anyone else is interested in exploring this, i would be more than excited to. I could explore biases here with you. I consider myself a centrist, and I can't make up my mind one way or another. Ford seems very credible and assured about the event, but fuzzy on everything outside that room. Kavanaugh seems very credible about not having an event, but downplays his lifestyle around that time. I can see a false memory being the case here, something that was suppressed for years only to surface with details unknowingly changed by the flawed human mind's desire to fill in blanks. Or the denial of something he really did, with the flawed human mind's ability to lie to itself. I just don't know one way or another. I can't really tell one way or another about the two of them. But I can say I am prejudiced that the 100 people that feign they care about the incident will vote to confirm or reject the candidate because of the politics of the candidate, not what really happened in 1982, unless a true bombshell is dropped. I do commend Jeff Flake for at least appearing to be a bit more human than politician and making the other 99 look like sheep to their respective parties in the process.
|
|
|
Post by ant-mac on Oct 1, 2018 21:24:35 GMT
It simply doesn't matter.
Whether biological life does or does not exist is of no significance to the existence of the universe whatsoever.
The universe would still be the same even if life had never evolved.
Well that's true, but literally nothing matters or is of significance to the universe. Mattering and being significant are functions of thinking... and the universe, that we know of, doesn't think. So nothing matters to the universe, and nothing ever could. Even the universe doesn't matter to the universe! You might as well say that our existence doesn't matter to a table lamp. It's true, but it's also a kind of pointless statement. I don't find understanding the true "state of play" pointless.
I find it liberating.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Oct 1, 2018 22:17:43 GMT
if anyone else is interested in exploring Ford vs Kavannaugh i would be more than excited to. I could explore biases here with you. Awesome. So here is how we "play". Ill summarize what I believe are verifiable facts and then you assign True/False next to each fact. Then I will add some facts from my life that you cannot verify but for the purpose of this game it would be great if you took as "verified". And then we try and make a conclusion based on the facts that we both see as "true" and in consideration of the additional facts I provided. And then it would be fun to either swap sides or argue the other side, just to see if we can come up with something that makes sense. Verifiable Facts (VF) 1. F claims K has engaged in a conduct F describes as unpleasant, unwanted, and of sexual nature. 2. F claims she has clearly expressed both verbally and physically her resistance against such conduct and her wish for it not to continue. 3. F claims the incident happened 36 years ago, during summer, but unsure which day. 4. F cannot provide address of the incident or any further localization allowing details other than naming a position of the bed in relation of the door and existence of stairs leading up to the bedroom. 5. F can provide name of one witness to the incident (J) and one witness to her naming her assailant prior the hearing (Fs husband several years prior, confirmed by husband) 6. F reads her opening statement (as oppose to telling it from memory). 7. F admits she has taken a polygraph test, claims to have passed it, later admits it was arranged and paid for by her counsels. 8. F admits she had not disclosed this incident at the time and claims it was because of fear or repercussions against her (by parents/peers) and later on didnt see a point, until K was nominated to become a SCJ. 9. K clearly denies having any memory of such incident happening and further expresses it is against his nature and character to conduct in the described manner. 10. K admits to casually drinking beer throughout his life, but clearly denies having ever drank to the extent of it impairing memory to the point he would lose conscience or have episodes of no recorded memory at all. 11. K admits to knowing F but limited to casual acquaintance, denies any attempts of sexual nature made toward F. 12. K provides what he believes to be a reasonable explanation why couldn't have attended the event (calendars). 13. K refers to his legal career spanning over more than 3 decades and being absent of any allegations of similar sort and to a letter signed by dozens of women, supporting his character 14. J clearly denies having any memory of such incident. 15. Several other persons claim that K has assaulted them in a similar matter and at least one person claims K has been known to drink in excess during his younger years. 16. K clearly denies all of the above made allegations. 17. K speaks from memory the entire time during the hearing, claims to have been speaking his own words and only tool he uses to assist is his calendars. 18. K who originally had not been proposing to submit to an FBI investigation, eventually after several questions and prompting states he will submit to it, should it be open. 19. Democrats, who have been opposing the nomination of K, could largely benefit from a signifiant delay 20. F is a democrat (claims to be independent and having come forward based on her own free will) 21. K is a republican. Assumptions based on interpretation of the hearing and its components:1. During the hearing, F appeared comparatively calmer than K, while signals of her enduring stress were still present (voice shaking, rapid eyes movement, faster breathing etc). 2. During the hearing, F verbally expressed she is "terrified" (to be there) and details the hardship herself and her family has endured as a result of bringing this forward. Evaluates it as extremely difficult to endure. 3. During the hearing, F clearly admits not remembering details that could significantly improve the result of the interview or future investigation. Such as day and place the alleged incident took place. K does not appear to be bothered by not remembering the details and does not try to offer additional details or speculations to fill in missing peaces. 4. During the hearing, F remains respectful and refrain's from comments of personal nature toward anyone other than K. 5. During the hearing, F repeats with confidence that it was K who has thrown her on bed and continued in what K describes as harassment/assault against he wishes. 6. During the hearing, K appears visibly very emotionally moved, more than F. (unable to speak at times, raising voice/change of intonation, faster than normal reactions, facial and physical gestures out of the ordinary) 7. During the hearing, K appears to repeatedly engage in personal remarks against those interviewing him. He also switches roles several times and instead of answering a question he demands that the interviewer answers the question or provides non answers/additional details not relating to main point of the question. 8. During the hearing, K stipulates the damage this hearing and the associated attention has already had on his life and reputation. He expresses his view that it is a damage of significant range/impact. 9. During the hearing, K remains emotionally visibly impacted throughout the entire hearing. 10. During the hearing, K focuses mainly on stressing his commitment to the rule of law and to his studies and extracurricular activities throughout his life. Should you feel there are additional facts that you believe should be on this list and are significant for the purpose of this "game" please feel free to add them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2018 22:20:56 GMT
Well that's true, but literally nothing matters or is of significance to the universe. Mattering and being significant are functions of thinking... and the universe, that we know of, doesn't think. So nothing matters to the universe, and nothing ever could. Even the universe doesn't matter to the universe! You might as well say that our existence doesn't matter to a table lamp. It's true, but it's also a kind of pointless statement. I don't find understanding the true "state of play" pointless.
I find it liberating.
So you find the fact that you don't matter to the table lamp to be liberating? Okay... well whatever makes you happy, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by ant-mac on Oct 1, 2018 22:39:32 GMT
I don't find understanding the true "state of play" pointless.
I find it liberating.
So you find the fact that you don't matter to the table lamp to be liberating? Okay... well whatever makes you happy, I guess. No, I find having a firm grasp on reality and the nature of existence to be liberating.
Of course, as you consider my previous statement to be pointless, then you must realize that responding to it is also pointless.
Well, whatever makes you happy, I guess.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2018 23:48:51 GMT
So you find the fact that you don't matter to the table lamp to be liberating? Okay... well whatever makes you happy, I guess. No, I find having a firm grasp on reality and the nature of existence to be liberating. Ah, but that's a very different thing. Whether we matter to the universe is one thing; personally I find that whether things matter to us is much more significant. And I bet you do too, whether you admit it, or realise it, or not. Oh, that doesn't follow at all. Spending time on the pointless can be entertaining!
Oh yes, absolutely. ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|
|
Post by ant-mac on Oct 1, 2018 23:56:18 GMT
No, I find having a firm grasp on reality and the nature of existence to be liberating. Ah, but that's a very different thing. Whether we matter to the universe is one thing; personally I find that whether things matter to us is much more significant. And I bet you do too, whether you admit it, or realise it, or not. Oh, that doesn't follow at all. Spending time on the pointless can be entertaining!
Oh yes, absolutely. ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) 1. I wasn't referring to what matters to me. I was referring to the nature of existence.
2. If it doesn't follow at all, why did you just claim that spending time on the pointless can be entertaining?
I never said you a person shouldn't spend time on something pointless.
After all, I'm spending time on this conversation, aren't I?
3. No worries.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2018 0:00:40 GMT
Nora , I added my part in the game in bold Italics, lol below. I hope I'm doing this right. <Lol well crap, it's all in bold, editing my part to stand out now, hang on a sec> <Another edit, hopefully the italics stand out better>:
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Oct 2, 2018 0:42:23 GMT
I took your statement to mean all life on earth IS separate from the earth, which you represented as the pebble. Is that not separateness? I don't care what you took where.
I believe we are scum on a pebble.
That is my belief system.
Care to round that up to the nearest 10th?
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Oct 2, 2018 0:45:48 GMT
1. I was making an observation. I don't care what you get and follow or don't get and follow.
By the way, if I had been asking you something, there would have been a question mark at the end of one of my sentences.
2. No, yours.
With your apparently limited skills in reading and comprehension, I not surprised you don't see much to get.
Since your own observation is muddled and your scum isn't worth pontificating over, I bid you goodnight sir! ![](https://s26.postimg.cc/g0ugcwpzt/sleep.gif) LOl! "since your scum isn't worth pontificating over, I bid you all goodnight!" The next time it is a Saturday night and I'm on the train and my humor is way up, I'm going to say that to the passengers as I disembark the car.
|
|
|
Post by ant-mac on Oct 2, 2018 0:48:13 GMT
I don't care what you took where.
I believe we are scum on a pebble.
That is my belief system.
Care to round that up to the nearest 10th? Why can't I round it down instead? ![](https://s26.postimg.cc/gf93ycxax/giveup.gif)
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Oct 2, 2018 0:55:26 GMT
Nora , I added my part in the game in bold Italics, lol below. I hope I'm doing this right. <Lol well crap, it's all in bold, editing my part to stand out now, hang on a sec> <Another edit, hopefully the italics stand out better>: all clear. Good additions, especially 13 and 14 are good points that I forgot to include. This will be very interesting! So I now add facts from my legal career. These are not interpretations but verified facts. Granted, YOU cannot verify them, but I have and only include such instances where I know for a fact that what I am saying is true. For your information - during more than a decade of my work in this field, I have been investigating various allegations of criminal conduct, some very serious, and including sexual assaults. 1. Not all reported sexual assaults actually happened. 2. However, most of reported sexual assaults actually happened. Overwhelming majority. But only a minority of them were reported immediately. 3. In the ones where we were able to discover that the assault didn't happen, we always also discovered a clear motive for why the allegation was made. Most of the times it was personal revenge a couple times it was a staged coup to take someone down from a position of power. 4. When interviewing/questioning (from a position of authority however not on trial) somebody about whom I at the time of the questioning knew they were lying (example: had hard evidence against them, that they didnt know I had) only ONE out of several dozens cases lied in a way that there was no visible emotional response to the situation. Every other case followed similar path of i) being visibly upset, ii) adding unnecessary information/detail iii) going in circles/returning to previously made statements that would put the questioned person in a positive light even when unconnected to the question. 5. The longer the crime/unwanted conduct stayed undiscovered, the stronger was the emotional reaction of the questioned subject to our finding it. - this I find particularly interesting.now if I look at this case through the lens of my experience as a lawyer, it appears "quite clearly" as a case of one person believing they speak the truth and another person not having completely clean conscience and at the same time not being a sociopath. (and not having conscience etc). But that still leaves us with several potential scenarios: A1. F believes what she is saying is true and it is true 2. F believes what she is saying is true, but in reality it is not true (memory lapse, confusion, brainwashing etc) 3. K believes what he is saying to be true but is regretful about not having shared something else that he previously evaluated as undesirable to publicly share ("has a secret") 4. K knows he is lying and the incident happened 5. K knows he is lying but the incident didn't happen how F described it If we disregard my experience that would be clearly pointing toward F speaking the truth and K lying, we can also evaluate the option of K "acting out" out of immense sense of frustration over the injustice he perceives is happening to him and huge pressure he is under. To support that we would also have to accept: B.1. All the other accusers also lie AND 2. The report/s of his excessive drinking is a lie AND 3. F either has a brain damage, or is being blackmailed, bribed or has some other very strong motive to keep up this lie even under such stressful conditions as it Certainly is to be interviewed like this on national tv AND 4. K has not had a proper counsel by his side (who would have coached him not to do most of the things he did and it should be manageable for K to follow this advice with clean conscience) or B could be combined with A2. I would be interested to know which option would you chose as most likely under A and what motivation do you think F has under B3. To me thats the "most muddy" part of this.
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Oct 2, 2018 0:56:01 GMT
I could explore biases here with you. Awesome. So here is how we "play". Ill summarize what I believe are verifiable facts and then you assign True/False next to each fact. Then I will add some facts from my life that you cannot verify but for the purpose of this game it would be great if you took as "verified". And then we try and make a conclusion based on the facts that we both see as "true" and in consideration of the additional facts I provided. And then it would be fun to either swap sides or argue the other side, just to see if we can come up with something that makes sense. Verifiable Facts (VF) 1. F claims K has engaged in a conduct F describes as unpleasant, unwanted, and of sexual nature. 2. F claims she has clearly expressed both verbally and physically her resistance against such conduct and her wish for it not to continue. 3. F claims the incident happened 36 years ago, during summer, but unsure which day. 4. F cannot provide address of the incident or any further localization allowing details other than naming a position of the bed in relation of the door and existence of stairs leading up to the bedroom. 5. F can provide name of one witness to the incident (J) and one witness to her naming her assailant prior the hearing (Fs husband several years prior, confirmed by husband) 6. F reads her opening statement (as oppose to telling it from memory). 7. F admits she has taken a polygraph test, claims to have passed it, later admits it was arranged and paid for by her counsels. 8. F admits she had not disclosed this incident at the time and claims it was because of fear or repercussions against her (by parents/peers) and later on didnt see a point, until K was nominated to become a SCJ. 9. K clearly denies having any memory of such incident happening and further expresses it is against his nature and character to conduct in the described manner. 10. K admits to casually drinking beer throughout his life, but clearly denies having ever drank to the extent of it impairing memory to the point he would lose conscience or have episodes of no recorded memory at all. 11. K admits to knowing F but limited to casual acquaintance, denies any attempts of sexual nature made toward F. 12. K provides what he believes to be a reasonable explanation why couldn't have attended the event (calendars). 13. K refers to his legal career spanning over more than 3 decades and being absent of any allegations of similar sort and to a letter signed by dozens of women, supporting his character 14. J clearly denies having any memory of such incident. 15. Several other persons claim that K has assaulted them in a similar matter and at least one person claims K has been known to drink in excess during his younger years. 16. K clearly denies all of the above made allegations. 17. K speaks from memory the entire time during the hearing, claims to have been speaking his own words and only tool he uses to assist is his calendars. 18. K who originally had not been proposing to submit to an FBI investigation, eventually after several questions and prompting states he will submit to it, should it be open. 19. Democrats, who have been opposing the nomination of K, could largely benefit from a signifiant delay 20. F is a democrat (claims to be independent and having come forward based on her own free will) 21. K is a republican. Assumptions based on interpretation of the hearing and its components:1. During the hearing, F appeared comparatively calmer than K, while signals of her enduring stress were still present (voice shaking, rapid eyes movement, faster breathing etc). 2. During the hearing, F verbally expressed she is "terrified" (to be there) and details the hardship herself and her family has endured as a result of bringing this forward. Evaluates it as extremely difficult to endure. 3. During the hearing, F clearly admits not remembering details that could significantly improve the result of the interview or future investigation. Such as day and place the alleged incident took place. K does not appear to be bothered by not remembering the details and does not try to offer additional details or speculations to fill in missing peaces. 4. During the hearing, F remains respectful and refrain's from comments of personal nature toward anyone other than K. 5. During the hearing, F repeats with confidence that it was K who has thrown her on bed and continued in what K describes as harassment/assault against he wishes. 6. During the hearing, K appears visibly very emotionally moved, more than F. (unable to speak at times, raising voice/change of intonation, faster than normal reactions, facial and physical gestures out of the ordinary) 7. During the hearing, K appears to repeatedly engage in personal remarks against those interviewing him. He also switches roles several times and instead of answering a question he demands that the interviewer answers the question or provides non answers/additional details not relating to main point of the question. 8. During the hearing, K stipulates the damage this hearing and the associated attention has already had on his life and reputation. He expresses his view that it is a damage of significant range/impact. 9. During the hearing, K remains emotionally visibly impacted throughout the entire hearing. 10. During the hearing, K focuses mainly on stressing his commitment to the rule of law and to his studies and extracurricular activities throughout his life. Should you feel there are additional facts that you believe should be on this list and are significant for the purpose of this "game" please feel free to add them. Nora, have you ever seen the movie "Rashomon"? It's 1950, classic Japanese film about a violent incident (rape, I believe) told from the perspective of four different individuals. I only saw it once and I remember really liking it. It's a classic, universal plot. Anyhoo...
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Oct 2, 2018 0:57:47 GMT
Care to round that up to the nearest 10th? Why can't I round it down instead? ![](https://s26.postimg.cc/gf93ycxax/giveup.gif) You can round it any which direction that compels you!
|
|