“Americans have a problem with the truth. They seem to be unable to accept it, which is difficult to understand at a time in history when knowledge plays a larger and larger role in determining human action. Recognition of this problem is widespread. Beliefs and lies somehow always overwhelm truth, even when they are so contradictory that any effective action becomes impossible. A kind of national, psychological paralysis occurs. Nothing can be done because one belief contradicts another, and for some unknown reason, the facts don’t matter. Even during those times when an overwhelming belief does compel action, Americans rush headlong into it neglecting the adage that headlong often means wrong.”
"Paul Craig Roberts writes, “Today Americans are ruled by propaganda. Americans have little regard for truth, little access to it, and little ability to recognize it. Truth is an unwelcome entity. It is disturbing. It is off limits. Those who speak it run the risk of being branded ‘anti-American,’ ‘anti-semite’ or ‘conspiracy theorist.’ Truth is an inconvenience for government and for the interest groups whose campaign contributions control government. Truth is an inconvenience for prosecutors who want convictions, not the discovery of innocence or guilt. Truth is inconvenient for ideologues.” Unfortunately he casts the blame on the characters of people: “economists sell their souls for filthy lucre. . . . medical doctors who, for money, have published in peer-reviewed journals concocted ‘studies’ that hype this or that new medicine produced by pharmaceutical companies that paid for the ‘studies. . . .’ Wherever one looks, truth has fallen to money.”
"Public policy based on mere beliefs or opinions sooner or later crashes headlong into the wall of reality causing disastrous consequences, for in the end, the truth cannot be denied. "
Is this why people around the world find it so hard debating with Americans? Even the Canadians across the border?
Sounds like the rantings of a weak minded conspiracy theorist who’s smart enough to write well but not to think critically. I suspect if I browse that site further I’m going to find illuminati and chemtrails, right?
I’m not sure what the point is here in regards to Americans. One of the main points is that he’s saying that the truth doesn’t necesarily result from two adversaries debating their side in a biased way, he uses the example of the adversarial court system as an example. But that’s certainly not uniquely American, pretty much the entire western world uses the same system (I’m not sure about other places), so what does that heave to do with Americans being hard to debate?
There might be an interesting argument here about the truth in relation to biased arguers, but I’m not really seeing debate material about the title of this thread.
I think that a lot of this goes for all western countrys,
but
is one of the things I allway found strange about the USA legal system, the game element of it , how prosecutors practice law as if it is a game that should be won, instead of justice…
The problem with these “Why do Americans do [whatever]?” questions is they invariably end up sounding like one of those '80s late-night stand up routines.
“Americans drive like this, but Europeans drive like this. And those poor dudes in Canada? They’ve got to chase down a moose and leap on when it’s not looking each time they want to go to the shops.”
Perhaps it is true of some Americans, probably true of at least a few people of any nationality. The USA is a country of 300 million+; this is a ludicrous sweeping generality, like all French people are rude, all Irishmen are drunks, all Asians are good at math, etc. Were this a monoethnic country this would be straight up racism and bigotry.
I’ve no idea as I have just opened it myself when I Googled debating with Americans through sheer frustration here.
I’ve no idea what it is about but noted it ended in .ca so thought that would be more acceptable than this regions sites.
Maybe this was the wrong section. However taking your point truth in relation to biased arguers.
Why is it that when you mention Iran and Israel so many posters will argue that Iran threatens to wipe Israel off the face of the earth or some other rubbish?
Why do they refuse to accept what was actually said?
It makes it so hard to debate other issues on the region when they are blindly believing this rubbish.
Why is it so hard for them to accept the truth, and to listen to the other side once in a while.
It was unbelievable last night reading that the guy Finn was still arguing that Egyptians are Arabs:confused:
Even though I told him they are not, even though I got an Egyptian here to tell him, most the world I am sure would know they are not, he still maintained they were???
Why when an Egyptian himself is telling you he and his countrymen are not Arabs and consider themselves Arabs would this guy in Texas still insist beats me:confused:
This is just one example. I’m sure that posters can up up with more.
When I see American court cases (television of course) the DA is always more concerned with his/her batting average then finding the truth, justice. If he/she can minimise his/her chance of losing by working out a plea bargain, this is preferable than losing a case, meaning a jury of the defendants peers find the defendant innocent
So, basically some anonymous person on the internet disagreed with you, and maybe came off as a bit ignorant? Well then, the whole country must be delusional!
That’s more to do with finances than anything. It’s cheaper to get a plea bargain than to go through a whole trial. Trials can cost the state values in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
yes but, (and again based on watching television) maybe the system is the same, the US foucs seems to be highly competive, and even political…
Same goes for ambulance chasers, suing companies for millions and millions; it somehow seems strange for my Dutch sensibilities,
But maybe the US is just ahead of the curve and we are heading your way too…..
I am not trying to attack America, I’m just trying to express my impression of your legal system
It’s also because the prosecution and the defendant both know he/she is guilty. Innocent people don’t plea bargain, they go to court. Plea bargaining is not about the DA’s “batting average.”
I doubt you are alone in ignorance, it’s just that you stubbornly vocalize it more. Where other nations would keep quiet about things they don’t know American’s don’t and argue.
Financial considerations are a big reason why plea bargains exist in the first place, but from my experience, the state’s finances don’t actually affect whether a plea bargain will be offered in a given case.
[QUOTE=willthekittensurvive?]
When I see American court cases (television of course) the DA is always more concerned with his/her batting average then finding the truth, justice. If he/she can minimise his/her chance of losing by working out a plea bargain, this is preferable than losing a case, meaning a jury of the defendants peers find the defendant innocent
[/QUOTE]
I assume you’re talking about fictional drama television shows? Reality is a lot different than what David E. Kelly sometimes puts on the screen. Prosecutors, like any other professional, have a certain level of pride and competitiveness in what they do. Prosecutors are expected to maintain higher ethical standards than any other type of lawyer, and rightly so. Generally, while a line prosecutor may not have the power to unilaterally dismiss a criminal case on their own say-so if they feel a defendant has been wrongfully charged or there is insufficient evidence, they can always request to have the case re-assigned to a prosecutor who feels differently. Prosecutors, like public defenders, are often highly motivated and idealistic individuals because neither group really takes on those respective jobs for the pay.
