I read your article when it appeared rather aptly under a search for irrational argument. I’ve never wasted my time submitting to such a ‘blog’ before but the sheer pomposity of your prose compelled me. How rewarding to find that, as often is the case, the arrogance of weak intellect should unwittingly display its failings quite so blatantly. You have undoubtedly arrived at most probably the correct conclusion with regards to the Amanda Knox case by way of some very flawed reasoning (well done). The hubris of your ‘rationality’ is really quite hilarious. To quote, your knowledge of the case comprises of ‘an hour on the internet’ (how very diligent of you) yielding ‘two things constituting so far as I know the entirety of the physical “evidence” against the couple.’ It really does make me laugh to see such subjective and empirical statements colluding in a single sentence but no doubt the irony is lost on you and clearly on the rest of your ‘critics’. So I’ll spell it out, you have based the entirety of your ‘rational’ argument on, and here’s the rub, second hand evidence which by your own admission, you have so thouroughly researched. Now in terms of an ‘exponential spacial distance’ (you dress it up as one decorates their own grave, plotting their own ends) you couldn’t be further from the locus of the event. Whether or not the evidence you have chanced upon is representative and accurate of the entire affair is completely irrelevent because you have entrenched your argument so heavily in ‘rationality’ that it undermines itself. Your final unashamed hypocresy rather neatly sums up my objections: ‘The commenters whose estimates were closest to mine—and, therefore, to the correct answer, in my view (...) congratulations to them’. No, no, really, congratulations to you, you are the inevitable monkey who has stumbled accross the works of shakespeare and thinks himself an original genius.
I read your article when it appeared rather aptly under a search for irrational argument. I’ve never wasted my time submitting to such a ‘blog’ before but the sheer pomposity of your prose compelled me. How rewarding to find that, as often is the case, the arrogance of weak intellect should unwittingly display its failings quite so blatantly. You have undoubtedly arrived at most probably the correct conclusion with regards to the Amanda Knox case by way of some very flawed reasoning (well done). The hubris of your ‘rationality’ is really quite hilarious. To quote, your knowledge of the case comprises of ‘an hour on the internet’ (how very diligent of you) yielding ‘two things constituting so far as I know the entirety of the physical “evidence” against the couple.’ It really does make me laugh to see such subjective and empirical statements colluding in a single sentence but no doubt the irony is lost on you and clearly on the rest of your ‘critics’. So I’ll spell it out, you have based the entirety of your ‘rational’ argument on, and here’s the rub, second hand evidence which by your own admission, you have so thouroughly researched. Now in terms of an ‘exponential spacial distance’ (you dress it up as one decorates their own grave, plotting their own ends) you couldn’t be further from the locus of the event. Whether or not the evidence you have chanced upon is representative and accurate of the entire affair is completely irrelevent because you have entrenched your argument so heavily in ‘rationality’ that it undermines itself. Your final unashamed hypocresy rather neatly sums up my objections: ‘The commenters whose estimates were closest to mine—and, therefore, to the correct answer, in my view (...) congratulations to them’. No, no, really, congratulations to you, you are the inevitable monkey who has stumbled accross the works of shakespeare and thinks himself an original genius.