Yup. I think you made up your mind what you wished to believe, and your primary motivation for wanting to believe it is an instinctive dislike of celebrities whom you seem to believe think they are better than everyone else, as noted in the following example of what you wrote.
Are the police just supposed to take the word of a grieving pet owner ... And because she has so many fans?
You want to hate her, that's fine. I don't know her and I don't have any biases for or against her. I feel sorry for people who can't treat others as they would have themselves treated.
Looking at her as an ordinary citizen, I think her side has as much or more merit than what we have been told about the other side.
You and others knew right away who was lying and who was telling the truth. You are clearly smarter than I. It would take me a considerable amount of time to weigh the facts as they have been presented, and then come to a reasoned conclusion, but some of you could figure it out in just a few seconds!
Bravo! Smarter than me by far.
In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled Delivery Man Mercilessly Kills Angie Harmon’s Dog, DiogenesLamp wrote: And...you think I'm biased? Yup. I think you made up your mind what you wished to believe, and your primary motivation for wanting to believe it is an instinctive dislike of celebrities whom you seem to believe think they are better than everyone else, as noted in the following example of what you wrote.
Are the police just supposed to take the word of a grieving pet owner ... And because she has so many fans?
You want to hate her, that's fine. I don't know her and I don't have any biases for or against her. I feel sorry for people who can't treat others as they would have themselves treated.
Looking at her as an ordinary citizen, I think her side has as much or more merit than what we have been told about the other side.
You and others knew right away who was lying and who was telling the truth. You are clearly smarter than I. It would take me a considerable amount of time to weigh the facts as they have been presented, and then come to a reasoned conclusion, but some of you could figure it out in just a few seconds!
Bravo! Smarter than me by far.
I saw a biased article - biased from the title down to the last lament. I proposed an alternative read which had as much evidence as the assertions in the article, just to balance the score. I concluded that without evidence, the police couldn't act. I don't hate the woman, but I am disgusted by her use of social media and fandom to cancel this guy (e.g., posting his profile on Instagram).
I rejected your suggestion that the black delivery man serving the countryside was probably an 'Amish' whom the police didn't want to touch, when there's no evidence to suggest he was untrustworthy: no gang, no urban setting, no criminal history, no denial about shooting the dog, no avoiding the police, and no concern from police after they investigated.