In the post on the magic cafe Wayne pretty much mentioned all the points that people were arguing about. It wasn't a stunt. It was intentional. And he or his team wasn't aware of what was going to happen. He mentioned that they were invited on to the show, Wayne then did Thread, and gave the host a gift. Then the guy wanted to "bless" Wayne. The problem with the blessing theory is that when you do the research on that topic. Nowhere in the ceremony do you light the person on fire or pour a bunch of the stuff on the persons head.
That's the problem I'm seeing. I'm all for trying to be calm and reasonable about this, but despite the fact that my knowledge of Caribbean religious practices can be charitable described as "rudimentary," I'm pretty sure none of them involve setting someone's head on fire.
I agree that it is unlikely that there is any sort of blessing that involves burning the recipient. However, there is possibility that the host was taking a typical blessing and trying to make it more sensational by adding the fire element.
Reality One - I've read the book. You should read it again because you didnt learn much during the first reading.
Actually, I think I very much understand where you are coming from. I've had the opportunity to see Wayne perform and to meet Wayne and his wonderful wife. I think Wayne is one of the best performers out there. His material is top notch and he presentation is excellent. I am sickened that this happened to Wayne and very angry at the person who did this to him. I think this is where you are coming from.
I also think I have a sense of your worldview - to you things are black and white. Those that agree with you are correct and those that disagree are ignorant because if they were as smart as you they would share your opinion.
What you need to learn in life is that those who like to stand up for criminals are often times worse than the criminals themselves because they allow them back into society so they can harm future innocent people again.
First problem with your assumption is the use of the word "criminals." You are assuming that everyone who is accused of a crime committed it. That only works in totalitarian states.
Second, if your statement is taken as the absolute truth you present it as, a 16 year old shoplifter should be sentenced to life in prison without parole. Someone who shoots someone in self-defense (see above about them being guilty because they were accused) should be given the death penalty (he is guilty because witnesses saw him shoot the gun and the person died) and we can't have someone like that back in society. Yes, I know I'm arguing exceptions, but that illustrates why such generalizations are bad logic.
Third, you are confusing my points about someone getting a fair trial (which I feel strongly about) with my views on issues such as recidivism, mandatory sentencing guidelines and the function of prisons-- which, you have no clue about any of my beliefs on those issues. Again, you are taking a small piece of information and extrapolating conclusions which have no basis (either in favor of or against those conclusions) in the facts you know.
If I wake up in the morning and the ground and my car is completely soaking wet, I'm going to assume it rained while I slept.
You and Hatter come along and offer an "explanation" that someone could have taken a hose and soaked everything in the middle of the night.
See, your own analogy proves the problem with your thought process. All Hatter and I are saying is to withhold judgment until we have all the facts. Let's see what facts I'd like to know before I decided if it rained...
1) If the car in the driveway is wet, what about the car in the street? If it isn't, then it isn't likely that it rained.
2) Is the neighbor's sprinkler running?
3) Is your best friend standing there with a bucket of soapy water and a sponge?
4) Are there two kids screaming and having a squirt gun fight with super soakers?
5) Is your rude neighbor standing next to your car, zipping up his pants and laughing?
Each of those facts leads to a different conclusion. We cannot reach a conclusion without all the facts.
What you seem to be saying is that those of us who are saying, "Hold on, let's make sure we have all the facts," are actually saying, "No, he's innocent." He's clearly not innocent. I can only speak for myself, but I'm not saying he doesn't deserve a punishment. He has clearly committed a crime here and has to deal with the consequences thereof. However, I am not so hot headed as to think that any action should be taken before we actually know all of what's going on. We need to know what he intended, and why this happened.
Only then can the appropriate punishment be decided. And yes, I do think this guy deserves a punishment. I'm not familiar enough with the legal system to know what punishments he's in line for, though. That's for a judge and jury to decide.
Agreed. Baller, even your own statement is consistent with what we are saying:
I honestly don't care what the host's intentions were. At best he was being irresponsible and stupid. At worst he is a psychotic murderer.
We don't know what the intent was. But as other have pointed out, that is the least important part. What is important is Wayne's recovery and on that we all can agree.