Judge Judy's Ignorant Statement About Birds

In a recent case concerning over 100 birds in someone's home, Judge Judy shows her ignorance about birds.

Brought to you by Bird A Day Blog http://birdaday.com

Category:

Pets & Animals

Tags:

• birdaday
• JJ
• judge
• judy
• parrots
• macaw
• birds
• stupid

[Pumkinpiefridays]

WTF that's not ignorant it's the truth. Grow a pair pussy

[roberture]

HAHAH! She says "They don't fetch" and at the the end of the video the up next was "My bird fetching"

[healonator]

this chick is retarded white trash...where she get her papers to be a judge? box of cereal?

[hauntnut]

Yeah, the fact that you think this is worthy of discussion really speaks volumes about your evident lack of intellect.

[HandsomeNamed]

@xFENRISx

There are too many fools about that I would never needlessly create conflict with an intelligent stranger.

I do agree with your view of how a dispute should be heeded and resolved. The only reason why I defended the Judge is that often it seems that there are no arguments to be heard. Rarely are there people capable of or willing to form a well-reasoned, honest argument. So inevitably, it's reduced to this questionable guessing game.

It's the whole game that I consider to be silly.

[xFENRISx]

@HandsomeNamed

wow, an apology, and presumably an actual exchange of rational ideas on the internet. That's very big of you. I'm excited :D

If it really is just the balance of probabilities which it seems to be with these matters, perhaps that extends to individual statements or testimonies within the cases themselves, but personally I'd prefer arguments to be put forward entirely and then assessed on that level, not dismissing segments of arguments. I suppose that's my gripe really.

[HandsomeNamed]

@xFENRISx

I didn't mean to be condescending, so I apologise. How do you distinguish the difference between deliberating the probability of any given testimony and "believing (or not)" any given testimony? Surely these are different ways of saying the same thing.

In most of the cases she deals with, there is hardly a clear or thorough presentation of evidence. She has to gleam what truth she can from a bunch of inarticulate, dishonest fools.

[xFENRISx]

@HandsomeNamed

You don't need to lecture me on the balance of probabilities. To make an opinion-based ruling on a topic she knows nothing about, not even listening to arguments or statements just because "she doesn't believe them" is unprofessional at best. What really gets me though is when she replaces law with her opinion: I'm sure you see the issue with this hypothetical, HN.

[HandsomeNamed]

@xFENRISx

Rulings in civil cases are determined by probability. It's by the judge's discretion that a matter is seen to be probable or improbable.

If the judge doesn't believe your argument, then that is sufficient cause for him/her to rule against you. This is not something unique to judge judy... That is the framework of civil proceedings. That IS law.

[HandsomeNamed]

It was not a commentary about the CAPACITY of all birds. She is speaking generally of the majority of pet birds, which she accurately reports do little more than eat, shit, make a mess and produce noise.

Why is that offensive? It's true. If you love birds, you love them despite all the things she has said.

[fetishisticrose]

gees, she's just joking , get over it

[Newbeboy]

As a bird I find this very offensive.