tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post7650059548246214887..comments2024-03-28T21:43:44.433-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: The rule of lawlessnessEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger278125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-31913146952207866112020-09-29T08:11:26.724-07:002020-09-29T08:11:26.724-07:00You agree that religion should not be a product of...You agree that religion should not be a product of civil society, yet homogenous doctrinal development is described as if it were something that conservatism should be concerned with, although it is a function of the Church. <br />Most conservative spokesmen can proclaim plausible nostrums. What doesn’t seem to be avoidable is their combination of these with dangerous ideas like those I’ve mentioned in comments above. These come from some of the most emblematic conservatives. There may be an overlapping of some conservative concerns (as there is also overlapping with other ideologies) with those of religion. But conservatism’s core view, which is evolutionist, naturalist and unconcerned with dogma, is alien to religion. Many Catholics have been co-opted by conservatism, very little of which is capable even of the kind of discussion employed by Long. It’s just another example of how the ideas of the Enlightenment enter the Church. If my reading of conservatism is crabbed and narrow, let me know of prominent conservatives who have rejected the errors of Burke and Kirk. Miguel Cervantesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-49728441334524885032020-09-29T08:00:02.276-07:002020-09-29T08:00:02.276-07:00You agree conservatism is not a profession of the ...You agree conservatism is not a profession of the Faith itself, but something more general with religious implications and that “ the root principle of conservative theory is that custom imposes a moral obligation on us”. Some distinctions are needed. A political or social point of view may not be religion, but it should be compatible if we are to consider it. Yet practically every prominent conservative thinker says an awful lot that is incompatible. I have cited some of them above. <br /><br />Here’s a recent, tamer example. Christopher Long authored an article, “Conservatives must return to metaphysics”, (https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/conservatives-must-return-to-metaphysics/) which sounded encouraging. He defines conservatism differently again: “American conservatism at its philosophical root is not about tradition, preservation or conservation….” From “The Sharon Statement, American conservatism’s founding document” he cites: “That foremost among the transcendent values is the individual’s use of his God-given free will, whence derives his right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force.” Further down he states, “Conservatives are realists, utilizing right reason to discern moral action.”...“Americans remain attracted to common sense... As Evans told Time Magazine when asked to define conservatism, ‘I think my philosophy is pretty close to the farmer in Seymour, Ind. He believes in God. He believes in the U.S. He believes in himself. This intuitive position is much closer to wisdom than the tormented theorems of some Harvard dons.’” But it is also the conservative position, unrealistic and false because it combines truth with error. <br /><br />What’s missing from Long’s call for a metaphysical conservative viewpoint is the reality of original sin which, true enough, is something established by revelation, but with enormous implications for any political view:“Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action and morals” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 407). The more the farmer “believes in himself” the less he believes in original sin. The “U.S.” is the socialisation of this farmer’s ignorance; it is permeated from top to bottom with the unshakeable belief that it is “good” and untainted. This is not realism. Of course man’s free-will shouldn’t be subjected to arbitrary force, but freedom, and certitude, comes from conformity with things outside the individual. The consequences of the U.S. losing its Enlightenment innocence as is finally happening now could be suicidal. Catholics should be trying to help the victim away from this crash, not giving him more alcohol, much less consuming it. <br /><br />Historically, most religious notions handed down by custom have been false. The conservative mentality shared with the Renaissance its revival of classical attitudes towards religion, which was custom-based, an expression and diviniser of civil society. Council Fathers, on the other hand, appealed to tradition as the link with revelation, not mindless conformism. “Handing down” in religious terms is only useful if we speak of the Catholic Church. If we speak of non-religious customs, well, then it is another matter. <br /><br />Miguel Cervantesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32390191719926488242020-09-28T07:02:18.618-07:002020-09-28T07:02:18.618-07:00I said conservative theory (not certain conservati...<i>I said conservative theory (not certain conservative individuals) makes no such profession of faith.</i> <br /><br />Conservative theory is about something different than religion. Just as the atomic theory is about something different from religion. The root principle of conservative theory is that custom imposes an moral obligation on us. This principle is not, per se, a principle ABOUT religion, though it <i>touches on</i> religion, just as it touches on all things that are customary. If a Christian ought to adhere to the teachings of Christ's apostles because they were revealed, that truth does NOT DEFEAT the also-true principle that customs impose moral obligations on us. In a Christian family, a man ought to adhere to the Christian revelation <b>both</b> because it has been revealed and because it has been handed down by custom, <i>because the two reasons support and complement each other</i>, they do not interfere or displace each other. The most common "trump" argument given by the holy Fathers at Ecumenical Councils for a disputed doctrine where Scriptures were arguable either way, was "this is how it was taught by our predecessor bishops and the Apostles", an argument from Tradition. Custom is not an oppositional force against the revealed doctrine, to later Christians than the Apostles. <br />St. Paul himself did not declare that the entirety of their religion was wrong in every respect: <br /><br /><i>“You men of Athens, I perceive that you are very religious in all things. For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription: ‘TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.’ What therefore you worship in ignorance, this I announce to you. ...As some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also his offspring.’ Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold, or silver, or stone, engraved by art and design of man. </i> <br /><br />He used the (few) truths that gave them at least an inkling in the right direction, and employing those he sought to convert them to the full truth of the Catholic faith. Nothing about what I said implies something like an "evolution" of religious sentiment. <br /><br />I admit I was unclear when I said "He can extend that body of truth by additions to it through his own efforts". I meant, for example, that religious person can <i>deepen</i> his faith by prayer and INVITE the increase of his grasp of truth through infused knowledge - though of course it is God who does the work. And that the so-far-untrained Catholic can EXPAND his knowledge of the truth by reading deeply in the works of the Fathers and Doctors and the Councils so that he grasps ever more of what has been taught, and (for, say, a theologian) on the basis of a synthesis of all those sources he may even (if rarely) nudge the bar forward a little bit for ALL of us by explaining something more clearly that had heretofore been only implicit and hazily grasped by the Church Militant. And of course there too, while he may be forming the proper <i>disposition</i> to an increase of knowledge, it is God who gives the increase. By no means did I mean to suggest that any increase by man occurs apart from God's own action (both to will and to do). But the Church herself teaches that we increase in our understanding of the revealed truth over time. <br /><br />As for the rest: I fear that you have a crabbed and narrow understanding of conservatism from unnecessarily narrow sources. Conservatism is <i>what you get from the principle that custom imposes moral obligations / constraints on us.</i> It is only a PART of any complete moral, religious, and political view of man. That it is only a part does not imply that it is "irreligious" or that it leads to the notion that for the conservative, religion evolves from natural sources - SOME conservatives may hold that, but that does not reflect the formal principle, it reflects accidental accretions from certain men who were in error about other things than that principle. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-71911591468137642962020-09-26T11:34:49.570-07:002020-09-26T11:34:49.570-07:00One Brow,
You lied about the police not being held...One Brow,<br />You lied about the police not being held to a standard. “I was surprised the one officer was charged, and think that was done to limit the degree of protesting.” There are lots of cops who get charged with crimes and cops who go to prison. Every accused person has a right to a defense and often those we think are actually guilty are not convicted. <br /><br />The standard is not to placate the mob. The standard is to face the justice system. The police are held to that standard.<br /><br />You have cited many cases where in truth the police acted lawfully but you frequently repeat the lie that the police somehow did not.<br /><br />You lied about Officer Wilson.<br /><br />You have repeated so many BLM lies I really do not care to list them all, any more than I would care to list all the lies of Donald Trump.<br /><br />“I was saying that about your general position that it is the police who can fire without knowing at whom they are firing”<br />Another one of your many lies.<br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13068906218355035182020-09-26T09:04:43.479-07:002020-09-26T09:04:43.479-07:00StardustyPsyche,
"I believe I am done with th...StardustyPsyche,<br /><i>"I believe I am done with this conversation."</i><br /><br />Well, almost. You pulled me back in.<br /><br /><i>I understand, defending criminals is hard work.</i><br /><br />You accused me of lying, so I will now expect you to list actual crimes committed by Taylor and K. Walker, the supposed criminals we were discussing. Unless you are telling lies, and then accusing me of it as a cover.<br /><br /><i>Yet somehow after all of that you suppose that “the police don't need to be held to a standard”.</i><br /><br />Since I was saying that about your general position that it is the police who can fire without knowing at whom they are firing, and civilians who have to let their home be invaded lest they accidentally shoot the police, I don't see that as a lie.<br /><br />Still, in this case, the police were investigated for show, as happens when an innocent person is gunned down. I was surprised the one officer was charged, and think that was done to limit the degree of protesting. He'll be found not guilty, if it ever goes to trial. He'll find another job on another police force. He'll be fine. You're not "held to a standard" if, when you fail to meet that standard, nothing serious happens to you.<br /><br />However, the main reason for rejoining was to ask this a second time. I will assume for now the police were in uniform, but what if they had not been? If the police had been in plain clothes, and Walker shot one of them, would that have been justified? How sure does Walker need to be, here?<br /><br />One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73246011400039196252020-09-25T23:25:06.827-07:002020-09-25T23:25:06.827-07:00One Brow
“You seem determined that the police don&...One Brow<br />“You seem determined that the police don't need to be held to a standard”<br />Besides, you just are not very good at telling lies. You try, but they are so transparent that you, apparently, tire of their infectiveness.<br /><br />The cops who were issued a legal no-knock warrant but instead chose to serve that warrant by announcing themselves have been subjected to extensive examination standards. I mean, really One Brow, I can see where pulling lies out of your ass can get tiring.<br /><br />The cops were investigated over many months of intensive scrutiny, and rightfully so. When an officer discharges his or her weapon that officer must cooperate with an investigation of that weapon discharge, as is department policy, and very reasonably so. That is a part of taking an oath to protect and serve, that when an officer discharges his or her weapon an investigation will follow and the officer is duty bound to cooperate with that investigation.<br /><br />That is why both local and federal investigations were conducted over many months. Large numbers of expert professionals poured over the incident scene evidence, the ballistics evidence, the interviews of the officers, criminal records, surveillance records, legal documents, resident and bystander interviews, and the autopsy. <br /><br />All this evidence was gathered and presented to a grand jury, a group of citizens, who sat in court, likely preferring to be elsewhere but answering the call to serve nevertheless, presided over by a judge who is an expert in the law.<br /><br />A lot of money, time, effort, and expertise was brought to bear on this case, and rightly so, because officers discharged their weapons and a woman was killed and an officer was shot and wounded in the line of duty.<br /><br />Yet somehow after all of that you suppose that “the police don't need to be held to a standard”. Yes, I can see where pulling that kind of nonsense out of your ass can be very tiring for you.<br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-68575803493910492532020-09-25T20:37:23.029-07:002020-09-25T20:37:23.029-07:00One Brow,
"I believe I am done with this conv...One Brow,<br />"I believe I am done with this conversation."<br />I understand, defending criminals is hard work.<br /><br />Defense attorneys have a big incentive to turn criminals into heroes and good cops into murderess, they get, typically, 1/3 of some huge judgements in the millions of dollars.<br /><br />So, it pays for families of criminals to trot out the pictures of the criminals when they were kids, sob and cry about how the criminals were trying to make a clean start, and vilify those who put their lives on the line to defend us all from criminals.<br /><br />Millions of dollars are pouring into the BLM organization, donated by the gullible who believe the lies coming out of the BLM organization. That money is going in large part to 6 figure salaries and consulting fees for the perpetrators of those BLM organization lies.<br /><br />Turning vicious violent criminals into angels while turning our honest law enforcement officers into demons pays big money, millions of dollars, for defense attorneys, family members, and the BLM organization leaders.<br /><br />But I very much doubt you are getting a dime by spreading the lies against law enforcement and the lies turning the violent criminals they stop into angels, so you are about done with that now, I understand.<br /><br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-84003030246362157332020-09-25T08:51:35.462-07:002020-09-25T08:51:35.462-07:00Tony, you wrote “Conservatives do not, on principl...Tony, you wrote “Conservatives do not, on principle ‘make no profession of faith in God’s revelation’”. I said conservative theory (not certain conservative individuals) makes no such profession of faith. Most of your comment mixes up the two, but the separation which exists between the private beliefs of conservatives (which are heterodox or non-existent far more than orthodox) and conservative ideology, is essential. Conservative ideology makes no profession of true religion, because it simply can’t, as religion for conservatism is a product of social evolution, of God acting through “the collective mind” as Russell Kirk put it. Divinisation of nature ends up ignoring the divine, and denying original sin. Religious truth or error is not the concern of conservatism, an ideology with a profound allergy to dogmatism.<br />You seem to have put on the same level those faithful to the Old Testament receiving Christ, and the pagan world itself abandoning error and embracing true religion: “The truth they [the Hebrews] already held was conformable with the truth they could now receive and that Christ revealed. God doesn’t reveal one truth and then undermine it by revealing a contradictory ‘truth’” then “pagans were right to give up their belief in many false gods, but they were also right to hold on to a belief in the existence of a divinity of some sort.” The true religion of the Old Testament, regardless of the errors into which some Hebrews fell, bears no comparison with the false religions invented by the pagans. <br />The more complete truth revealed in Christ was NOT a modification of a false religion, as you seem to imply: “the ‘good’ conservative pagan holds on to the truth he received from his forefathers, and gives up what he had thought was true when it is made manifest by superior evidence”. The Christian religion was everywhere adopted by converts as a new sacred history, belief and practice. There was no continuity, even on the issue of divinity; the pagan Greek and Roman concept of immortal beings is hardly one of God, nor did the thought of philosophers like Aristotle did lead him to religion. It was the Church that made religion and philosophy march together, as Chesterton pointed out. <br />You say “the religious conservative receives religious truth from his forefathers... He can extend that body of truth by additions to it through his own efforts”. But the true religion was revealed by God and this revelation ended two thousand years ago. We have no business extending it unless we want to make of the religion what the atheists and liberal say it is: a man made thing.<br />“Religious” conservatives like Joseph de Maistre thought of paganism as a kind of “gentile Old Testament”. He was influenced in this by the esoteric and naturalistic view which lies behind conservatism, especially of the “religious” kind. This type can be far more corrosive of the Faith than the far more common conservatism which simply regards religion as benign and socially useful, without trying to convert it into something which it is not.<br />Your reference to Aquinas concerns the legal system, and no inferences can be made about the received religion. I don’t think you will find prominent conservative theorists who concern themselves with dogmatism and religious truth as a justification for religion’s place in society. For them, religion is validated by their naturalistic ideology, not as the true religion validates itself.Miguel Cervantesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-21672989644222633682020-09-25T07:23:57.423-07:002020-09-25T07:23:57.423-07:00StardustyPsyche,
“I can't imagine living with ...StardustyPsyche,<br /><i>“I can't imagine living with that amount of paranoia.”<br />Neither could Breonna, so she did not live.</i><br /><br />I think she managed to live more than a person with that level of paranoia can ever manage.<br /><br /><i>Gun ownership and use carries with it personal responsibilities.</i><br /><br />So does being a poice officer.<br /><br /><i>Like firefighters who run toward the fire while citizens run away, police aggressively pursue the criminals while citizens run away.</i><br /><br />Crawford didn't run, nor did the officers who shot him. Rice didn't run, nor did the officers who shot him. When shooting up Taylor's apartment, the officers weren't running, and neither was Taylor. Walker ran into the next room, though. No pursuit.<br /><br /><i>But, you seem to have done a small bit of research into the attack upon police committed by Kenneth Walker. Can you tell me why Walker did not get shot?</i><br /><br />He ran after shooting. He was in the next room. Feel free to blame Taylor for being too slow to run. That's your style. Don't blame the cops who shot up the apartment when Walker ran. That's not your style. Especially don't blame them for helting the shooting, and then starting the shoting again more than a minute later. I'm sure something in that room required the next volley, in your mind.<br /><br /><i>... it looks to me that Walker used Taylor as a human shield, like Osama Bin Laden did with one of his wives.</i><br /><br />If the police were slow enough with reponding that Walker would have had time to take a human shield, Taylor would still be alive. The autopsy has not been revealed, but AI bet at least three bullets made exit wounds, and Walker was not wounded. Over 40 shots, and not a wound? It's like Walker wasn't even in the hallway.<br /><br />Still, while complaining that I infantilize, you just can't resist any smear on a victim.<br /><br /><i>Walker proved himself to be a reckless gun user, firing at cops without identifying his target, ...</i><br /><br />Yet, thje police were not reckless for firing at the woman who was not armed and did not fire a shot? Nice double standard there.<br /><br /><i>... such that Kenneth Walker murdered Breonna Taylor.</i><br /><br />K. Walker (there is an A. Walker associated with Glover, so I want to make sure there is no confusion here) and Taylor were guilty of no crimes. They are the innocent people that the police are supposed to be protecting. Instead, they were invaded by police, and one was killed by them.<br /><br />I believe I am done with this conversation. You seem determined that the police don't need to be held to a standard (unless white people get endangered, like the people in the next apartment), but that innocent people have to constantly on guard lest they somehow mistake police acting like criminals for criminals. I believe the police need to held to the higher standard, and that they should be protecting people like K. Walker and Taylor.<br /><br />However, I will read you answer to this question, though I likely won't respond. I will assume for now the police were in uniform, but what if they had not been? If the police had been in plain clothes, and Walker shot one of them, would that have been justified? How sure does Walker need to be, here?One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88816966822021301582020-09-24T21:31:09.484-07:002020-09-24T21:31:09.484-07:00One Brow,
“I can't imagine living with that am...One Brow,<br />“I can't imagine living with that amount of paranoia.”<br />Neither could Breonna, so she did not live. <br /><br />“you expect less-trained civilians to take their time and risk being shot/killed.”<br />Gun ownership and use carries with it personal responsibilities.<br />Don’t keep your firearm where it is easily accessed by children, or people who are suicidal or violent in nature.<br />Don’t shoot until you identify your target.<br /><br />“Police should be expected to take up defensive positions instead of just blasting away.”<br />Like firefighters who run toward the fire while citizens run away, police aggressively pursue the criminals while citizens run away.<br /><br />But, you seem to have done a small bit of research into the attack upon police committed by Kenneth Walker. Can you tell me why Walker did not get shot?<br /><br />I have never before come across an instance where the shooter did not get hit but a person standing next to the shooter got hit, you say, 6 times. How is that possible?<br /><br />Wouldn’t the cops aim for the shooter first? It seems to me they always shoot the guy with the gun first, right? So what could have gotten in their way?<br /><br />What could have blocked the shots fired at Walker but not at Taylor? Whatever Walker used as a shield to absorb all those shots would end up with a lot of bullet holes, say 6, right?<br /><br />Based on the evidence of Taylor standing near to Walker, Walker fired and held his gun, Taylor got shot 6 times, Walker did not get shot at all, it looks to me that Walker used Taylor as a human shield, like Osama Bin Laden did with one of his wives. <br /><br />Walker proved himself to be a reckless gun user, firing at cops without identifying his target, so given that he did not get shot but Taylor near to him got shot 6 times the logical conclusion is that Taylor was not beside Walker, rather, Walker put Taylor in front of himself as a human shield, such that Kenneth Walker murdered Breonna Taylor.<br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-70264725915006360132020-09-24T11:43:42.561-07:002020-09-24T11:43:42.561-07:00StardustyPsyche,
Oh, poor little Breonna had no ch...StardustyPsyche,<br /><i>Oh, poor little Breonna had no choice but to hang out with a criminal because…you infantilize black people.</i><br /><br />I recognize realities. Glover was a non-violent man, as far as I can tell.<br /><br /><i>Ha ha ha, because the cops never break down the door of a white guy who exchanges packages with a recently busted drug dealer, right? Racist much?</i><br /><br />So, you do support breaking down the doors of anyone any criminal knows? Even when, after having them investigated, there is no basis for suspicion?<br /><br /><i>Great advice, dad, sure sweetie, I know the guy just got busted and is out on bail before he goes to trial but somebody has to help the poor little criminal “re-integrate into society” so of course I think it is a terrific idea to be his girlfriend.</i><br /><br />Ex-girlfriend, before he was arrested.<br /><br /><i>You can’t make this stuff up.</i><br /><br />I know.<br /><br /><i>So it is all a conspiracy now, </i><br /><br />No, just enlightened self-interest. You get elected DA by getting people put in prison, and it's hard to do that without portraying yo0ur police as reliable witnesses. Everyone has in interest in protecting everyone else, no conspiracy needed.<br /><br /><i>Oh, except, wait, there was evidence that one of the cops fired recklessly, so he got indicted on a charge commensurate with the actual evidence.</i><br /><br />When there is enough public outrage, bones get thrown.<br /><br /><i>Yes, and if they turn out to be criminals they are no longer my associates.</i><br /><br />Good to know that about you. I'm really glad I'll never be your associate. I can't imagine living with that amount of paranoia.<br /><br /><i>Yes, I am, as are a number of people I know, armed, loaded, and ready.</i><br /><br />Just remember, it's your fault if they happen to be cops.<br /><br /><i>That’s where taking up a defensive position and identifying your target come into play. See, its not ok to just start blasting away without even looking to see if the person is dressed like a cop. </i><br /><br />This is what I mean about police worship. You support police firing in less than two seconds on two different innocent people, but you expect less-trained civilians to take their time and risk being shot/killed. It should be the other way around. Police should be expected to take up defensive positions instead of just blasting away.<br /><br /><i>But you have the racism of infantilization of black people. </i><br /><br />You have the ideological blinders of police worship.<br />One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-39396913708306835822020-09-24T07:05:37.860-07:002020-09-24T07:05:37.860-07:00One Brow,
“Easy to say when you've got more ch...One Brow,<br />“Easy to say when you've got more choices,”<br />Oh, poor little Breonna had no choice but to hang out with a criminal because…you infantilize black people.<br /><br />“ and I don't think the police should be breaking down your door based on who you are friends with.”<br />Ha ha ha, because the cops never break down the door of a white guy who exchanges packages with a recently busted drug dealer, right? Racist much?<br /><br />“if no one will associate with criminals, how are they supposed to re-integrate into society?”<br />Great advice, dad, sure sweetie, I know the guy just got busted and is out on bail before he goes to trial but somebody has to help the poor little criminal “re-integrate into society” so of course I think it is a terrific idea to be his girlfriend.<br /><br />You can’t make this stuff up.<br /><br />“As always, prosecutors accept the police lies”<br />So it is all a conspiracy now, prosecutors, local investigators, the cops, the FBI, the judge, and the grand jury all worked for months on the witness evidence, ballistics evidence, and a long set of redundant investigations, only to just fall for a pack of lies.<br /><br />Oh, except, wait, there was evidence that one of the cops fired recklessly, so he got indicted on a charge commensurate with the actual evidence.<br /><br />“How you done background checks on all of your associates?”<br />Yes, and if they turn out to be criminals they are no longer my associates.<br /><br />“Perhaps you should be ready for someone to knock down you door.”<br />Yes, I am, as are a number of people I know, armed, loaded, and ready.<br /><br />“Remember, you can't act in self-defense, on the off chance it might be the police”<br />That’s where taking up a defensive position and identifying your target come into play. See, its not ok to just start blasting away without even looking to see if the person is dressed like a cop. This is especially true when there is warning by pounding on the door. Maybe some stupid drunk just has the wrong house, you never know, don’t just start blasting away, identify your target, which Walker failed to do, he just blasted away without even looking to realize he was shooting at a cop.<br /><br />And when your girlfriend has another boyfriend who is in the habit of getting busted and using your phone and exchanging packages with you it is no big stretch to figure the cops are going to show up looking for the guy.<br /><br />But you have the racism of infantilization of black people. Fortunately the grand jury realized that the cops did their jobs and defended themselves against a guy who shot first.<br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-38143393314155599652020-09-24T06:28:37.384-07:002020-09-24T06:28:37.384-07:00StardustyPsyche,
Oh snaps, but now the black guy s...StardustyPsyche,<br /><i>Oh snaps, but now the black guy says there is a corroborating witness to the police announcement and the warrant was not served as a no-knock warrant.</i><br /><br />Who's "the black guy", and why did you think this was a relevant way to identify him? Cameron? You think black people don't participate in racism, especially those in the police, or whose job is to work closely with police?<br /><br />One neighbor who thinks he heard, multiple neighbors who say they didn't call it out.<br /><br />The notion that the police got a no-knock warrant, and decided to knock anyway, is very naive on your part.<br /><br /><i>Looks like Breonna’s gun firing boyfriend who fired the first shot started the gunfight after all.</i><br /><br />I don't believe there was any doubt that he shot first, as people defending from a home invasion are permitted to do.<br /><br /><i>Oh, snaps again, except Breonna, the black guy says because the evidence shows, was standing in the hall next to the guy who fired first, and she got hit 5 times, not 8.</i><br /><br />Cameron said 6 times, not 5. <br /><br /><i>Turns out, another Breonna boyfriend got busted, and while out again he dropped a package off at Breonna’s apartment, plus when they towed the guy’s car he complained and gave the cops a phone number registered to Breonna.</i><br /><br />That would be ex-boyfriend, first of all, and he took the package from Taylor’s apartment, not to it. Which of that justifies breaking down Taylor's door? Is any package automatically drugs? How many packages have you gotten this year?<br /><br /><i>So, Breonna is hangin with a guy who gets busted, drops off a package to her, then gives the cops her phone like it is his. That’s what a judge calls probable cause for a search warrant.</i><br /><br />Think about just how flimsy that is. Meanwhile, the USPS was asked to monitor deliveries to Taylor, and there was nothing suspicious. <br /><br /><i>And then she was standing next to another gunman who fired first and hit a cop, </i><br /><br />I suppose you are in favor of letting home invaders just run rampant? Doesn't sound like you.<br /><br /><i>...so surprise surprise, in a few seconds 3 cops fire 20 rounds after the guy shoots the cop </i><br /><br />The officer who was hit fired 6 rounds, the one who shot Taylor fired 16, and that doesn't include the guy who fired through the window and is the one being charged.<br /><br /><i>Unlucky for Breonna she hung out with criminals and gunmen ... </i><br /><br />Are white people defending themselves "gunmen", or do you only apply that to black people?<br /><br />Nor was Taylor, nor Walker, involved in any criminal activity. When the criminal justice system makes a third of black men into criminals, despite similar crime rates from all races in similar economic circumstances, you wind up being friends with criminals. It's unavoidable.<br /><br /><i>Standing next to a gunman who shoots cops can be dangerous, case in point.</i><br /><br />So, you think black people should just let home invaders break down their doors?<br /><br /><i>Guess maybe folks should choose their associates more carefully, don’t you think?</i><br /><br />Easy to say when you've got more choices, and I don't think the police should be breaking down your door based on who you are friends with.<br /><br />Not to mention, if no one will associate with criminals, how are they supposed to re-integrate into society?<br /><br /><i>As always, the BLM lies get found out, the initial false reports get corrected, the cops did the right thing, and the BLM criminals are to blame.</i><br /><br />As always, prosecutors accept the police lies, the police act recklessly and with little consequence (expect for the guy who shot into the apartment of the white neighbor), and here you blame criminals despite there being no criminals in Taylor's apartment that night.<br /><br />How you done background checks on all of your associates? Perhaps you should be ready for someone to knock down you door. Remember, you can't act in self-defense, on the off chance it might be the police. Also, remember that it doesn’t matter if the people being investigated have never been suspected of violence.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-820039246729846572020-09-23T20:49:06.766-07:002020-09-23T20:49:06.766-07:00One Brow
”Certainly not the part where the polic...One Brow <br /><br />”Certainly not the part where the police had every incentive to say they identified themselves, nor the part where the neighbors have little or no incentive to say the police did not identify themselves. Why is that confusing to you?”<br />Oh snaps, but now the black guy says there is a corroborating witness to the police announcement and the warrant was not served as a no-knock warrant.<br /><br />Looks like Breonna’s gun firing boyfriend who fired the first shot started the gunfight after all.<br /><br />”The part where you indicate the one thing that is questionable is whether police could see through a wall and target a person behind it.”<br />Oh, snaps again, except Breonna, the black guy says because the evidence shows, was standing in the hall next to the guy who fired first, and she got hit 5 times, not 8.<br /><br />Turns out, another Breonna boyfriend got busted, and while out again he dropped a package off at Breonna’s apartment, plus when they towed the guy’s car he complained and gave the cops a phone number registered to Breonna.<br /><br />So, Breonna is hangin with a guy who gets busted, drops off a package to her, then gives the cops her phone like it is his. That’s what a judge calls probable cause for a search warrant.<br /><br />And then she was standing next to another gunman who fired first and hit a cop, so surprise surprise, in a few seconds 3 cops fire 20 rounds after the guy shoots the cop (The cops must have held their fire after 20 because they had at least 33 or up to 48 rounds in their magazines). Unlucky for Breonna she hung out with criminals and gunmen so she got hit by 5 of those 20 rounds. Standing next to a gunman who shoots cops can be dangerous, case in point.<br /><br />Guess maybe folks should choose their associates more carefully, don’t you think?<br /><br />So, after all the investigations, the witnesses, the physical evidence, the ballistics, and all the rest it was self defense except a cop went and fired indiscriminately, which means it is a super good thing he got fired and got indicted because he was literally a loose cannon on the police force.<br /><br />As always, the BLM lies get found out, the initial false reports get corrected, the cops did the right thing, and the BLM criminals are to blame.<br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59236686026086354822020-09-23T11:02:40.129-07:002020-09-23T11:02:40.129-07:00Mr. Feser, if you really think that the correct wa...Mr. Feser, if you really think that the correct way to describe the modern Democratic party is that they are "a gang of Maoist cultural revolutionaries," then might I humbly suggest you cease writing on contemporary politics?<br /><br />A gang of Maoist cultural revolutionaries selected JOE BIDEN as their representative? When they had Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren as live, viable options?Screwtape Jenkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13874779097608201662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-30420865243828009032020-09-23T06:55:58.937-07:002020-09-23T06:55:58.937-07:00Some conservatives happen to believe in the true, ...<i>Some conservatives happen to believe in the true, revealed Faith, but as conservatives, they justify social respect for religion on the basis of conservative theory, which makes no profession of faith in God’s revelation.</i> <br /><br />Maybe some foolish conservatives do, but not all and that doesn't define the class. Conservatives do not, on principle “make no profession of faith in God’s revelation”. The conservative principle holds that truth and error are not epistemically or socially “equal forces”, it is not Manichean. There is a presumption in favor of <i>what has been established already</i>, but it is a <b>rebuttable</b> presumption, what has been handed on by society can be overcome by superior evidence. This is just what God does in the course of salvation history, He repeatedly gives superior evidence in favor of the truth, through the prophets and through events. Moses vs. the Egyptian priests, Elijah vs the priests of Baal – the false claims were defeated by the superior. Thus conservatism prefers truth over custom, <i>including revealed truth</i>. <br /><br /><i>This is because conservatism is a theory based upon social evolutionism over time for which truth is the link with the past, and heresy a sudden interruption. It does not sit well with the appearance of the Church for example, which violated every religious tradition in the world except for the Old Testament. </i> <br /><br />I have given the lie to this explicitly above: the "good" conservative pagan holds on to the truth he received from his forefathers, and gives up what he had <i>thought</i> was true when it is made manifest by superior evidence (the kind God has given the Church through the ages). The Church herself has repeatedly SAID that God has given her wondrous signs precisely as evidence for the Truth that He reveals through her and in her, to help her overcome error. <br /><br />Conservatism doesn’t trump truth by custom, it is rather a preferential standard requiring a sufficiency of evidence to induce a change in custom. Custom is the wisdom of generations turned into acceptable norms of behavior; it is sometimes based on error, but one can give it the benefit of the doubt while sifting competing claims and not-yet-sufficient evidence. This is, indeed, what the Church does Herself, through both Tradition with a capital “T”, and with “immemorial custom” which has pride of place in law. St. Thomas: <br /><br /><i> As stated above, human law is rightly changed, in so far as such change is conducive to the common weal. But, to a certain extent, the mere change of law is of itself prejudicial to the common good: because custom avails much for the observance of laws, seeing that what is done contrary to general custom, even in slight matters, is looked upon as grave. Consequently, when a law is changed, the binding power of the law is diminished, in so far as custom is abolished. Wherefore human law should never be changed, unless, in some way or other, the common weal be compensated according to the extent of the harm done in this respect. Such compensation may arise either from some very great and every evident benefit conferred by the new enactment; or from the extreme urgency of the case, due to the fact that either the existing law is clearly unjust, or its observance extremely harmful. Wherefore the jurist says that "in establishing new laws, there should be <b>evidence</b> of the benefit to be derived, before departing from a law which has long been considered just."</i> <br /><br />Thus St. Thomas explicitly allows for custom or law to be changed when sufficient evidence is brought forward that a new practice is better, IF that new practice ALSO carries with it an improvement that outweighs the inherent damage done to custom and law by making a change. Thus there is a <i>presumption</i> in favor of custom that can be defeated by a strong enough reason for it. There is no implied “evolution over time” and no standard that says custom trumps evidence of the truth. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72337692739041133552020-09-23T06:53:48.966-07:002020-09-23T06:53:48.966-07:00You say “The religious conservative holds fast to ...<i>You say “The religious conservative holds fast to the religious truth that has been held out to him by his forebears as a gift.” But if the conservative holds to religious truth that has been given to him by his forebears, does this not exclude religious truth that has not been transmitted by forebears? </i><br /><br />Not at all. The religious conservative receives religious truth from his forefathers, and holds to it AT FIRST. He can extend that body of truth by additions to it through his own efforts. If that religious truth comes under attack, he defends it and repudiates error. If, on the other hand, the religion of his fathers comes under attack and that attack makes manifest that what he had thought was true is actually wrong, THEN he rejects it in favor of what has been made manifest. So, for example, the Hebrews after Abraham rightly defended the faith of Abraham from pagans, and believed in the One True God. However, when Christ came along and showed them that some of them had fallen into error, such as the Sadduces, they SHOULD have given up error and embraced the truth. And the good Jews who received Jesus' preaching could adamantly <b>hold fast</b> to the religious truth they had received from Abraham - in the One True God - along with the new and more complete truth in the Three Persons, <b>without rejecting what truth they had received from Abraham</b>. The truth they already held was conformable with the truth they could now receive and that Christ revealed. God doesn’t reveal one truth and then undermine it by revealing a contradictory “truth”. <br /><br />When the Christian missionaries came with the truth to foreign pagans, bearing the testimony of God for their claims in (a) a holy life, together with (b) miracles, those pagans were right to give up their belief in many false gods, but they were also right to hold on to a belief in the existence of a divinity of some sort. The new truth they received did not deny their grasp of there being a divinity, but improved upon it by showing a transcendent divinity. Truth cannot defeat truth, it only defeats error. Conservatism doesn’t say “accept religion <b>merely</b> because society urges you to”, it rather says “accept what wisdom your fathers have come to, until you can surpass that wisdom with a greater.” <br /><br />The Catholic conservative first receives his religion at his parents' knees, and at first believes <i>because his parents believe and teach him to believe</i>. Eventually, however, he outgrows the slender stem of relying <i>solely</i> on his parents' word. At that point he has available all the resources of the whole Church's patrimony of testimony by which God has gifted her with sufficient evidence of His revelation and truth: again, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The conservative then does not only believe because his society believes, but because the Church with God Himself provide adequate evidence in confirmation of what he had learned from his forefathers. At that point he rejoices in having received truth from his infancy, and embraces the continuity of the Church Militant running from Christ through the Apostles down the ages even to his own ears. Thus his parents’ testimony, and then his current society’s custom, (if he lives in a Catholic country) become simply the stage upon which he imbibes the wealth of good reason he has in support of the act of faith. The continuity of his faith as a child with his faith as an adult is the continuity of a natural, integrated mind and will led docilely by God through the natural light of reason and by grace, working together. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-28350762827724953152020-09-22T22:00:06.947-07:002020-09-22T22:00:06.947-07:00If all your friends are calling you an asshole, in...If all your friends are calling you an asshole, including the ones who aren't ignorant trolls, maybe the problem comes from within... Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34911265496277353892020-09-21T22:09:52.410-07:002020-09-21T22:09:52.410-07:00Catus,
"essentially making it impossible to b...Catus,<br />"essentially making it impossible to be convicted for interfering with police, criminal trespass or disorderly conduct unless it involves deliberate property damage, threat, or force."<br />Well, yeah, and the problem is?<br /><br />What, do you want people to be convicted for colorful vocabulary?<br /><br />For example, if a bystander says "don't arrest that guy you effing pig", that should not be cause for conviction. If the cop gets all butt hurt about bad language well that is just too bad for the cop, go be a church choir director.<br /><br />If the bystander uses physical force to interfere with the arrest that is a crime and not only should the original arrest be completed, the former bystander and now criminal assailant should also be arrested.<br /><br />What exactly is the problem with a "deliberate property damage, threat, or force" standard?<br /><br />What, do you want people to be arrested for making a scowling face at a cop?<br /><br />Maybe you think protesters who use profanity should be jailed? Grow up.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41839225551617335432020-09-21T13:36:16.852-07:002020-09-21T13:36:16.852-07:00Working against the legalisation of prostitution h...Working against the legalisation of prostitution has historically been the one field in which conservatives and feminists could cooperate as strange bedfellows, and I dearly wish we could do that more often. And yes, while George Soros is often blown ridiculously out of proportion by conspiracy theorists, in the end he is still a very rich and influential man leading a powerful NGO devoted to manipulating society in the image of its founder, so it's not as if he isn't at least worthy of some suspicion.Cantushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09423694187264830935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-87371770618988378192020-09-21T13:16:01.868-07:002020-09-21T13:16:01.868-07:00Nice cherry-picking, Stardy. You give a reasonable...Nice cherry-picking, Stardy. You give a reasonable motivation for the police staying out of CHAZ, but completely ignore the softballing it got, such as the "summer of love" comment, which clearly biased public perception in favor of it being peaceful and harmless. Or how about the fact that Oregon's state police withdrew from Portland on the grounds that Portland's DA issued guidelines that were very soft on rioters, essentially making it impossible to be convicted for interfering with police, criminal trespass or disorderly conduct unless it involves deliberate property damage, threat, or force. And I quote:<br /><br />"The Oregon State Police is continually reassessing our resources and the needs of our partner agencies and at this time we are inclined to move those resources back to counties where prosecution of criminal conduct is still a priority.” - quoted in https://northwestobserver.com/index.php?ArticleId=275<br /><br />Clearly, the police (who know the situation on the ground better than you, presumably) do not think that Multnomah County DA Mike Schmidt was being soft on rioters and making it excessively difficult for them to be prosecuted. How does this not constitute a failure to deal with rioting appropriately?Cantushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09423694187264830935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88493784125052104922020-09-21T06:27:49.290-07:002020-09-21T06:27:49.290-07:00StardustyPsyche,
As does the guy who shot first. A...StardustyPsyche,<br /><i>As does the guy who shot first. Again, what part of “reports conflict” is confusing to you?</i><br /><br />By "the guy who shot first", do you mean the one who called 911 to summon the police because he didn't know who was entering Brown's apartment? That's the guy who thought they were police?<br /><br /><i>Then why did so many witnesses lie in the Michael Brown case? </i><br /><br />From the evidence, there only needs to be one liar. Officer Wilson.<br /><br /><i>Hatred of the police is very evidently a strong incentive, as is the desire for notoriety. </i><br /><br />Why would people hate someone if, as you claim, they are being protected from a criminal?<br /><br /><i>Beyond witnesses lying is the likelihood that in the noise and confusion and the locations of the various parties it is quite likely that the police could say something that the neighbors simply did not hear.<br />Once again, what part of “reports conflict” is confusing to you?</i><br /><br />Certainly not the part where the only people that claim the police identified themselves are the same people with a vested interest in saying the police identified themselves., that is, the police. <br /><br /><i>Timing in a gunfight often is only a matter of seconds, so what is your point?</i><br /><br />My point is that an innocent man, presenting no threat at all, was gunned down in a second, before he had a chance to react and because he was black, and you take the position that this was justified.<br /><br /><i>Yes, of course, if Rice was pointing a gun of any sort at strangers in a public park in a manner they experienced fear and felt assaulted that is the crime of armed assault.</i><br /><br />How appropriate for you that only black children cause these feelings of fear and make people feel assaulted. We wouldn't want the police shooting up all the nice white children with their toy guns.<br /><br /><i>So the cops acted correctly with the information they were provided.</i><br /><br />Shooting a child within two seconds is correct behavior to you? I hope you never have kids.<br /><br /><i>Children assaulting passers by with realistic replica guns are armed criminals, but naturally you have to justify their armed crimes.</i><br /><br />Who was assaulted? Get any witnesses on that? Does it matter, as long as the kid was black?<br /><br /><i>How ridiculous. </i><br /><br />I have no expectation that you would keep up with how terminology gets used. You're too invested in making sure black children aren't running around with toy guns, scaring you to death.<br /><br /><i>No, you do not get to re-define racism as not racism.</i><br /><br />Not my definition.<br /><br /><i>More meaningless blather from you.</i><br /><br />Only slightly higher quality than yours.<br /><br /><i>One who believes in Racism or Racist principles is a Racist.</i><br /><br />Of course. Since "racism" is used to express the use of power to oppress, this actually agrees with my point.<br /><br /><i>Lots of black people are racist because they hold racially based attitudes toward persons of other races.</i><br /><br />Those would be bigots. The racist blacks are the ones that hold racially biased attitudes towards other black people.<br /><br /><i>The assertion that power is somehow a requirement for racism is just a pathetic rationalization by racists to convince themselves that due to their lack of power they cannot be racists so therefore they are not racists even though they express blatantly racist views.</i><br /><br />You've got a serious case of projection there. Most of the people I know who use this definition recognize the pervasive influence of racism throughout the culture, which is inescapable. The people trying to dodge their own racism are the ones who try to narrow the definition, feeling that as long as they think they are not hateful, they're not racist, even when they cheer as black children get killed.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-63395087027382788012020-09-20T20:41:39.209-07:002020-09-20T20:41:39.209-07:00@Anon, I was specifically expressing frustration a...@Anon, I was specifically expressing frustration about so-called socialists who close their ears to a Marxist analysis of the sex industry. If you want to argue traditional morality to them, good luck--at least a socialist critique is something they're supposed to care about. But if you would like to look at nuances and realities, I direct you to this 2009 study on men in London who buy sex: https://i1.cmsfiles.com/eaves/2012/04/MenWhoBuySex-89396b.pdf<br /><br />We'll start with the agency of sex workers. An interesting stat mentioned in that study is that the majority of women involved in prostitution, possibly as high as 90%, were sexually abused as children, normalizing this kind of behavior for them. This is not "agency." It's closer to grooming. You don't meaningfully choose to enter an industry you've been conditioned to see as ideal because of childhood abuse.<br /><br />Moving onto the buyers, a quarter of the men interviewed here thought that the concept of rape didn't apply to prostitutes at all and half thought that prostitutes didn't have the right to refuse everything. That definitely looks like moral depravity to me. Beyond that, almost half thought the prostitution was detrimental to prostitutes, half thought prostitutes were the victims of pimps, and half thought that the majority of prostitutes were tricked or trafficked, and they all did it anyway. Going by the results of this study, we're looking at an industry where at least half of the men involved are morally depraved. The other half may be more naive about what they're doing, but they clearly think money entitles them to someone else's body. That's not morally neutral.<br /><br />As for Samuel Butler, it seems there's an argument that he viewed Lucie Dumas as a vessel through which to act out his same-sex desires for the other man who was visiting her. If you're using someone as a tool through which to have some odd sexual bond with a third person, that's objectification. <br /><br />In any case, I don't see how a prostitute can be exploitative at all. Even if she takes the money and runs, that's theft, not exploitation. She's not luring a man in under false pretexts--the whole thing is clearly contractual, so if a man thinks he can pay for emotional intimacy while skipping the hard part of actually navigating a relationship with another person, he's not being exploited. He's being an entitled idiot. If "traditional moralism" is excusing away male sexual immorality and entitlement as men thinking they don't have a choice, while stressing the agency (and apparently deceitful wickedness) of any woman who wasn't outright trafficked, I think it's worth less than nothing. <br /><br />Traditional moralism is what's left us with this hypersexualized disaster of a culture in the first place: spend half of forever excusing male sexual immorality as understandable, not that bad, just things that happen, while villifying women who "stray" in any way (and historically cutting them off from society entirely so that their only remaining option *is* prostitution, which is certainly convenient if men straying isn't quite the same problem), and when the wheels finally fall off, they'll fall off *completely.* Way easier to say that what's good for the gander is good for the goose than attempt to curb male sexual immorality in any way, so here we are. Can't say I'm impressed.Hypatiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06431790700424358279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-30333577611803358532020-09-20T16:04:12.217-07:002020-09-20T16:04:12.217-07:00I think one issue is that looking at sex industry ...I think one issue is that looking at sex industry simply as an institution can blind you to nuances and realities, such as the agency of sex workers. Those women who do turn to it because they think it a relatively easy way to make money don't easily fit into that model, at least at that time. They have decided for themselves to use the desires and needs of their clients to financially support themselves. <br /><br />I think you have a rather simplistic idea of what at least some men who use these services are like. It seems to be a caricature in fact: they are monsters who think of women as no different from objects. I think it is probably far more complex than that in many cases. Many are probably lonely and although it is foolish to seek intimacy this way, and certainly raises moral problems, some men think they have little choice. I recall that the novelist Samuel Butler, who was at least bisexual, would visit a French female prostitute regularly for years, as would the man he lived with. The idea of Butler as some kind of moral monster who saw this woman, who was quite well comfortable, as a pound of flesh for his pure enjoyment seems simplistic at best. The desire for closeness, as well as sex, is deep. This is a misdirection of those desires, but it isn't necessarily proof of the kind of moral depravity that you imply. I think in this context it is perfectly possible for those selling sex to also be exploitative. <br /><br />I think this is a perfect example of the limitations of the Marxist, structuralist way of looking at issues. It has some utility, but needs to be supplemented. In my opinion traditional moralism is just as useful. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67556861149169122772020-09-20T11:24:00.850-07:002020-09-20T11:24:00.850-07:00One Brow,
“Certainly not the part where the police...One Brow,<br />“Certainly not the part where the police had every incentive to say they identified themselves,”<br />As does the guy who shot first. Again, what part of “reports conflict” is confusing to you?<br /><br />“ nor the part where the neighbors have little or no incentive to say the police did not identify themselves.”<br />Then why did so many witnesses lie in the Michael Brown case? Hatred of the police is very evidently a strong incentive, as is the desire for notoriety. Beyond witnesses lying is the likelihood that in the noise and confusion and the locations of the various parties it is quite likely that the police could say something that the neighbors simply did not hear.<br />Once again, what part of “reports conflict” is confusing to you?<br /><br />“I referred to the video of Crawford's death. You can find it easily enough, both with the 911 call in the background (which allows you to hear the timing of the shots) and without.”<br />Timing in a gunfight often is only a matter of seconds, so what is your point?<br /><br />“If the officers involved had known it was a toy, do you think they would have arrested Rice for assault? Would you have approved such an arrest?”<br />Yes, of course, if Rice was pointing a gun of any sort at strangers in a public park in a manner they experienced fear and felt assaulted that is the crime of armed assault.<br /><br />“that detail was not relayed to the responding officers”<br />So the cops acted correctly with the information they were provided.<br /><br />“Naturally, you have to justify the shooting by talking about a child playing with a toy”<br />Children assaulting passers by with realistic replica guns are armed criminals, but naturally you have to justify their armed crimes.<br /><br />“The usage of "racism" has moved on from that”<br />How ridiculous. “Moved on from that” is a vapid attempt to rationalize racism as somehow not racism. In newspeak many words have “moved on from that”. No, you do not get to re-define racism as not racism.<br /><br />“As usual, you misunderstand people to a large degree, blinded to your own planks while seeking out speck”<br />More meaningless blather from you.<br /><br />Racism is a belief system like other “ism”s proponents of said “ism”s being “ist”s.<br /><br />One who believes in Marxism or Marxist principles is a Marxist. One who believes in Platonism or Platonic principles is a Platonist.<br /><br />One who believes in Racism or Racist principles is a Racist.<br /><br />Lots of black people are racist because they hold racially based attitudes toward persons of other races.<br /><br />Power is irrelevant to being a racist. The assertion that power is somehow a requirement for racism is just a pathetic rationalization by racists to convince themselves that due to their lack of power they cannot be racists so therefore they are not racists even though they express blatantly racist views.<br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.com