tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post847318323280836301..comments2024-03-18T21:06:42.546-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: What “the science” is saying this week (Updated)Edward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger212125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-42922118644522017232020-06-08T12:05:04.492-07:002020-06-08T12:05:04.492-07:00"Funny how you accuse me of being emotional, ..."Funny how you accuse me of being emotional, and then start talking about "neutralize this shooter" who did not fire a single shot. You think that sounds like emotionless analysis?"<br /><br />I said POSSIBLE shooter just above that. The police don't know if someone who is pointing a gun at people is going to start shooting or not, but have to be prepared for that possibility. You are still refusing to acknowledge the significance of the circumstances police are placed in in these cases.<br /><br />"Do you disagree with the basic principal of checking your field of fire, or are police not supposed to consider that?"<br /><br />I agree, but it's a straw man. My argument was that MISTAKES under stress are not necessarily criminal acts. I'm already conceding they made mistakes, i.e., they didn't do everything right.<br /><br />"Does criminal intent need to be shown in cases of negligence? Isn't it negligent to fire your weapon without making sure there are no innocent bystanders?"<br /><br />Negligence is a type of criminal intent, the lowest level of it. For most crimes it is not sufficient. Even "Criminally Negligent Homicide" requires at least GROSS negligence, if I remember correctly.<br /><br />"Do non-police civilians get the same benefit of the consideration of stressful conditions?"<br /><br />Yes, especially if they did not create or enter those stressful conditions through their own wrongdoing.<br /><br />"If you are mistaken about who is breaking down your door and didn't hear them identify themself, do you think you won't be prosecuted when you shoot police?"<br /><br />The likelihood of prosecution would depend on numerous circumstances not spelled out in your hypothetical question. But legally speaking, yes, this can be the basis of a complete defense to assault or homicide of a police officer, and would have to be considered by a prosecutor in deciding whether to bring charges.<br /><br />"As someone with supposedly more experience than me in law enforcement, how often do you see criminals charge into gunfire after being shot? Have you seen it 5 other times? 3? 1?"<br /><br />Off the top of my head, I can think of two that I have personal knowledge of. My feeling, without researching it specifically, is that it's not unusual.<br /><br />"I see you did not deny my point about Zimmerman hunting Martin."<br /><br />From what I remember, there was some conflict in the evidence in that case, and of course this tends to go in favor of the defense due to the presumption of innocence. Regardless, following someone does not necessarily equal hunting, and Zimmerman didn't shoot until after Martin pounded his head on the pavement.<br /><br />Zimmerman's actions were imprudent and might have been racially motivated, but I don't see how he clearly violated any laws.<br /><br />And that wasn't even a police shooting. Regardless, the outrage that was generated by both the Martin and the Brown shootings was initially fueled by false versions of the events.Alessionoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78813194399043330102020-06-08T09:33:17.074-07:002020-06-08T09:33:17.074-07:00Keep Calm and Carry On,
Anyone who interprets kne...Keep Calm and Carry On,<br /><br />Anyone who interprets kneeling as a sign of disrespect is in a very poor position to lecture other people on their sophism.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-9561361873548796042020-06-08T08:18:18.175-07:002020-06-08T08:18:18.175-07:00Alessio,
I understand your position that officers...Alessio,<br /><br />I understand your position that officers had a right and a duty to act, and I don't disagree. If you want to explain why holding them to higher standard is a false expectation, go ahead, explain it. <br /><br />Funny how you accuse me of being emotional, and then start talking about "neutralize this shooter" who did not fire a single shot. You think that sounds like emotionless analysis?<br /><br />I interact with a lot of gun owners and other people raised with guns. One of the first things they tell me is the importance of knowing your field of fire, in particular, whom could be hurt by you. Firing without checking the field of fire is reckless. The police who shot Crawford and Rice were lucky there wasn't anyone else in the way, the ones who shot Breanna Taylor were not so lucky. Do you disagree with the basic principal of checking your field of fire, or are police not supposed to consider that?<br /><br />Does criminal intent need to be shown in cases of negligence? Isn't it negligent to fire your weapon without making sure there are no innocent bystanders?<br /><br />Do non-police civilians get the same benefit of the consideration of stressful conditions? If you are mistaken about who is breaking down your door and didn't hear them identify themself, do you think you won't be prosecuted when you shoot police?<br /><br />I didn't realize you viewed LeBron James as such an authority on policing, but he wasn't necessarily talking about only being killed. Even if he was, it's not surprising that, knowing the day-to-day harassment that black people face from the police, he thought that carried over into actually being shot.<br /><br />Do you think the officer being black means she was not racist? That's very naive.<br /><br />We have only Wilson's testimony that Brown charged him, and none of physical evidence supports that. As someone with supposedly more experience than me in law enforcement, how often do you see criminals charge into gunfire after being shot? Have you seen it 5 other times? 3? 1?<br /><br />Yes, all the shots hit Brown from the front, including one with an entry wound on the inside of Brown's arm. What position is Brown's arm in if he is facing Wilson, and the inside of his arm is pointing toward Wilson? It might not be above his head, but it's certainly not at his side while he's running.<br /><br />I see you did not deny my point about Zimmerman hunting Martin.<br /><br />I watched the videos of Crawford's death. I read the autopsy report of Brown. I read the transcript of Zimmerman's phone call while he was hunting Martin. I actually research these things.<br /><br />I'm saying that the prosecutors who have to work with the police on a regular basis are just as subject to the bias that relationship creates as anyone else would be, and that prosecutors who become judges carry this bias with them.<br /><br />I will now cede you that last word, because this thread really is too long. I will read and consider your reply, should you choose to make one.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-19284611685553433142020-06-07T20:00:47.580-07:002020-06-07T20:00:47.580-07:00"To you, in that context, is the police offic..."To you, in that context, is the police officer to be held to a higher standard in the use of deadly force, or a lower standard, than another civilian?"<br /><br />I've already laid out my position on this. Instead of refuting what I've written, you just come back with a gotcha question. You probably don't even know it's a gotcha question, given your evident lack of familiarity with the criminal justice system.<br /><br />"Yeah, shooting up a WalMart and and a play ground..."<br /><br />You could frame it as: we ORDER you into a life-and-death situation, with an incomplete description of a possible shooter. You MUST neutralize this shooter, with deadly force if necessary. If you are a split second late, you or innocent bystanders could get shot. A split second too early, and you could go to prison for murder."<br /><br />Or you could also frame it as: "You just shot up a Walmart or a playground."<br /><br />Your comment shows you are approaching this from prejudice and emotion, not from reason.<br /><br />"Also, I love the use of "allegedly" here to describe the video evidence of Crawford and the officer testimony regarding Rice."<br /><br />I used "allegedly" because I only read a description of what the videos showed. I don't have time to get into each of these cases in depth. What I have been doing (and maybe I should have been clearer about this) is to show the particular circumstances that weigh against criminal intent in each of these cases. Since criminal intent has to be shown beyond a reasonable doubt in every case, whether the defendant is a cop or not, I am focusing on why it is understandable that these cases are not prosecuted, or result in acquittals or lesser offenses.<br /><br />Furthermore, the officers' subjective impressions of the situation could differ from reality, as judged by what's seen on the video. There is plenty of scientific evidence showing that contemporaneous human perception can be innacurate, especially in stressful conditions. These subjective factors are legally relevant and play a huge role in mistake-of-fact defenses.<br /><br />"It was the use of "murder" and "hunting" that reflected your own self-aggrieved spin."<br /><br />False. LeBron James said "We're literally hunted everyday." References to police committing murder are ubiquitous, including from you.<br /><br />"So, you think one police officer not considering something to be brutal is evidence it was not brutal?"<br /><br />Yes, when you're alleging racism and it was a black senior officer who witnessed it. Keep in mind also that "evidence" is less than "proof." <br /><br />"For shooting an unarmed man dozens of feet away, after the man had stopped fleeing. Hear, hear!"<br /><br />Yes, he had stopped fleeing and was instead charing at Officer Wilson when shot. All the shots hit him in the front. But now everyone knows that you get your facts from the BLM Book of Fairy Tails.<br /><br />"The prosecutors that present the cases are definitely part of the rigged system, as are the judges (many of whom are former prosecutors, most of whom have election concerns). I'm not surprised you tried to distract from that by focusing on the jurors. Did you think that would work?"<br /><br />Are you alleging that the prosecutors on these cases deliberately threw the cases? As usual, you ask questions instead of stating an opinion.Alessionoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-86616902204819201052020-06-07T15:47:36.755-07:002020-06-07T15:47:36.755-07:00"
"Non sequiturs are a logical term. We&..."<br />"Non sequiturs are a logical term. We're looking at a scientific study. That's a category error."<br /><br />This is a ridiculous comment, even for you. Jeremy Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1874309009655356382020-06-07T10:38:18.496-07:002020-06-07T10:38:18.496-07:00Alessio
"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nu...Alessio<br />"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."<br /><br />"WTF!!!!!!!"<br />Unpacking that a bit, did you notice that the 3 founders pictured are women? That in their background pictures of protesters they always choose pictures of women? That the info about the founding of BLM is "herstory"? BLM is a lesbian founded organization that is actively exclusionary towards men, so, sexist.<br /><br />Now back to your quoted policy: "collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."<br /><br />Note the absence of any reference to males. Words like "man" or "men" or "male" are, apparently, dirty words for BLM women. In their dystopian vision children are raised in a collective of women.<br /><br />You might not have noticed one of their most recent agenda items, defund the police, because, they seem to think, the gangs and drugs and rapes and robberies, and thefts and shootings and murders will all get better if only the black community could just get those cops out of the way. <br />https://blacklivesmatter.com/defundthepolice/StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-38496506269382802282020-06-07T09:25:52.460-07:002020-06-07T09:25:52.460-07:00Alessio,
"Enraged by the death of Trayvon Mar...Alessio,<br /><i>"Enraged by the death of Trayvon Martin and the subsequent acquittal of his killer, George Zimmerman..."<br /><br />Who was acquitted he acted in self-defense...</i><br /><br />Martin couldn't be acquitted, he was dead.<br /><br />Now, if you want to look for a time the word "hunted" is appropriate, that would be Zimmerman. Were you aware that, well before the fatal encounter, Martin knocked on the window of Zimmerman's car, and asked Zimmerman why he was following Martin? Naturally, brave George lied to Martin about the situation. If anyone was acting in self-defense, it was Martin.<br /><br /><i>'We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.'<br /><br />Black Lives Matter officially embraces criminals, libels law-abiding citizens, and foments riots.<br /><br />Anyone in this discussion who has sympathized with BLM or their "peaceful protests" in any way is hereby invited to disavaow them utterly as the hate group that they are.</i><br /><br />So, you take a statement that they treat each other as extended families and care for each other, and interpret that as being a hate group. Cool. Very rational of you.<br /><br />This thread is exceeding 200 comments, and I don’t like commenting in blogspot over that number, but perhaps we’ll continue the conversation another day. Thank you.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34898359283002760592020-06-07T09:24:23.489-07:002020-06-07T09:24:23.489-07:00Alessio,
No. The word "murder" has a mea...Alessio,<br /><i>No. The word "murder" has a meaning. The word "hunting" has a meaning. Accidental killings and slightly increased frequency of the use of minor force don't fit those meanings.</i><br /><br />It was the use of "murder" and "hunting" that reflected your own self-aggrieved spin.<br /><br /><i>Yes, I do. Calling the police generally brutal, racist, and killing people with impunity sounds can fairly be described as "anti-police."</i><br /><br />So, calling into question the tactics and statements of practitioners make you opposed to a profession? By that definition (which I do not adopt), most of this board is anti-science.<br /><br /><i>This is really just a "tu quoque." </i><br /><br />Check back on the context to which I was responding, which was a poster spewing out racist talking points. I responded to the racism by pointing out the data did not support it.<br /><br /><i>Actually it does. Because most deaths of unarmed people are not the police officer's fault, or at least not to a criminal standard.</i><br /><br />Because prosecutors don't think so?<br /><br /><i>Not good enough. I have now, at least twice, pointed out that the context of law enforcement deaths is utterly different from the context of private citizens killing people. </i><br /><br />To you, in that context, is the police officer to be held to a higher standard in the use of deadly force, or a lower standard, than another civilian?<br /><br /><i>1. I didn't say it was a justified killing. It appears to have been, mostly likely, gross incompetence.<br /><br />2. The situation if an ordinary citizen does it is entirely different, because he has no duty to detain criminal suspects or to use deadly force against them.</i><br /><br />So when police officers kill people through gross incompetence, they are not engaging in a criminal act; but when other civilians kill other people through gross incompetence, that is criminal?<br /><br /><i>John Crawford and Tamir Rice ... </i><br /><br />Yeah, shooting up a WalMart and and a play ground, without taking five seconds to see if it is necessary or check for other people in the background, is the perfect way to save lives. Also, I love the use of "allegedly" here to describe the video evidence of Crawford and the officer testimony regarding Rice.<br /><br /><i>Philando Castile: ...</i> <br /><br />The cop knew there was a gun because Castille told him it was in the glove box, and the amount of time, and fired before Castille reached for anything.<br /><br /><i>Eric Garner ... </i><br /><br />So, you think one police officer not considering something to be brutal is evidence it was not brutal?<br /><br /><i>And let's give an honorable mention to Officer Darren Wilson, ... </i><br /><br />For shooting an unarmed man dozens of feet away, after the man had stopped fleeing. Hear, hear!One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-10971944859883350682020-06-07T09:23:01.941-07:002020-06-07T09:23:01.941-07:00Alessio,
If brutality and racial bias were a major...Alessio,<br /><i>If brutality and racial bias were a major and systemic problem (as opposed to a marginal one), this should show up clearly and unambigously in the data. Your pointing out that the data is amibguous, and can slightly support your position if all the right caveats and variables are applied, does NOT help your point. It is a major lack of evidence, where evidence should clearly be found.</i><br /><br />Do you find any irony in people saying that we shouldn't trust the overall evidence of hundreds of studies, and then presenting one scientific study as firm proof of their position, particularly when over-stating the results of that one study?<br /><br />Dr Fryer's study looked at, among other things, how likely police interactions were to result in an officer shooting after the initial contact with the other civilians had been made. It acknowledged that a difference in the frequency of contact limited the applicability of the study. You may not realize this, but there are dozens, possibly hundreds of studies about how likely officers are to initiate contact with black people as opposed to white people. If, over a given month, 10% too many of group A has officer-initiated contact, and 1% too many of group B, then obviously fewer people in group A will be shot.<br /><br /><i>The only other "evidence" you have offered on this point is something to the effect that "everybody knows this." I'm sorry, but some people's emotional beliefs are not evidence.</i><br /><br />If you actually care to look at the difference in how police initiate contact with people differently according to race, there are certainly dozens, perhaps hundreds of studies on this. If you don't know, it's because you never cared to look.<br /><br /><i>Homicide is divided into degrees depending on the level of fault, from simple negligence (often not a crime at all) to malice. There are also complete defenses, including self-defense and mistake of fact. An officer is entitled to the same analysis that anyone else is, but with the difference being that these homicides generally occur in a situation in which the officer has a right and duty to use force.</i><br /><br />Does this right and duty come with a higher standard or a lower standard of behavior, to you?<br /><br /><i>Tell me, do you disagree with any of the jury verdicts above? If so, do you believe that you, or the jurors, are in a better position to judge the law and the facts? And do you believe that those jurors are part of the rigged system that favors cops?</i><br /><br />The prosecutors that present the cases are definitely part of the rigged system, as are the judges (many of whom are former prosecutors, most of whom have election concerns). I'm not surprised you tried to distract from that by focusing on the jurors. Did you think that would work?<br /><br /><i>"This is the type of drivel that can only said by someone who doesn't understand the culture or the interactions it creates. Black parents actually have talks with their kids about how to react to the police to minimize the amount of hassle they need to endure from them. If anything, overall the "attitudes of the" white "people being contacted" tend to be more confrontational and hostile. However, the police respond to these people with more patience and tolerance, generally."<br /><br />This is scientific?</i><br /><br />I didn't see a lot of science coming from Keep Calm and Carry On, just a lot of drivel. However, if you are curious whether this has been studied scientifically, I know there have been studies on teachers about how they interpret actions of students differently based on race. I see no reason police would be immune to that, but I have not looked for studies on police specifically.<br />One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6454874414191905092020-06-07T09:22:05.074-07:002020-06-07T09:22:05.074-07:00Alessio,
I appreciate your effort at having a gen...Alessio,<br /><br />I appreciate your effort at having a genuine conversation. Thank you.<br /><br /><i>You complain about me and other straw-manning you, but, to be fair, you have a tendency to avoid stating your positions clearly and comprehensively, preferring to snipe from a position of cover, as it were. This leaves others having to piece together your positions from the fragments you give us.</i><br /><br />Comments, being limited to 4,096 characters, are not good places to make long, details positions. Also, one of the aphorisms I have heard, largely true, is that you can not reason a person out of a position they adopted for non-rational reasons.<br /><br /><i>But let me make an effort to do just that, fairly:<br /><br />1. You believe that police across this country are systematically brutal and racist, to an unacceptably high degree. This requires radical changes in the training of officers. (What changes specifically, you haven't addressed.)<br /><br />2. You also believe that police killings of unarmed citizens, and especially of minorities, are at an intolerably high level, and that procedural barriers prevent effective discipline and prosecution of officers for murder or other crimes.<br /><br />If I have misstated you, I invite your corrections.</i><br /><br />They are systematically brutal and systematically racist, and the effects do combine. You can find plenty of videos of police being pointlessly brutal to people of all sorts of skin colors, and any sort of discipline resulting in internal police protest. One example was in Buffalo(?), where an officer knocked down elderly man making no apparent threat and then walked right by him, as did another. I believe another officer passed by without even checking on him. When both were placed on administrative leave, 57 other officers refused to work on the task force that responded to these protests any further. I suppose being asked to not bowl over old people was just a little too hard for them. <br /><br />It's not just "a few bad apples", and as long as that is the narrative, police brutality will continue. When you train police to treat other civilians as the enemy, and arm them to the teeth, you are mentally preparing them to be physically violent and consider it justified. Are the individual officers entirely to blame for responding to this training?<br /><br /><i>To the first point, the Fryer study has been discussed. You claim this study supports your position. It does not. </i><br /><br />I'm not sure where you read this. If it was my comment date June 5 at 9:43am, I was quoting a National Review article back to Mister Geocon (the quote is bolded), and that National Review article is what I said supported my position. If you mean June 5 at 11:22am, I mentioned some notions that the report addressed in terms of limiting its scope, but I say didn't that it supported my position. Dr. Fryer's study is consistent with my position, but offers no support it.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13049917398291251462020-06-07T08:12:25.152-07:002020-06-07T08:12:25.152-07:00Keep Calm and Carry On,
... because nobody's m...Keep Calm and Carry On,<br /><i>... because nobody's mind needs changing on that topic, or indeed can be changed as everybody already agrees on it.</i><br /><br />Perhaps you should consider that the intent is not to change people minds, but encourage them to action. Sure, everyone claims to hate racism, but what they really hate is a football player kneeling at the national anthem. It's the latter that spurred action.<br /><br /><i>One would have thought that someone as well versed in the Σοφιστικοὶ Ἔλεγχοι as you (you've used all of them, I'd wager) would have gleaned as much from the thread.</i><br /><br />Insulting people using Greek is no more polite than insulting them in English, and doesn't make your points any less vapid and ill-considered.<br /><br /><i>You blundering past the point by quoting out of context and misinterpreting in this case, as well as the half-hidden insults found in your recent comments in this thread are telltale signs of your species.</i><br /><br />I'm denying the relevance of your context. Your prolonged obfuscations completely miss the point of the protests and the cause of anger.<br />One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-48031151203218060772020-06-07T08:05:13.242-07:002020-06-07T08:05:13.242-07:00Anonymous,
That's a pretty big dose of trollin...Anonymous,<br /><i>That's a pretty big dose of trolling. It isn't even clear what you are actually saying. What's being confirmed? </i><br /><br />Your own opinions, of course.<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias<br /><br /><i>Found those rightwing provocateurs yet?</i><br /><br />Number of arrests with demonstrated right-wing connections: 3<br />Number of arrests with demonstrated antifa connections: 0<br />One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59933276247222318792020-06-07T07:52:18.801-07:002020-06-07T07:52:18.801-07:00Billy,
After looking at this study, you said &quo...Billy,<br /><br /><i>After looking at this study, you said "his quote confirms the existence of systemic racism"</i><br /><br />Again, that quote was from an article in the National Review.<br /><br /><i>You are making an inductive argument that the evidence of racial disparities confirms the existence of systemic racism. That conclusion does not follow.</i><br /><br />It is the only plausible explanation, given the data. What's your alternative?<br /><br /><i>I did not. Incorrect judgements are not necessarily unjust judgements. You need to bridge that divide, and so far, you haven't and as far as I can tell, its hardly ever done. The information doesn't help bridge this divide, but you think it does without providing any reason. You assumed it, so maybe its more important for you to look at how you process information.</i><br /><br />So, incorrect judgments that result in unjust treatment are not unjust judgments? That's an interesting separation.<br /><br /><i>Maybe some people do. I'm not. I'd also say that some people, such as yourself, try to expand the definition of the term to encompass situations where it doesn't necessarily apply, as you have here.</i><br /><br />Really? This thread is already too long, so I won't be back to it after today, but perhaps one of these days you'll tell me what you think are the appropriate markers of racism. Perhaps it has even existed in the world, according to you.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78596704046118935292020-06-07T04:41:05.097-07:002020-06-07T04:41:05.097-07:00"I will be frank, the protests are, at bottom...<i>"I will be frank, the protests are, at bottom, a threat. People see this, and that's why they are reacting the way they are. We have only the appearance of the "rule of law" if clearly guilty cops get off due to a corrupt system. The procedure was followed, but the law, in reality, wasn't. If there is anything less than a conviction for murder of some degree for ALL FOUR of the cops involved, the Twin Cities will burn. To the ground."</i><br /><br />Nobody has complained about the protests. People have complained about the killings, loss of livelihoods, looting, rioting, insurrectionist interests and the nihilism and intellectual and moral insolvency it's based upon.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.city-journal.org/brown-university-letter-racism" rel="nofollow">Glenn Loury furnishes an exemplary counterweight</a> to that insolvency and the incendiary manifestations thereof. And recalling relevant facts, such as is reflected in <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877" rel="nofollow">this PNAS study titled Officer Characteristics and Racial Disparities in Fatal Officer-Involved Shootings</a> can be helpful.<br /><br />Well based and well directed passions can be constructive. A will to power not so well founded will result in destruction and infernos, often with long lasting and still more destructive forms of wilfullness.Michael Bondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15547168343087501126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51634011341339927612020-06-07T04:24:39.346-07:002020-06-07T04:24:39.346-07:00Not even two weeks ago the LonelyProfessor told us...Not even two weeks ago the LonelyProfessor told us that protest were basically mass murder and would "you are looking at a massive public health catastrophe in the next few months, with 1 - 2 million deaths", maybe "even more".<br />Now he calls for protests and burning American cities to the ground.<br />The justification - a need to protest against abuse of power (a notion nobody disagrees with on the level of abstraction he purposely chose to make his argument more palatable). Alas, what he means by that is suspending due process for police officers he has identified. Without regard for ancient rules of fairness,<i> audiatur et altera pars </i> and <i> in dubio pro reo </i> come to mind, he calls for punishment or else he'll see cities burned. "To the ground."<br /><br />You have to imagine that the LonelyProfessor's comment provides a glimpse into a slightly sociopathic mind.Keep Calm and Carry Onnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-10728557502213555392020-06-07T00:00:41.366-07:002020-06-07T00:00:41.366-07:00Given when this showed up and that comment moderat...Given when this showed up and that comment moderation was on, I'm going to guess it's directed toward LooneyProfessor flushing red with the pleasure at the mere <i>thought</i> of burning cities to the ground.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43241100538344552472020-06-06T22:21:28.937-07:002020-06-06T22:21:28.937-07:00It was two weeks ago, not two months when leftists...It was two weeks ago, not two months when leftists were calling any who protested or disobeyed lock down grannie killers. But nice try.<br /><br />Also who is defending Chauvin? To point out that what charge he should face isn't completely clear is not to defend. I don't know what the Groypers and other actual racists are saying, but conservatives have been basically unanimous that Chauvin acted grossly wrong and should face appropriate legal consequences. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65892462086406272842020-06-06T21:48:26.270-07:002020-06-06T21:48:26.270-07:00This isn't the 1700s anymore, kid. Technology ...This isn't the 1700s anymore, kid. Technology heavily favors the centralized state these days, if they but have the nerve to use it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-63640345281519750682020-06-06T20:48:50.076-07:002020-06-06T20:48:50.076-07:00"When we (as a society) give you a badge, a g..."When we (as a society) give you a badge, a gun, a salary, and a pension, we have the right to expect nothing less than the highest standards of professionalism."<br /><br />We certainly do, "Professor." We all do. Is this the extent of your contribution to the discussion? There is no nuance* to any of this, in your mind? We send young men and women into the most dangerous situations, tell them to kill people if necessary, but they'd better be perfect, because we'll send them to prison for life if they make a mistake? Or something else?<br /><br />If you don't even want to get into the many specifics of these cases, why waste your time commenting at all?<br /><br />*I'm just old enough to remember when "nuance" was the favorite word that elitist Leftists used to berate conservative rubes like me.Alessionoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-91465491908356428962020-06-06T20:35:48.240-07:002020-06-06T20:35:48.240-07:00So I just decided to take a look at peace-loving a...So I just decided to take a look at peace-loving and anti-rioting BLM's official website: https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/<br /><br />How about some direct quotes:<br /><br />"Enraged by the death of Trayvon Martin and the subsequent acquittal of his killer, George Zimmerman..."<br /><br />Who was acquitted he acted in self-defense...<br /><br />"A year later, we set out together on the Black Lives Matter Freedom Ride to Ferguson, in search of justice for Mike Brown..." <br /><br />Who was also killed in clear self-defense as he attacked a police officer!<br /><br />"Ferguson helped to catalyze a movement to which we’ve all helped give life."<br /><br />Which movement involved rioting and burning of black businesses in Ferguson. Which BLM doesn't even attempt to disavow or distance themselves from in any way.<br /><br />"We are unapologetically Black in our positioning."<br /><br />Pure racism.<br /><br />"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."<br /><br />WTF!!!!!!!<br /><br />Black Lives Matter officially embraces criminals, libels law-abiding citizens, and foments riots.<br /><br />Anyone in this discussion who has sympathized with BLM or their "peaceful protests" in any way is hereby invited to disavaow them utterly as the hate group that they are.Alessionoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37812162298302990472020-06-06T20:12:24.190-07:002020-06-06T20:12:24.190-07:00If it is right to lift the lockdowns now for thing...If it is right to lift the lockdowns now for things like haircuts, then it is also (a fortiori) right to lift them for things like protests against police murder. And it is, and Dr. Feser and I are in agreement on this, despite the risks. But, trying to tar people with "hypocrisy" on this is just right-wing propaganda and talking points. We are not as we were two months ago.<br /><br />And I fully support the protests, and I'm going again tomorrow. When we (as a society) give you a badge, a gun, a salary, and a pension, we have the right to expect nothing less than the highest standards of professionalism. Abusing this is a GRIEVOUS violation of the social contract. And yet it's generally ACCEPTED in cop culture.<br /><br />Thus already, the bootlicking crowd is trying to find excuses for the murderous cops in Minneapolis. And the corrupt system is in place to try to get them off. The bootlicking medical examiner said initially there was "no physical signs of asphyxiation" or something like that. Oh, and Floyd was an ex-con and had fentanyl in his system (as though that justifies anything.)<br /><br />I will be frank, the protests are, at bottom, a threat. People see this, and that's why they are reacting the way they are. We have only the appearance of the "rule of law" if clearly guilty cops get off due to a corrupt system. The procedure was followed, but the law, in reality, wasn't. If there is anything less than a conviction for murder of some degree for ALL FOUR of the cops involved, the Twin Cities will burn. To the ground.<br /><br /><br /><br />LonelyProfessornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-56142918424016941492020-06-06T18:41:38.941-07:002020-06-06T18:41:38.941-07:00One Brow,
"Non sequiturs are a logical term....One Brow,<br /><br />"Non sequiturs are a logical term. We're looking at a scientific study. That's a category error."<br /><br />After looking at this study, you said "his quote confirms the existence of systemic racism"<br /><br />You are making an inductive argument that the evidence of racial disparities confirms the existence of systemic racism. That conclusion does not follow.<br /><br />"You just gave a clear, obvious example of racism and then said it was not racism."<br /><br />I did not. Incorrect judgements are not necessarily unjust judgements. You need to bridge that divide, and so far, you haven't and as far as I can tell, its hardly ever done. The information doesn't help bridge this divide, but you think it does without providing any reason. You assumed it, so maybe its more important for you to look at how you process information. <br /><br />"Because some people try to define the term out of existence?"<br /><br />Maybe some people do. I'm not. I'd also say that some people, such as yourself, try to expand the definition of the term to encompass situations where it doesn't necessarily apply, as you have here.Billyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14579200479132033014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13367726029988029602020-06-06T17:18:29.885-07:002020-06-06T17:18:29.885-07:00I wasn't trying to be critical.
I could have p...I wasn't trying to be critical.<br />I could have put my comments anywhere in here, but they seemed to fit best in this exchange.<br /><br />The main thing I was trying to emphasize was the fickleness of supposedly rational scientists even in mundane circumstances.Tim the Whitenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32219656501902424212020-06-06T17:01:33.192-07:002020-06-06T17:01:33.192-07:00"Perhaps you should tell me how these first f..."Perhaps you should tell me how these first four of these cases were justified killings?"<br /><br />Just to be clear, I do not consider them to be justified killings. What I believe is that in a law enforcement context, there is a gap between a justified killing and a criminal killing, and these cases fall into that gap.<br /><br />The gap exists because some killings result from technical violations of policy or accidents, without criminal intent, and under extenuating circumstances.<br /><br />This gap exists for civilians, too. A purely accidental killing does not carry criminal liability.<br /><br />I might note also that I believe (I didn't look systematically so forgive me if there are some exceptions) that each of the officers you've mentioned got fired, even if they avoided criminal convictions.Alessionoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-68090417986958694542020-06-06T16:44:57.179-07:002020-06-06T16:44:57.179-07:00From Fayerabend:
"I say that Auschwitz is an...From Fayerabend:<br /><br />"I say that Auschwitz is an extreme manifestation of an attitude that still thrives in our midst. It shows itself in the treatment of minorities in industrial democracies; in education, education to a humanitarian point of view included, which most of the time consists of turning wonderful young people into colorless and self-righteous copies of their teachers; it becomes manifest in the nuclear threat, the constant increase in the number and power of deadly weapons and the readiness of some so-called patriots to start a war compared with which the holocaust will shrink into insignificance. It shows itself in the killing of nature and of 'primitive' cultures with never a thought spent on those thus deprived of meaning for their lives; in the colossal conceit of our intellectuals, their belief that they know precisely what humanity needs and their relentless efforts to recreate people in their own sorry image; in the infantile megalomania of some of our physicians who blackmail their patients with fear, mutilate them and then persecute them with large bills; in the lack of feeling of many so-called searchers for truth who systematically torture animals, study their discomfort and receive prizes for their cruelty. As far as I am concerned there exists no difference between the henchmen of Auschwitz and these 'benefactors of mankind.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com