Total posts: 3,998
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
how so? Chauvin's supervisor and the chief of police have both testified he breached procedure and had no business kneeling on him like that. What words am I putting in other people's minds and mouths?
Your own, since I assume that's not 'exactly what his words were in the trial.
His 'quotes I mean.
To you,
Witnesses,
Never lie,
Never have an agenda,
Never can be wrong.
Perhaps this says a lot about you.
"What a person says on a subject, often says more about the person, than the subject." - Leaning
And that 'includes 'me.
The testimony today sounds like it will largely come from the Police Chief - Medaria Arradondo.The Chief gave an interview with BCA on June 11 describing his understanding of what happened. I expect the prosecution and defense to both try to score points on this document.In support of the defense on Page 16 - the Chief didn't know the details of the policy that covered neck restraints:BH: You know you've been very clear that you know the knee on the neck is not trained technique. But in your use of force policy you do have section on neck restraints and chokeholds.MA: Um-hm.BH: That, that are authorized with caveat if you receive training on them.MA: Oh-okay. Does it, does it mention deadly force or anything?BH: It so it uh from memory don't have it with me.MA: Okay.This interview goes on but I won't list it all in the comment. It's hard to believe that the Chief's judgements were credible if he didn't understand basic elements of the use of force policy when he fired Officer Chauvin.
Maybe I'm stupid to give credence to such Reddit posts,
It's only something I glanced at after all.
Likely I've already acquired some bias in favor of Chauvin early on, that makes changing my opinion slow.
But bias is common and difficult for 'most in my opinion.
Currently I'm still 'trying not to be convinced one way or the other.
Currently I'm 'trying to have an open mind, before I try to verbally bludgeon other people for having an opinion one way or the other.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
to everyone there should be no question. His supervisor, the chief of police etc have testified he was breaching police procedure and using excessive force. Who is claiming he didn't do anything wrong?
All I feel like saying currently, is that I think you're letting your emotions over the case overwhelm you and put words into other people's minds and mouths.
If you can 'only see your point of view, then you're going to be pretty blind to other people's points of view.
I might feel like arguing more as the trial goes on,
Hm, let me state my point regarding triangle.128k more clearly.
'Here is triangle.128k's post #17
I kind of want Chauvin to be declared guilty, less so because I care about the case but more so that this won't become ammunition for another wave of BLM screeching.
Do you see how triangle.128k is not concerned with whether Chauvin is guilty, but is rather concerned about BLM rioting?
So I am talking about triangle.128k's post #17, as was bmdrocks21 in post #19, when bmdrocks21 stated
I'm not particularly ready to have some guy lynched as a sacrificial lamb if he didn't do anything wrong.
bmdrocks21's statement there, does 'not have to do whether Chauvin is guilty or not, but was directly stating disapproval of triangle.128k's post #17
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I know 'I get angry from time to time when people are disrespectful, mocking, or other various reasons.
For me it's the wounded pride / Ego.
Though, I 'think I tend 'not to respond in anger, or feel anger very long.
'Occasionally I do.
Against my family, being angry 'never helped me in a conflict.
My Dad thought it was fine for him to mock his kids, or his kids to mock each other in ways 'he thought was harmless.
Such as sticking one's thumb at the tip of their nose, and waggling the rest of the hands fingers vertically, while pointing one's head in the direction of a sibling.
My Dad always used to like to say,
"You're giving them power over you, to make you mad."
Course he wouldn't point out that it was wrong of people to be rude to each other when 'he was instigating it.
Nor would he respond very kindly when anyone disrespected him by mocking or sarcasm. Ah, the hypocrite.
But he would correct our behavior when 'we instigated trouble amongst ourselves, or got angry with one another.
Would point out how family was there for life, get us to make up with one another.
I don't think he was 'wrong, the importance we give other people's actions, way that we perceive them 'does effect our response.
I still get angry now and then at people, but I try to let it go, try not to hold onto it, or stoke anger between me and someone else.
Fail sometimes,
And course it's not always 'healthy to repress anger, or never get mad at people.
Just isn't healthy or useful to get mad too often.
Though maybe that's situational dependent.
Some people get used to being angry at every little thing, becoming toxic.
Some people become too passive for their own good and become a punching bag, or avoid 'any conflict/disagreement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
To 'you ,"there is no question of if he did anything wrong."
triangle.128k's comment also clearly stated that 'guilt was not so much his motivator, as fear of mobs. I 'think.
bmdrocks21 merely stated he thought that preferring a man be guilty out of fear of the mob seems a terribly preference. I 'think.
A preference of comfort rather than justice, is bad to some of us.
Even if you think the man is guilty, you should think that triangle.128k's 'reason for preferring guilty is bad. 'I think.
It's like in 12 Angry Men (1997), where a juror says 'fine he's innocent, he just want to get this over with and go to his baseball game.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
I don't know, but your question reminds me of this cartoon.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Also the amount of gravity.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
'Is there a news network focused 'specifically on government and it's workings, contents of their bills and such?
If not, perhaps one could be successful in such a niche.
Simply because something does not happen 'right 'now, does not mean that vigilance should be lessened.
For the future exists.
I don't know how closely media televised pot possession for instance,
But such seems something society 'should have taken notice of sooner, for reasons of right and wrong, rather than self pleasure and wanting a new drug made legal to could their minds.
Many of the 'heavy sentences given in the past due to minor possession, have been unjust. I assume.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
My knee jerk thought,
Is that trials being open to public viewing, knowledge seems better than being behind closed doors.
Though I agree 'mob justice is bad, mobs calling for near everyone to go to the guillotine for instance.
But there are also occurrences in which injustice is preformed by the ruling government to rid itself of dissidents.
Stalin Russia, Hitler Germany, Mao China.
Quite probably America, Britain, so on, at certain points in our pasts.
Possibly even 'currently at times, I am uncertain.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
'Maybe,
. . .
There 'are many 'other trials 'not being televised I suppose.
But the news have taken an interest in 'this trial, because a number of people have taken an interest in this trial, I 'think.
There 'are a lot of deaths other than this one I suppose, and bills 'are of vital significance.
Many bills are sneaked through without the public noticing them, or amendments sneaked into bills without people noticing them.
. . .
It's 'still not 'only the media focusing on this case though, I 'think.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Because moments, individuals, actions identified, can gain a celebrity statues, by that I mean they gain the interest of the people.
Because some view the trial, not as an individual on trial, but as America on trial, and in either decision will people be upset.
Because some worry the trial is a spark, that may ignite a mob.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dynasty
I read through the link.
Sure, I can imagine if you 'kept encountering people you found rude, toxic, dismissive, or deviant, you'd prefer not to use the site.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
That's a good point, but individuals have different values.
Depending on what people they use, they'd get different verdicts. I 'think.
Though I suppose jury selection is an attempt to get the people, that lawyers think can be objective.
. . .
If I had 12 clones of myself made, who served as jury members while I was not able to see what they saw, and they voted opposite of myself who did not serve and see what they did as jury members.
I'd be more inclined to accept the verdict I suppose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Well if people think he's guilty or innocent,
Then the court finds the opposite,
Wouldn't they figure the court did the wrong thing by default?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
I imagine I'll accept it.
The only way I can think of to 'not accept it, would be to either kidnap or jailbreak Derek Chauvin, depending on result of courts decision.
. . .
I suppose people could protest, either decision.
But I'm not filled with particular justice minded passion myself, nor is the man a loved one of mine.
State will have decided, and that's it I suppose.
I might still gripe about it online, but I'll have accepted that it occurred.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FourTrouble
Again, it's a wide paintbrush to say I'm "okay with racist behaviors."
I 'am fine with people choosing to not date blacks,
I'm fine with people choosing to 'only date blacks,
I'm fine with people choosing not to date fat people,
I'm fine with people choosing to 'only date fat people,
I prefer 'not living in a society where the drinking fountain is separated by skin color.
I prefer 'not living in a society where the bus or school is separated by skin color.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Trent0405
Not yet no, though I have heard people say the original is even better.
Created:
I don't suppose it'd be legal for Chauvin to request that the same amount of force be used upon himself, as an argument that he did not / does not think that his actions were likely to cause, or 'were the cause of George Floyds death?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Not doing this as a gotcha, but because I don't understand courts of law that well.
But suppose the defense produce a different breathing expert, that states a normal person would not have died from the actions of of the policeman?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FourTrouble
Well, I get that you're not advocating for a governmental 'law, 'forcing people to date colorblind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Would this system of Universal Basic Income be achievable in a 'new settlement, a 'new city I mean.
There 'are places on Earth that people could 'attempt such an endeavor I assume.
Funding wouldn't be 'too difficult I'd think.
What with the internet of connectiveness, and crowd funding ideas.
I'd also find it easier to swallow if there 'was a social contract that people knowingly signed to, rather than altering existing structures.
Though I 'think I vaguely recall communists saying something about communism requiring an existing structure to 'work.
But maybe this is a mischaracterization of your idea.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FourTrouble
In other words, you don't mind racism.
Eh, that's kind of a wide statement though.
If some store refused service to people for being a ginger, I'd say on a personal level f*** that business, think I'll eat elsewhere.
If some store refused service to people for being black, I'd say on a personal level f*** that business, think I'll eat elsewhere.
But as for personal dating preferences, I don't really care if someone doesn't want to date ginger haired whites, or black people.
People have different aesthetics, and one of the reasons people date, is they're looking for someone they find pretty/handsome.
If you want to say that their color preference is limiting their ability to find wonderful people, I'd agree with you.
But I don't really care who they date.
. . .
On a practical level though, 'some people go 'on and 'on about white privilege, and how every white person is privileged, and 'every black person carries such a heavy burden for being black.
'IF, that 'was true, then it'd be logical for a person to have preferences based on race, as it is to have preferences based on class, or how well one's job pays I mean.
Not saying 'I hold that opinion.
But I do think individuals have a right to choose for themselves who they want to date.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FourTrouble
It sounds tiring for people to be 'that inclusive.
People have aesthetic preferences.
Straight and Crooked teeth for example, aren't a deal breaker for me, I'd rather date a kind person with crooked teeth, than a mean person with straight teeth.
Might be shallow of me, but I don't mind discrimination of degrees myself.
Maybe someday skin color will be more like hair color for people's preferences of it, but there'll still be preferences.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
@Post #1
So, if I understand your post correctly, you're asking what would any of us 'do as an existence with power over all of existence?
I suppose there's a 'large number of video games in which people create worlds, interact with worlds.
Whether it's making pleasant theme parks or death traps, such as in Rollercoaster Tycoon,
Build cities orderly, or unleash calamities upon them, such as in Sim City.
. . .
But the person at the console 'understands that these aren't 'real people.
. .
Maybe 'rulers/'dictators in real life would be the closest glimpse of how humans might organize worlds.
Caligula,
Marcus Aurelius,
Nero,
Qin Shi Huang,
Pol Pot,
Hammurabi,
Madness, Philosophy, Debauchery, Legalism, Genocide, Equality.
There's probably more 'good ruler examples, but I don't know enough history.
I suppose the flaw in using rulers, is that they're all aware of outside 'pressure, forces, 'others.
But different rulers have had different hopes for their people.
Some being (No relation to earlier ruler list)
Wishing well,
Indifferent,
Rapacious,
Hateful,
hopeful.
. . .
I suppose 'my problem with the question is I find it difficult to assign 'qualities to God, perhaps because I'm an atheist and reject the idea so,
Perhaps I lack imagination.
But if God possesses some 'quality such as love, or hate, I have difficulty in seeing him as more than a human with powers.
If he's 'existence itself, then to me that's simply existence.
If he's some ideal, then that's simply a preference idolized.
. . .
Ach, I'm rambling.
To the main question then,
My world would be nothing but myself and occasionally whatever bit of entertainment I wished to be.
I don't 'prefer the morality in creating 'others.
(edit)
Or perhaps the question has more to do with 'objectives such as laws of nature, physics. . .
Eh, I find it difficult to break my mold.
'Current reality as I understand it, is what I understand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
I'd agree that Nihilism has different uses/interpretations of the word.
As with many isms.
Created:
-->
@Danielle
Crowds are a dangerous, people should have just backed away from the situation, rather than crowding, interfering, lending danger to the environment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
What about 'orange skin tones, such as Trump?
Isn't that more colorist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Can't say 'I'd feel much of a need to punish him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I accept that groups of humans tend to have shared ideas, habits, responses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
My conscience is a mental knee jerking to stimuli, based upon my aesthetic principles and past.
I don't see why not.
If I reject the notion that certain moral laws 'must be followed.
I I reject such laws because I doubt their objectivity as illusion,
Then what is this but moral nihilism,
That I am human and continue on my way does not change the negation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
There are an number of characters, by authors,
Fyodor Dostoevsky
Jack London
Charles Dickens
That involve a stripping away of former isms, as well as deviations due to realizations.
I wouldn't say I've deviated in deed, hasn't been a need yet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
And when you say
The gate-keeping rhetoric 'here is gross.
Do you mean my example or the Nihilist label/definition I was responding to?
Sorry about being slow
Still not sure if your post original post was 'agreeing with me or 'disagreeing with me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Quick Google of the word sociopath gives me, a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.
Well, I wouldn't say I've ever manifested extremely antisocial attitudes.
Prefer keeping to myself, introverted, but I wouldn't call that 'extreme.
Profitable to follow the law, play nice with others.
Profitable both in money and my preference to usually be pleasant.
I have 'a conscience, though I can't say I've ever 'rigorously tested it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I don't know what Gate-keeping rhetoric 'means.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Suppose I called myself more specifically,
A moral nihilist?
Or said I was possessing a degree of Immorality / Amorality, due to an intellectual conclusion regarding the concepts of objective and subjective morality?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If a heterosexual slept with a member of the same sex,
Would they be a 'true heterosexual?
Perhaps not, but it's still a handy label.
Maybe It'd be better to call myself an Absurdist or something, I don't 'perfectly recall my reasoning for liking the Nihilist label, perhaps it's identifying more with the intellectual conclusion than the method of 'living, perhaps it's bitterness.
I'd have to rack my brain and memory to remember why, and then either re-justify it in the now, or discard it in the now.
And I've already 'just done that for my opinion on the American 2nd Amendment.
Re-Justified the 2nd Amendment that is. . . 'To myself, course not everyone shares the same opinion, and people who disagree do make some decent points.
But anyway, just a label I like.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I agree with you that drunk or reckless drivers are often called murder, though I prefer the term manslaughter.
Which 'might put Chauvin in the same category, though I am not yet convinced.
I have arguments for this, but too much back and forth is wearing for me,
I'll just keep an eye on the trial and public opinion.
Occasionally voicing 'some of my opinion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Yes, well we've already talked at length on the subject, as I recall.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
George Floyd said he couldn't breath 'many times before he was restrained on the ground.
Maybe it was a panic attack, maybe it was drugs, maybe both, maybe he was lying.
'I think there's a difference between intentionally killing someone, and accidentally killing someone.
Someone can run over the body of a sleeping person in the middle of the highway at night, thus 'killing them, but I wouldn't hold it against the driver.
I 'would hold it against a a drunk driver crashing into another car.
I 'would hold it against a driver that recklessly drives close to pedestrians.
I just 'don't hold to the argument that George Floyd was 'intentionally killed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
@3RU7AL
I actually agree with Tarik on the point of Nihilism, hence why I like calling myself a nihilist.
If I'm right in my assumption of how he views subjective morality.
What I disagree with him on it though, is the implication of such a conclusion on humans.
A humans still going to prefer certain moral systems, due to nature and nurture.
Be 'rational in certain systems.
'I think.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Honestly I don't know much about the law or justice in America.
What fits parameters/expectations for definitions and punishment.
I'd imagine most people would agree that 'some sort of consequence needs be dealt to the police officer.
Is it retributive or restorative justice that people seek however?
Older societies might call the settlement given to George Floyds family a wergild, justice fulfilled.
The officer additionally lost his job.
But some might still feel a need for correction to the officer.
“Let the whole damn city burn if that’s what it takes . . . burn, baby, burn,” said Pastor Runney Patterson.
Created:
-->
@Vader
"So your gonna force them into facilities?" - SupaDudz
Well, 'I'm not.
I'm an American.
If someone had rabies or schizophrenia, I suppose we might.
Or if they were purposefully spreading Covid to other people.
Involuntary commitment still applies to a number of conditions in America.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The foundation may or may not have been well constructed, difficult to 'see people online.
I'm unsure of his education or character, a person can be well or poorly educated yet still hold strong beliefs.
I do not 'think his method of questioning is indicative of cracks in his belief system.
I 'think his method of questioning is indicative of his preferred method of approaching this topic in online forums.
I ''think he is either well intentioned or a troll, but I think well intentioned is more likely.
Socrates method of discussion often get's irritating after a while, to some feels 'more just a person asking why.
I 'think he tries to lead other people's thoughts by his questions, to what 'he views as the correct answers.
In 'my eyes Tarik says too little for others to grasp his meaning well, 'feels needlessly inscrutable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Well, my statement 'could be referring to his 'arguments as an obtuse wall.
Myself I don't actually remember exactly 'which I was referring to.
I agree that referring to an individual or their arguments as an obtuse wall are not a constructive manner to address arguments or individuals.
Created:
-->
@Vader
I'd imagine it'd be because some people choose 'not to quarantine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
@zedvictor4
Must you two keep banging your heads against an obtuse wall?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you suggesting that covid has DOUBLED everyone's chance of death?
Oh I didn't quite understand what the people on that Reddit were getting at, so I wouldn't say I'm suggesting anything.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Opinion?
"Just to be clear, the chart shows that covid has increased the death rates in the various age brackets in about the same proportions. Old people die at a high rate, so doubling that rate would kill a lot of old people. Young people hardly die at all, so doubling that rate would kill few. An old person's risk of being killed by covid is much higher than a young person's, just as an old person's risk of being killed by pneumonia or stroke or heart attack or cancer is much higher than a young person's. The fact that other things kill mostly old people does not negate the fact that covid kills mostly old people.
Here's another way to look at it. A well-informed old person worries, reasonably, about being killed by pneumonia or stroke or heart attack or cancer, and when another risk in that ballpark comes along, that's a big additional worry. A well-informed young person doesn't spend much time worrying about death, but if he does, he worries about auto accidents, suicide, and jealous husbands, and if another risk in that ballpark comes along, it's appropriate to worry about it at that level, which is to say, not much.
Here's yet another way to look at it. What sort of bar chart, analogous to the above, would we expect from a threat that was clearly, unarguably not age-biased? I propose a meteorite swarm that randomly kills 0.1% of the population. Will the chart look like the above? Not at all: the chart will have bars all the same height. The fact that the covid bars are much taller on the left shows that covid is age-biased.
So, Yes, there's a sense in which covid doesn't kill old people disproportionately: it kills old people in about the same proportions as the other things that kill people, which are mostly things that kill old people." - pkpearson
Created: