Khatmandude Posted May 1, 2015 Report Share Posted May 1, 2015 I find that sign, divisive, offensive and not productive. This shouldn't be about white v black. This makes me sad. I think the sign is more for the media, and how hypocritical they are when white people 'riot' vs when black people do. I find it very appropriate although I agree with your larger point that this shouldn't be made into a black v white thing exclusively. There's no doubt that dynamic plays into all this though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Go Skins Posted May 1, 2015 Report Share Posted May 1, 2015 http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/01/us/freddie-gray-baltimore-death/index.html Six police officers have been charged in the death of Freddie Gray, Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby said Friday. One officer -- the driver of the police van -- has been charged with several counts, including second-degree depraved-heart murder. Another officer has been charged with several counts, including manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. Two other officers have been charged with several counts, including involuntary manslaughter. An additional two officers are charged with several counts, including second-degree assault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted May 1, 2015 Report Share Posted May 1, 2015 I think the sign is more for the media, and how hypocritical they are when white people 'riot' vs when black people do. I find it very appropriate although I agree with your larger point that this shouldn't be made into a black v white thing exclusively. There's no doubt that dynamic plays into all this though. Of course. We need to be working together on solutions. Not finger pointing. Both sides can find negative shit to say about the other. That's how we get here in the first place. http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/01/us/freddie-gray-baltimore-death/index.html Six police officers have been charged in the death of Freddie Gray, Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby said Friday. One officer -- the driver of the police van -- has been charged with several counts, including second-degree depraved-heart murder. Another officer has been charged with several counts, including manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. Two other officers have been charged with several counts, including involuntary manslaughter. An additional two officers are charged with several counts, including second-degree assault. Good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 1, 2015 Report Share Posted May 1, 2015 http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/01/us/freddie-gray-baltimore-death/index.html Six police officers have been charged in the death of Freddie Gray, Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby said Friday. One officer -- the driver of the police van -- has been charged with several counts, including second-degree depraved-heart murder. Another officer has been charged with several counts, including manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. Two other officers have been charged with several counts, including involuntary manslaughter. An additional two officers are charged with several counts, including second-degree assault. Man if only Freddie wouldn't have run and cooperated with them, then these Police Officers would have never been charged.. I mean am I right? Schmizo? Weston? Big_Dish? Backer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted May 1, 2015 Report Share Posted May 1, 2015 Man if only Freddie wouldn't have run and cooperated with them, then these Police Officers would have never been charged.. I mean am I right? Schmizo? Weston? Big_Dish? Backer? That is true. He wouldn't have had conflict with the police if he didn't run from the police. That doesn't absolve the police. You can't act like he as skipping down the street doing nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted May 1, 2015 Report Share Posted May 1, 2015 What's going to happen when they are all acquitted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 1, 2015 Report Share Posted May 1, 2015 That is true. He wouldn't have had conflict with the police if he didn't run from the police. That doesn't absolve the police. You can't act like he as skipping down the street doing nothing. :facepalm: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted May 1, 2015 Report Share Posted May 1, 2015 :facepalm: That should be the official sign of I don't have a logical counter argument. At the very least it's excessively childish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sois Posted May 1, 2015 Report Share Posted May 1, 2015 Joe Ped Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 1, 2015 Report Share Posted May 1, 2015 That should be the official sign of I don't have a logical counter argument. At the very least it's excessively childish. No it should be the sign that you are slightly shocked that someone can be this obtuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted May 1, 2015 Report Share Posted May 1, 2015 No it should be the sign that you are slightly shocked that someone can be this obtuse. If you believe so strongly in your viewpoint it shouldnt be hard to have a respectful conversation about it. He was running right? And they are allowed to chase right? He does have an extensive criminal history right? The obtuse part of these conversations is when someone inevitably says "does that mean he should be murdered?" The answer to that is clearly no. But they didn't execute him. You can't want to wait for the facts when someone commits a crime and rush to judgment when a cop stops them. We have no idea what happened yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 1, 2015 Report Share Posted May 1, 2015 *sigh* Except that in logical conversations logical fallacies such as strawman arguments, should never be used. It no longer becomes about the person's position and is moving the goal post. When I say a person should never ever ever have to worry about getting killed once they are detained or if they pose no obvious threat to police, you set up a completely different argument and a strawman when you suggest they shouldnt run. It simply doesnt matter if a person runs, unless they are a clear danger to the officer no officer should be taking the kinds of actions that end up killing Freddie Gray or Michael Slager or Eric Garner or Tamir Rice. Period. Their criminal records at the time of arrest are irrelevant in making the arrest, this is another strawman and a distraction from the fact that in each of the cases I listed there was no imminent threat. Freddie Gray was running, he wasn't attacking the cops with the pocket knife on him, the correct response would be to run after him, not what happened. Michael Slager ran and after the officer realized he didnt have the tazer on him and wasnt threatening him with it, he should have ran after him rather than shoot him down from behind, Eric Garner was not a threat, and had no weapons on him, resisiting arrest should never have resulted in his death, there were other ways to get him to comply (hello tazer anyone?), and Jesus Christ... Tamir Rice?.... He was a a 12 year old kid, and you're telling me the first response to him pulling out a toy gun was to shoot him dead? You're telling me it would have been impossibe to talk him down? How often do other people get talked down in hostage type situations? To distract from all of that with strawman arguments about not running in the presence of cops, is entirely intellectually dishonest, and reeks of someone who cant get out of the way of his own ego to simply admit these types of things should never ever ever ever happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted May 1, 2015 Report Share Posted May 1, 2015 If you believe so strongly in your viewpoint it shouldnt be hard to have a respectful conversation about it. He was running right? And they are allowed to chase right? He does have an extensive criminal history right? The obtuse part of these conversations is when someone inevitably says "does that mean he should be murdered?" The answer to that is clearly no. But they didn't execute him. You can't want to wait for the facts when someone commits a crime and rush to judgment when a cop stops them. We have no idea what happened yet. No one should EVER enter a police vehicle handcuffed and relatively healthy, and arrive at their destination with a broken neck and crushed larynx. Sorry, there is absolutely nothing that excuses that. NOTHING. EVER. PERIOD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted May 1, 2015 Report Share Posted May 1, 2015 *sigh* Except that in logical conversations logical fallacies such as strawman arguments, should never be used. It no longer becomes about the person's position and is moving the goal post. When I say a person should never ever ever have to worry about getting killed once they are detained or if they pose no obvious threat to police, you set up a completely different argument and a strawman when you suggest they shouldnt run. It simply doesnt matter if a person runs, unless they are a clear danger to the officer no officer should be taking the kinds of actions that end up killing Freddie Gray or Michael Slager or Eric Garner or Tamir Rice. Period. Their criminal records at the time of arrest are irrelevant in making the arrest, this is another strawman and a distraction from the fact that in each of the cases I listed there was no imminent threat. Freddie Gray was running, he was attacking the cops with the pocket knife on him, the correct response would be to run after him, not what happened. Michael Slager ran and after the officer realized he didnt have the tazer on him and wasnt threatening him with it, he should have ran after him rather than shoot him down from behind, Eric Garner was not a threat, and had no weapons on him, resisiting arrest should never have resulted in his death, there were other ways to get him to comply (hello tazer anyone?), and Jesus Christ... Tamir Rice?.... He was a a 12 year old kid, and you're telling me the first response to him pulling out a toy gun was to shoot him dead? You're telling me it would have been impossibe to talk him down? How often do other people get talked down in hostage type situations? To distract from all of that with strawman arguments about not running in the presence of cops, is entirely intellectually dishonest, and reeks of someone who cant get out of the way of his own ego to simply admit these types of things should never ever ever ever happen. Where have I put in a strawman? You wrote this...."Man if only Freddie wouldn't have run" No one should EVER enter a police vehicle handcuffed and relatively healthy, and arrive at their destination with a broken neck and crushed larynx. Sorry, there is absolutely nothing that excuses that. NOTHING. EVER. PERIOD. I completely agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 1, 2015 Report Share Posted May 1, 2015 The don't run argument is a strawman. From Wiki A straw man is a common reference argument and is an informal fallacy based on false representation of an opponent's argument.[1] To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument. The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition When I say people should not have to worry about being killed at the hands of police if they pose no imminent threat, you put up a different proposition in saying they shouldnt run. .... Well no shit they shouldnt run, nobody should, but it's not the argument I made, I made an argument that nobody should be killed unless they pose an imminent threat, running from police does not pose an imminent threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted May 1, 2015 Report Share Posted May 1, 2015 i think your confused on this I'll revisit it when I'm back at the computer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 1, 2015 Report Share Posted May 1, 2015 I'm not. Don't waste your time, I've said my peace on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalBacker Posted May 4, 2015 Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 I don't know that I think paranoia is common sense I'm not paranoid, but I'm not blind to what can happen. Tell me why it's not common sense to think that our society could (not will, could) be thrown into chaos at any time for a multitude of reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 4, 2015 Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 I'm not paranoid, but I'm not blind to what can happen. Tell me why it's not common sense to think that our society could (not will, could) be thrown into chaos at any time for a multitude of reasons. Because the majority of people are apathetic to what's happening to them.... hell some even defend and vote for it in the name "liberty" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalBacker Posted May 5, 2015 Report Share Posted May 5, 2015 Because the majority of people are apathetic to what's happening to them.... hell some even defend and vote for it in the name "liberty" I'm sorry, that makes no sense to me. Can you elaborate? This was my question that your response is directed at. "Tell me why it's not common sense to think that our society could (not will, could) be thrown into chaos at any time for a multitude of reasons." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 5, 2015 Report Share Posted May 5, 2015 I'm sorry, that makes no sense to me. Can you elaborate? This was my question that your response is directed at. "Tell me why it's not common sense to think that our society could (not will, could) be thrown into chaos at any time for a multitude of reasons." I'm not sure what it is you dont understand about that, so let's approach it in a different way. Why do you think there is a possibility we are going to be thrown into chaos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Numbers| Posted May 5, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 5, 2015 I don't know if I'd label it as chaotic but you stated a very good reason the world could be turned on its end. " people are apathetic to what's happening to them " It's water sustainability that will be the undoing IMHO. People are apathetic to what's going on with their water supply as long as there's a rib eye on their plate and McDonald's doesn't close their doors... Water will be the new gold... Google " buying water rights "... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 5, 2015 Report Share Posted May 5, 2015 Brabeck-Letmathe? He says he is being taken out of context, so not sure what to believe with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Numbers| Posted May 5, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 5, 2015 Brabeck-Letmathe? He says he is being taken out of context, so not sure what to believe with that. Not basing this opinion off of a single source. Lots of opinions out there. I try to base them off of facts. Ask yourself how much water raising one cow takes and how much water is polluted as a result. ? How much water does an average person use and waste ? Etc... We are living on borrowed time. Factory farming is contributing to this mess. Idiots who choose to live an unsustainable life will eventually contribute to their descendants death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Numbers| Posted May 5, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 5, 2015 Interesting research written about the investment by banks and others. Complete with sources, etc... https://www.popularresistance.org/wall-street-mega-banks-are-buying-up-the-worlds-water/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.