Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by ElectricFetus, Feb 3, 2017.
I didn't miss it - what are you going on about now?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
It wasn't meant as a diversion but rather a direct reply to parmalee stating that we don't have scary white men stories in the US (paraphrased, follow the links if you want the exact words)
And apparently you disavow entire paragraphs and the main line of argument in an article you described as summing up your views of this issue and this thread.
lets review your own words: Michael says
to which you reply, and i linked it, so this can be validated:
Now, that, no matter how you look at it, specifically states you are defending the legality of shooting blacks in the US
it doesn't matter how you spin it - it is your words, your post and your own argument
why? can you prove that my paraphrasing is in any way incorrect, especially since i just proved it was valid with your own quotes?
nope, didn't think so, so you're just posting "stupid fucking shit" so that you can intentionally troll/bait
i will ask again: where is that source material proving your argument of the legality of shooting blacks in the US per your above quote, linked post and my paraphrase that means the exact same thing as your quote?
didn't think so.
trolling and baiting - that is your exact quote from your post linked clearly for all to read
it isn't a misrepresentation and it is not in any way true, either, as it really is not legal to shoot a black in the US because of race, as i originally challenged and still argue
quit lying and attempting to distract: provide the source material that directly stated the justified shootings were due to race
trolling/baiting - just gonna report that, not that it will do any good since you're protected, apparently
you have provided absolutely no evidence to support this claim
whereas i've provided your own posts and quotes and even your attempts to justify your argument with state statute and articles regardless of the explicitly stated law
blatant lie as i've posted your quotes and linked your posts for pages
so, it's ok for you but not everyone else
i'll try to remember your rules...
of course, they change so often, so i am not sure when certain rules apply so you will have to be either more clear about the times of application or just stick to the site rules
[sarcastic and satirical hyperbole]
in the day?
there are still places in GA, MS, TN, TC, KY, AR, LA and more...!!!
And it used cops as stand-ins for white men, thereby simultaneously misrepresenting the issue being addressed by the black father and the matters central to the arguments on this thread.
My argument has been posted multiple times by me, quoted in full by Randwolf and in part by others, is easily available for you to quote any time you want to, and is not that.
I'm not going to pretend that you are that stupid Ice. You obviously need to read the article again, with context - pay special attention to the closing line in that paragraph you cherry picked:
So how's that for goal-post shifting? First, we decide it's okay to attack Nazis. Then we decide it's okay to punch people who aren't Nazis but are awful and sort of remind us of Nazis. Then it becomes okay to punch the people who say Nazis and Milo are bad but we shouldn't punch them. You know those slippery-slope arguments people are always rolling their eyes at? Well, there's the slippery slope for you. And we'll be normalizing a whole lot of violence as we slide.
(bold emphasis mine)
Just because you got called out on your misuse of the word "legal" doesn't mean you get to mischaracterize every subsequent post of mine. Furthermore, if you wish to be excluded from the group that abhors the substantive injustices perpetrated on minorities by the U.S. justice system - so be it.
No, it didn't - it used white cops as an example of "scary white men" in the U.S. Period. Full stop.
yep. and i just linked one
you say the same thing here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is-punching-a-nazi-ok.158810/page-6#post-3435735
no evidence. no source material at all, just a claim
and that claim is: shooting someone over race is legal
it's not wrong to paraphrase that to: the legality of shooting blacks in the US
but that isn't your only post where you make this claim, just the first two that i saw... i can provide more
so then, if you're not arguing the legality of shooting blacks, despite the explicit evidence to the contrary, then what are you arguing?
do you even know?
because i am quoting you and linking your posts and you seem to either not be able to read them or you're completely ignoring them
more to the point: those quotes are blatantly false
why? 18 U.S. Code § 249
so again: where is that source material proving your argument of the legality of shooting blacks in the US per your above quotes
so, if i quote you and prove that you made the argument... and it's your post in your words...
then all you gotta do to get out of justifying your racism is say it was not your argument?
how, exactly, does that work?
how is that even logical?
i mean... really... in your own words, that is some "stupid fucking shit" right there as proof or justification that your argument isn't what you said!
i don't think he is pretending...
Misrepresenting the issue being addressed by the black father, and in doing so the matters central to this thread. Like I said:
Ok, you don't disavow it.
Back to square one: Then who's the "we"? You got a frog in your pocket?
Because without the "we" you have no slippery slope, no normalized violence, nothing relative to this thread.
That's why I live in the hills in Texas. I only have to worry about meth heads and mountain lions, and I got that covered. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
OK, we will go the stupid route...
Let's see: (http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/15/now-its-okay-to-punch-nazis-and-white-ma)
"First, a black bloc protester punched alt-right figure and white-nationalist sympathizer Richard Spencer during inauguration weekend"I'm gonna say that takes care of: "First, we decide it's okay to attack Nazis."
"protesters at the University of California, Berkeley, smashed windows and set a large fire in order to prevent Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking on campus."Perhaps that's the "Then we decide it's okay to punch people who aren't Nazis but are awful and sort of remind us of Nazis."
"The day after, similarly-aligned people tried to prevent Gavin McInnes from speaking at New York University. Black bloc protesters maced him as he left the building. McInnes, a former Fox News personality aligned with Trump and Yiannopoulos, certainly does make ugly and offensive statements."I dunno... Maybe "Then it becomes okay to punch the people who say Nazis and Milo are bad but we shouldn't punch them."
So, having held your hand thus far, I will let go now with the admonition "Be careful Ice" - as you try to forge ahead to the conclusion on your own...
"You know those slippery-slope arguments people are always rolling their eyes at? Well, there's the slippery slope for you. And we'll be normalizing a whole lot of violence as we slide."
Hope that helps you in comprehending "who's the 'we'? You got a frog in your pocket?"
Edit: It occurs to me that maybe you really don't have a clue as to the figurative we in that article (hard to believe but possible, I guess)
My take is that the author is referring to anyone who says it is OK to punch a Nazi... (or nazi, small "n", just for you.)
Addendum to address:
Repeating it doesn't make it true. As I said "No, it didn't - it used white cops as an example of "scary white men" in the U.S. Period. Full stop."
They aren't, is the problem. So it can't.
It was true the first time. "Misrepresenting the issue being addressed by the black father, and in doing so the matters central to this thread."
Cops are not "scary white men" in any relevant sense. Black fathers instructing their sons in dealing with the police are not (barring, one assumes, a few inevitable and aberrant exceptions) instructing them in dealing with scary white men, or vice versa (if ever).
(Recall that black cops are often, by reputation, even more bigoted and dangerous than white cops - and female cops of any race not much less of a threat. So the matter of dealing with the police is not a matter of dealing with scary white men, and the typical black father knows this).
It suggests a possibility - because you left out the first sentence:
So all that "we" - and the line of argument based on that "we" - was
1) referring to somebody or something related to somebody or something in this thread
2) irrelevant to this thread.
and since that first sentence was the connection, and you omitted it from your non-explanatory "explanation", "we" choose '2'.
That would be silly (and unlikely) of the author, of course (lots of people think it's ok to punch Nazis sometimes, without coming anywhere near that slippery slope, and the author is not referring to them - he is referring to a "we" that includes him, after all), but it would mean you think that article has something to do with the posters and issue here. But what? So the situation remains unsettled.
There is no way, from that, to file your position on when it's ok to punch a nazi, for example - can't tell what it is.
The small 'n' is for the OP and the thread, btw. It's, like, the topic and stuff - nazis and Nazis (like dicks and Dicks) being different categories of people, in general. Unless that's another one of your ""is" is" confusions.
That seems a bit dubious insofar as the Talk, as I understand it, has to do with cops, generally. That is to say, it's not exclusively white cops. The problem has to do with the badge and the laws that protect it.
And that is, of course, a relevant point: There are plenty who will, once out of mundane societal circles in which people are expected to recite saddish platitudes about a few bad seeds, wonder at that bit about who the hell becomes a cop in the first place, and as much as we really, really, really want to say that isn't fair, it's also true that not every job is suitable for every person who might do them.
And it's true, we can wonder about who gets an MBA, and within that context just who the hell would so willingly take part in some of the schemes we invented in the Eighties, and again to blow up the economy in the twenty-first century.
We don't need to be Freudian-superstitious about it. To the other, yes, I still consider it in some manner significant or illuminating that one of the largest police departments in my area includes sports radio listeners as a recruitment target market. And, sure, it's because I find call-in sports radio an astounding fester of attention-seeking cultism, superstition, or outright stupidity. (I will simply say that the old joke about American car racing, "Go fast, turn left", is not the equivalent of what we did to the "Coloreds" in the nineteen-fifties, and only sports radio could ever give me a reason to say so.)
But somewhere in there we really do need to account for gung-ho being as gung-ho will, whether a police officer or well-armed patriot. Even my standard doesn't occur in every bad shoot of a black man. Sometimes it really is just an asshole with a gun looking for an excuse to shoot someone. Sometimes it really is just a coward with a gun and an itchy trigger finger. But it's also true the bit about how he was acting scary or someone thought he had a gun ... I don't know, I just don't believe↑ a black man could do to a white guy what Zimmerman did to Martin↑.
And you also know, generally speaking, that applies when we're not talking about killing. If two black cops hauled a white guy out of a wheelchair, beat him, planted evidence on him in order to justify a subsequent arrest, and got caught on video, what do you think would happen? Do you really think those cops could expect the full support of the Mayor and police department? Do you think the Office of Professional Accountability be okay with it? Do you think the secondary OPA Review Board―devised for just such cases―would need to publicly tell the mayor to stop trying to tamper with their investigation? And, hey, could those two black cops who just did that to a white guy in a wheelchair expect, when the Review Board soldiered through and issued their report, that the city attorney should bury it where nobody ever sees it?
But that's the blatant stuff.
So let's think a bit more subtly. To wit:
• The police really were scared ...
• ... so they shot him to death while he was obeying their instructions.
Okay, so: What happened there? Apparently somebody thought he made a dangerous move when he didn't. As far as the law is concerned in the state of Washington, we will be setting precedent if this isn't a good shoot.
So in the moment that Parmalee↑ or Iceaura, or you, or, okay, let's pretend that I would possess and carry a firearm ....
Look, in that moment when anyone has to decide, and we get it wrong, why did we get it wrong?
Criterion of fear. What qualifies for mortal fear.
Which in turn ... well, okay, I can't speak for Iceaura specifically―
―but part of the reason even I wouldn't give you that statement is that it's a pretty annoying demand: A troll baited, you bit, and that's the only reason you need Iceaura to recite that line for you.
Iceaura has put in a titanic effort; I don't really get to pat myself on the back for not putting much effort into it; I mean, sure, it was pretty damn clear from TruckCaptainStumpy's entry↑ to the issue, and mostly I'm struck by how much effort people have put into keeping the discussion focused here instead of on Nazis. Similarly, we might think Bells'↑ posts↑ should have had some useful effect, but that was seven pages and four days ago; like any large subjeect, it's easy to be reluctant to go gathering up all the little pieces and available scholarly sources↱ when ... well, let's see, I could make any number of excuses along the way but the fact that disputing the framework of the digression seems to be what the current phase describes seems at least suggestive. It's pretty clear the digression was a troll job.
So, yeah. What qualifies for mortal fear↑. Criterion of threat↑, suspicion, or danger.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Atiba Goff, Phillip, et al. "The Essence of Innocence: Consequences of Dehumanizing Black Children." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, v.106 n.4. 24 February 2014. APA.org. http://bit.ly/2lWVIcO
Edit: Fix image link. 18 Feb. 2017, 0210 PT
No, it is only morally acceptable to meet evil ACTIONS with violence, not what you consider evil opinions. Otherwise we just become judge, jury, and punisher, simply assuming that thoughts and words are either harmful in and of themselves or determinate of future action...both of which are highly subjective and could be used by anyone as justification. Who's to say that you don't consider what appears to be a fabricated justification adequate? Objective action is the only moral justification for violence.
Let me just put it this way..
We all agree that there are no laws which openly state that one can kill a black person in America because they are black. This is not in dispute.
What is in dispute, however, are laws that have resulted in the legal shooting of black people and other minorities.
Laws exist in many States and Counties in the US, which allow one to stand one's ground (altered from being required to retreat from threats or harm) and the Castle Doctrine, which has basically been extended to amount to one's immediate environment being one's castle against not just direct threat, but perceived threat.. The perceived threat part of it is a recent addition. In the past, you could not pull out your gun unless you were directly threatened. Now the law allows one to shoot another if one merely perceives a threat. This is established law in around 30 or so States of the US. This is not up for dispute at present. We all agree on this, yes?..
Now, what this means is that if someone perceives a threat, they can shoot that person. The high majority of the time, they face no charges for their actions. So in the case I linked much earlier in the thread, a brown skinned minority walking his dog, was nearly hit by a car in a drive through driveway. He raised his arms up, one hand was holding a leash. The driver of the truck that nearly hit him pulled out a gun and shot him and killed him because he felt threatened. That was legal and the shooter faced no charges. He was not arrested or detained. This is legal in many parts of the State.
What is now blatantly obvious from these laws is that minorities are being killed by white people who merely have to perceive them as a threat and more often than not, they are not being charged for it. This is entirely legal.
Do you and others understand now what is meant by it when people say that it is legal to kill a black person in America? It is because of these laws.
You may say skin colour does not justify shooting someone. But the reality shows that stand your ground and castle droctrine laws allow for a perceived threat which has resulted in more minorities and people of colour being shot because the white people who shot them merely perceived them as a threat. Ergo, a brown kid lifts his hands up in the air with a dog leash in one hand, was perceived to be a threat to a guy in a truck, who then shot him dead because he perceived him as a threat and it was entirely legal for him to do so.
Stumpy keeps saying that this is an injustice. And he is correct, it is an injustice. But what he keeps forgetting or ignoring is the fact that it is also entirely legal.
So yes, for some people, skin colour is justification for shooting them dead if the shooter perceives that person of colour as being a threat. Studies show that white people see black people as being stronger.. As in ridiculously strong.
Adam Waytz of Northwestern University and Kelly Marie Hoffman and Sophie Trawalter of the University of Virginia report the results of several studies on this subject in an upcoming issue of Social Psychological and Personality Science. In one experiment, white Internet users were shown a white face and a black face and asked to decide:
1) Which person “is more likely to have superhuman skin that is thick enough that it can withstand the pain of burning hot coals?”
2) Which person “is more capable of using their supernatural powers to suppress hunger and thirst?”
3) Which person “is more capable of using supernatural powers to read a person’s mind by touching the person’s head?”
4) Which person “is more capable of surviving a fall from an airplane without breaking a bone through the use of supernatural powers?”
5) Which person “has supernatural quickness that makes them capable of running faster than a fighter jet?”
6) Which person “has supernatural strength that makes them capable of lifting up a tank?”
Blacks were selected 63.5 percent of the time, significantly more than whites. The only two items that did not differ significantly were the ones about reading minds (52 percent blacks) and falling from a plane (54 percent).
If whites see blacks as excelling at superhuman physical tasks, do whites think they’re better at everyday stuff too? In another experiment, white subjects saw pictures of a black man and a white man and judged who was more capable when it came to everyday activities like walking a dog, picking a ripe avocado, and sitting through a baseball game, as well as superhuman ones like running as fast as light, lifting up a building, and suppressing bodily needs. They also judged who would require more pain medication for various incidents such as touching a hot dish or dislocating a shoulder.
For superhuman abilities, blacks were chosen 65 percent of the time, but for everyday abilities they were chosen only 46 percent of the time, so whatever leads whites to see blacks as superhuman doesn’t apply to commonplace tasks. Meanwhile, blacks were chosen as more sensitive to pain 31 percent of the time, confirming work by the same authors: In a paper in PLOS ONE, they showed that whites, blacks, and nurses of any race see blacks as less sensitive to pain than whites, and that black NFL players are put back in the lineup sooner after injuries.
Waytz says the superhuman bias may result in part from “long-held stereotypes about toughness, aggression, physicality, and sexuality.” Whites see blacks as athletic and aggressive, and so it’s easier to picture them running as fast as a jet or picking up a tank.
I should not have to point out how this perception of black people and hispanics being stronger, more physically resilient, more aggressive and less sensitive to pain would be detrimental, should I? Especially when one looks at how racial bias results in whites subconsciously seeing black people as a threat..
Now, couple that with the laws that allow people to use deadly force for a perceived threat and you have what you currently have in many parts of America.. And it is absolutely legal.
So now do people understand what is meant when people say it is legal to shoot black people in America? Can people actually connect the dots and see how and why it is legal to shoot black people in America and how some laws allow for a perceived threat and be able to look at the many studies posted throughout this thread to show the inherent bias and prejudice and how some white people view black people and minorities and how they are viewed as threats because of their skin colour? I mean, for goodness sake, there are whites out there who think that black people have superhuman strength and feel no pain. There are whites out there who think that black people are animalistic and strong and feel no pain. Is it really inconceivable that these people would shoot a black person because of a perceived threat and that the law actually allows them to shoot to kill because of a perceived threat? Is it really that hard to understand this? Is it really possible to deny the various studies done on this very subject, many of which have already been linked in this thread?
You're going to need to cite these laws you claim and this story you reference. Being a gun owner, I know that the perceived threat must be of immediate serious bodily injury or death. And unless the evidence (disparate force, ability and intent to do harm, etc.) or witnesses can corroborate such a perceived threat, the shooter will likely face at least manslaughter charges. In your anecdote, the shooter would not have been justified unless the victim was at least approaching in a threatening manor and either armed or of significantly greater physical build than the shooter. So your telling of it just doesn't add up.
What seems obvious, to those educated on these laws, is that you're either making shit up or you've been dupped by agenda-driven bias (either your own or that of your source). Can you even provide one well-sourced story that demonstrates a white civilian, without clear, objective justification, getting off scot-free for murdering a minority? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You do know that there's a difference between not being charged and being found not guilty, right?
The disproportionate crime rate, including violent crime, by blacks is an objective fact.
To defend yourself with deadly force? Immediate threat of serious bodily harm or death from a source that has the ability, opportunity, disproportionate force, and apparent intent to do so. Each of these factors does lend itself to evidence which can be used to judge whether a shoot was justified. Someone your size and unarmed is not such a threat, even if they do yell or even hit you, whereas two people your size and unarmed do represent a disparate force to what you can bring to bear. Someone with a knife, but separated from you by a tall fence, is not such an immediate threat. Etc..
Self-defense with deadly force is always legally risky.
Again: we have examples. This is not theoretical. Trayvon Martin case is already in the thread.
If it's the Adkins incident - there have been others - the shooter was eventually charged and convicted of second degree manslaughter, as the police recommended in the first place (although they did not arrest him). The victim was "hispanic" and/or "white", however - the perp was black, and 23 years old.
The whole point here is what "clear, objective justification" means. That's the issue. And nothing here is limited to "civilians" doing the shooting.
Otherwise: George Zimmerman, of course.
But this one's my favorite, because nobody died: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...t-revealed-object-believed-gun-toy-truck.html Note that the police handcuffed the guy they shot. Any idea why?
Which one is most clearly related to whether it's ok to punch a "nazi", in your view?
When we moved into our Chicago neighborhood, we encountered the actual practice of "street gangs".
They formed up into little armies who maintained control of their turf(read NATION). They collected taxes from the drug dealers and pimps and fought off incursions by other national armies.
So, for them it was OK to kill members of other national armies, while pretty much leaving the civilians alone.
Long ago and far away, it was OK to kill a "gook". More than ok, it was highly recommended and actually expected. And my father and step fathers had the same---------it was ok for my father to kill "Krauts" , my 1st stepfather to kill "Japs---also known as "slopes" or slant eyed bastards),
and then my mother's last husband had been a soldier in the German army, so it was expected of him to kill Russians, Americans, Brits, French.............the list goes on)
On a personal level, it kinda depends on your concept of personal space.
Until one of us has been there, our speculations here remain hypothetical or academic.
(Which don't mean I want you to stop)
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
and this may well demonstrate where your bias comes from
they target sports radio listeners because fitness is a critical requirement of the cop, especially all entry level positions (a detective or investigator is paid to think moreso than run). you do not see entry level positions for law enforcement being filled by the handicapped unless they have a prior history and experience, and typically they will fill from their own department, not from outside
just like you don't typically see forensic positions that target high school dropouts for the same reasoning
this is perfectly logical and based upon studies, of which you can find in places like Google Scholar
also note, Google scholar has a check box for case law (that is a hint - just FYI)
and this is directly related to my argument: getting away with a crime is not the same thing as being legal
you and others have referenced shootings that you say demonstrate the unjust application of a law (like : stand your ground)
this in no way proves that the shooting was legal over race, but rather that there was justification per the law that there was sufficient evidence to feel threatened per the stand your ground law in that particular state (notice i didn't say in the US? - another major point i made)
now, the adjudication paperwork (like a final judgement) will explicitly state the evidence, justifications and reasoning of the judge, and it is required in all adjudications, or rulings per a judge. (this means trials, pre-trials, or any time there is a judicial statement about [x]. it may well be short - hey, you've got cause to run with this in a trial - but it will always be present because the law is the only organization that utilises more paperwork than the government)
no, it is not "legal" per the above points
what you must show, in the source material, is the justification, in writing per the ruling, that the shooting was over race and justified due to race
also note, the stand your ground laws (typically invoked in said above injustices) does not in any way cover racial motivation, and as such, there are two different points being argued.
1- your point: the shooting and it's legality (except that your argument specifically is making an inference that isn't justified by the paperwork, as you've not supplied the proof that the shooting was racially motivated - you've provided articles or references to articles, but not any source material to validate the claim. as such, you're making, at best, an untested claim, per this link: http://www.auburn.edu/academic/education/reading_genie/Fact-opinion.html . until you can support your claim with evidence from source material that isn't subjective, you are making said claim on your belief based upon your sources - the news - which may or may not be reliable or even factual)
2- the legality of racial hate crimes. this is entirely separate from a justified shooting. once the shooter justifies their shooting with the race card (or any other in the list per 18 U.S.C § 249, then this becomes covered under an entirely different set of laws. as such, it is a separate charge.
what that means is this:
-you can be found justified in your shooting, per the state statute (mind you, state is not federal, and as such this is not US wide, hence my original objection)
-you can still be prosecuted per 18 U.S.C § 249 for a hate crime
it is not double jeopardy because you're not being challenged to justify your shooting. it is unique and separate, and in all likelyhood, because of the statute of limitations, one reason the state law is applied first is to get evidence on record for the potential prosecution of federal law, which is a known and very effective tactic in legal circles.
it is important to note that the prosecutor only needs to prove that said shooter acted due to race. there is no requirement for malice, aforethought or any other similar requirement per homicide laws.
and again, see above, as i am trying to make this perfectly clear:
1- you can justify shooting someone per the state statute
2- as soon as you play the race card, regardless of the studies, then said action is illegal under the law ( 18 U.S.C § 249 ) and as such prosecutable as a hate crime
however, making it very clear because you added the study: that simple fact of fear justified by studies is why there isn't a lot of prosecution
the ambiguity of the term "fear", the ambiguity of the justification of violence due to fear, and the ambiguity of the science surrounding the situation as it relies upon psychology and similar soft sciences.
This adds the element of doubt to a defense when presented to a jury, which is what the defense wants - and as such, prosecutors are hesitant to utilise the law unless there is a clearly defined case that is sure of a win in court
Now, making the argument from that is better, but it is still technically incorrect as i've pointed out: this still doesn't make it legal - it only makes it untried
is that more clear yet?
Separate names with a comma.