Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Scott shooting; Slager will be found innocent

Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 7:53:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Typically I'd put this in the news section, but I wanted more opinions on this. The following article is the referance I'm using for this and will be a useful read to engage in productive dialogue here. http://theconservativetreehouse.com...

Highlights of the article;

1. Slager seems to have been tazed, pictures and video on close inspection, show prongs hanging out of Slagers chest.

2. Whether the officer is justified in a shooting is based on his perception, which may not be the truest reflection of reality.

This is one of those rare circumstance where an officer probably will see a trial for a shooting.

The defenses story will probably be something like this;

Officer Slager was being attacked by Scott and during the course of the fight Slager lost control of the tazer, and it was used on him as evidenced by injuries and the video, showing prongs hanging out of him. When the two got separated during the scuffle the officers adrenaline was already kicked in. He developed tunnel vision and thought Scott still had the tazer which has a 23 foot reach. The suspect continually hitting the trigger could incapacitate the officer and put his life in danger. This is when the officer shot Scott killing him.

At worst Slager will get manslaughter, but the more likely scenario is that a jury will find him innocent. Video will be played in slow motion and enhanced. Expert witnesses will be brought in to discuss police policies showing deadly force is reasonable when a suspect gains control of your tazer (a potentially dangerous weapon), psychologists will discuss the effects of adrenaline in dangerous situation tunnel vision, deafness, slowing of time etc..

Again, please read the article and watch the video before commenting, and although policing is heavily politicized, let's attempt to avoid it.

For whatever reasons, Republicans engage in cop worship and military worship and Democrats look at cops in a light that is also unfair. Even extremely smart people engage in that stuff here, as I've seen, but please comment.

Also related questions.

1. The media has a hard time accurately covering these types of things. They sometimes do a great job in the initial stages, but rarely if ever correct themselves when new evidence changes the original narrative provided. Do you think anyone will actually cover this story in a balanced way in spite of new evidence?

2. When Slager is found innocent, will there be riots? Right now the community is calm, because quick action was taken and Slager was behind bars incredibly fast.

3. Did the police department do the wrong thing by potentially arresting a fellow officer, so quickly?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 2:37:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 2:06:12 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
What about the planting of evidence?

I'm not even sure how to interpret that. That is the one thing that shows a guilty conscience. We'll just have to wait until trial to see what happens with that.

It is my understanding even his fellow officer found that shady and reported it to a superviser before that film surfaced.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 3:29:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 2:37:38 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 4/16/2015 2:06:12 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
What about the planting of evidence?

I'm not even sure how to interpret that. That is the one thing that shows a guilty conscience. We'll just have to wait until trial to see what happens with that.

It is my understanding even his fellow officer found that shady and reported it to a superviser before that film surfaced.

Well I guess more high-school training videos are in order. Add "don't grab a taser from a cop" to the more popular public service video titled "don't grab an officer's gun and call him a puszy."
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2015 2:36:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/17/2015 10:57:31 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/16/2015 2:37:38 PM, Wylted wrote:

You should read this article:

http://www.theatlantic.com...

Yeah, and I agree with that to a large extent. My hate the whole "blame whitey" mentality, because it puts blacks in a mindset of blaming society instead of taking initiative to solve their own problems. You'll literally see bright black men in the hood, their whole life acting like the scum of the Earth. They'll abandon their kids, start trying to make easy money, and just like a child, be in a constant state of rebellion, and they do this, because the "blame whitey" mentality puts them in a learned state of helplessness, and they feel as if this is a white man's world and therefore not for them. They need to rebel constantly, because they don't belong.

Nobody wants to admit it, but to a certain extent it is whitey's fault. Not the way liberals think, though. You see liberals and conservatives have a problem with racism. Their racism is more harmful, though. The liberal looks at black society and feels sorry for them, they view black society as weak and the children of government. If black society has a problem, liberals try to say "come to mommy", and mommy coddles it's little baby and gives him her Titt to suckle on. If black men are poor, they give them welfare payments, food stamps, and section 8 housing. Liberals are constantly and indirectly telling black men, they are weak , they are still children, and the black community takes that to heart. Liberals are hurting the black community, with their mentality. A big part of the problem with crime in black communities is this child like mentality, which though completely their fault is also completely the fault of "whitey", well "liberal whitey". Liberals also don't know the damage they do, when they are soft on crime. The typical liberal yuppie is middle class or upper middle class and they're aware that a lot of criminality is the fault social issues, they feel bad for the black community, so they're extremely soft on crime, which in turn releases dangerous people in to black communities. The yuppie doesn't see the crime, so he doesn't know that releasing these dangerous criminals, is a bad ideal. His is protected by white picket fences and doesn't have to see the results of handing an armed robber a sentence of merely probation. Hell, it isn't his house that got robbed.

Conservatives contribute to the problem as well. They do so by also attacking the symptoms, instead of the source of the problem, but at least they don't constantly send the message to black men, that they are children, they're more concerned about the problems that, effect them. Conservatives look to police and say "keep this problem contained", so I don't have to see them, and conservatives love the police, because they do an incredible job at keeping the problem hidden.

The problem is that conservatives don't care about the black community, while the liberals make the problem bigger. The problem being that the black community is childlike (particularly the men). Honestly once you start treating black men, like men and expecting them to be men, than a lot of their problems will be solved, and there is a very specific way to do that, but this post isn't the right place to address it. This is about the problem, and identifying it.

It sucks being a cop. These poor guys, are servants to the public and are getting conflicting messages, and to a large extent it is highly unfair to demand the police fix all of societies problems, but that's what they ask for. When the crime rate is high, the chief of police is to blame, regardless of the fact that the police didn't create the social problems that are the true root of the problem. White America expects the police to deal with these problems, and the only way to do so is through, brute force. Conservatives understand this, but perhaps go to far and seem to actually engage in a type of police worship, and liberals are coddling blacks so one side is yelling "stop being mean" while the other side is yelling "keep us safe". Honestly, the police can't do both and it's unfair to demand they get all the "bad guys" off the street, which takes a ton of brute force, while also demanding they "play nice" even to the bad guys. Obviously the police can't hide simultaneosly hide the ills of society from us, while also coddling the criminals, and it's unfair to ask them to do so.

Look the war on drugs isn't the fault of police. The war on drugs did divide the police and force them to look at the undesirables society creates as an enemy. It's not their fault. It's the result of policy. Other policies do the same thing. Liberals shouldn't expect the police to not do their job, and conservatives should stop trying to hide from the problem. We've put the police in a no win situation, and I'll use another post at some other point possibly, to explain how to solve the problem, but right now people should realize that police are neither part of the problem or part of the solution for societies ills, and that a large part of the black communities problem is that they are treated and feel like children, so they act rebelliously as a child would. Make no mistake, I'm not blaming liberally policy for a lot of black men being child like. The liberals didn't cause that problem, but they are now currently contributing to it and making it a little worse.

I'm also not saying that some of their social nets are bad policies. It's just that the social nets, go to far and in a contradictory type way often times while going to far, they also don't go far enough in going towards helping the people they intended to help. I'm against the social nets, because they're unethical but that's another story.
Fly
Posts: 2,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2015 3:33:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/17/2015 2:36:17 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 4/17/2015 10:57:31 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/16/2015 2:37:38 PM, Wylted wrote:

You should read this article:

http://www.theatlantic.com...

Yeah, and I agree with that to a large extent. My hate the whole "blame whitey" mentality, because it puts blacks in a mindset of blaming society instead of taking initiative to solve their own problems. You'll literally see bright black men in the hood, their whole life acting like the scum of the Earth. They'll abandon their kids, start trying to make easy money, and just like a child, be in a constant state of rebellion, and they do this, because the "blame whitey" mentality puts them in a learned state of helplessness, and they feel as if this is a white man's world and therefore not for them. They need to rebel constantly, because they don't belong.

Nobody wants to admit it, but to a certain extent it is whitey's fault. Not the way liberals think, though. You see liberals and conservatives have a problem with racism. Their racism is more harmful, though. The liberal looks at black society and feels sorry for them, they view black society as weak and the children of government. If black society has a problem, liberals try to say "come to mommy", and mommy coddles it's little baby and gives him her Titt to suckle on. If black men are poor, they give them welfare payments, food stamps, and section 8 housing. Liberals are constantly and indirectly telling black men, they are weak , they are still children, and the black community takes that to heart. Liberals are hurting the black community, with their mentality. A big part of the problem with crime in black communities is this child like mentality, which though completely their fault is also completely the fault of "whitey", well "liberal whitey". Liberals also don't know the damage they do, when they are soft on crime. The typical liberal yuppie is middle class or upper middle class and they're aware that a lot of criminality is the fault social issues, they feel bad for the black community, so they're extremely soft on crime, which in turn releases dangerous people in to black communities. The yuppie doesn't see the crime, so he doesn't know that releasing these dangerous criminals, is a bad ideal. His is protected by white picket fences and doesn't have to see the results of handing an armed robber a sentence of merely probation. Hell, it isn't his house that got robbed.

Conservatives contribute to the problem as well. They do so by also attacking the symptoms, instead of the source of the problem, but at least they don't constantly send the message to black men, that they are children, they're more concerned about the problems that, effect them. Conservatives look to police and say "keep this problem contained", so I don't have to see them, and conservatives love the police, because they do an incredible job at keeping the problem hidden.

The problem is that conservatives don't care about the black community, while the liberals make the problem bigger. The problem being that the black community is childlike (particularly the men). Honestly once you start treating black men, like men and expecting them to be men, than a lot of their problems will be solved, and there is a very specific way to do that, but this post isn't the right place to address it. This is about the problem, and identifying it.

It sucks being a cop. These poor guys, are servants to the public and are getting conflicting messages, and to a large extent it is highly unfair to demand the police fix all of societies problems, but that's what they ask for. When the crime rate is high, the chief of police is to blame, regardless of the fact that the police didn't create the social problems that are the true root of the problem. White America expects the police to deal with these problems, and the only way to do so is through, brute force. Conservatives understand this, but perhaps go to far and seem to actually engage in a type of police worship, and liberals are coddling blacks so one side is yelling "stop being mean" while the other side is yelling "keep us safe". Honestly, the police can't do both and it's unfair to demand they get all the "bad guys" off the street, which takes a ton of brute force, while also demanding they "play nice" even to the bad guys. Obviously the police can't hide simultaneosly hide the ills of society from us, while also coddling the criminals, and it's unfair to ask them to do so.

Look the war on drugs isn't the fault of police. The war on drugs did divide the police and force them to look at the undesirables society creates as an enemy. It's not their fault. It's the result of policy. Other policies do the same thing. Liberals shouldn't expect the police to not do their job, and conservatives should stop trying to hide from the problem. We've put the police in a no win situation, and I'll use another post at some other point possibly, to explain how to solve the problem, but right now people should realize that police are neither part of the problem or part of the solution for societies ills, and that a large part of the black communities problem is that they are treated and feel like children, so they act rebelliously as a child would. Make no mistake, I'm not blaming liberally policy for a lot of black men being child like. The liberals didn't cause that problem, but they are now currently contributing to it and making it a little worse.

I'm also not saying that some of their social nets are bad policies. It's just that the social nets, go to far and in a contradictory type way often times while going to far, they also don't go far enough in going towards helping the people they intended to help. I'm against the social nets, because they're unethical but that's another story.

There are a lot of strawmen and internal contradictions in that post. So, you blame liberals for treating black society like children (the central strawman), and then you state that much of the problem is that black men, in particular, are childlike (a contradiction to the reason for blaming liberals).

Nevertheless, you do make some valid points regarding the tough position law enforcement is put in. The war on drugs, the criminal justice system, the prison system, and law enforcement all need to be evaluated and reforms made.

"When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts looking like a nail."
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2015 4:50:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't really think it's a strawman. I also acknowledged that the reason a lot of black men act so childlike has nothing to do with liberals.

I also just mentioned a problem common in liberalism, though probably not true of all liberals. I analyzed their psychology. The psychology of many of these liberals is that they view black men as little babies who need to be coddled. They can try to deny it to themselves, but their actions betray their true thought process. You can claim you are not coddling black men, but when your actions show otherwise your mindset and motives become clear. If every single action that is taken, points to a particular mindset it is probably safe to say, that mindset exists within those liberals. I believe that the same group of people I'm talking about legitimately don't realize how racist they're being, they have no ideal their actions indicate they view black men as weak and babies who need coddling, but that mindset certainly exists, atleast in their subconscious.

It is inconsistent to say they don't view black men as children, while at the same time they want the criminal justice system to take it easy on them, they want to literally buy them food and pay their rent and they want to throw their weight around to give certain places unofficial hiring wuotas.

I get that the liberal views his coddling as helping. A mother thinks she is helping her child when she feeds, clothes, and shelters him from the harshness of society as well. This valiant and honorable motive of the mother is unknowingly harming her boy. It's not her fault the boy is dependent, he was born that way, but it's her fault the boy doesn't grow into a man, and the same thing is happening with liberals and the black community.

They love black men, but they still view them as little boys who need their help, who need to be coddled. A mother is responsible for letting her child go so he can become a man, and it is the liberals job to help ween the black man from childhood as well.

I'm not saying get rid of the safety nets (though I support that). I'm saying, realize the harm you are causing and stop causing it. I'm not even asking that liberals fix the problems. I'm confident that there are enough great men and strong leaders in the black community, to turn things around for them, but first like Hippocrates said. Do no harm.

Liberals are always trying to fix problems, but despite whites contributing to the problem originally, it is not our problem to solve. We can't solve it. The black community must solve it, but they will have an easier time if they are weened off the short term benefits of liberalism. Will it hurt the black community to wren them off the teets of Uncle Sam? Sure, but the long term benefits, will be incredible.

I think that is one fatal flaw that both liberals and conservatives engage in. They always try to fix things, but the market will fix it's self. Let the fluctuations exist. If you want real wealth distribution leave the ups and downs of the market alone. Bad things are sometimes just a natural part of the process
Fly
Posts: 2,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2015 8:28:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Wylted, I don't doubt that you cannot see the silly yet ubiquitous strawman you regurgitate here. You even have trouble recognizing the contradictions in your points. I will spell a small one out for you-- in your post I initially responded to, you actually said that the childlike state of black society is completely their own fault... AND completely the fault of white liberals. You actually wrote that.

Not that I would agree on there being a "childlike state" in question here, but do you even acknowledge the role of systemic racism, at least in the past if not currently, on the current standing of black society?

I'm not claiming to have the solutions, but at least I am able to properly see the problem clearly. You, however, prefer to view racism as a thing of the past-- somehow, at some fantastic point in time, racism was rendered into nonexistence by our society-- I would love to hear from you when and how that happened. Now, the burden is on black society to catch up with everyone else after centuries of being held back. In other words, your solution is for the larger society to "do nothing more."

Because doing nothing has always solved problems historically [sarcasm].
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2015 12:49:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/17/2015 8:28:22 PM, Fly wrote:
Wylted, I don't doubt that you cannot see the silly yet ubiquitous strawman you regurgitate here. You even have trouble recognizing the contradictions in your points. I will spell a small one out for you-- in your post I initially responded to, you actually said that the childlike state of black society is completely their own fault... AND completely the fault of white liberals. You actually wrote that.

Not that I would agree on there being a "childlike state" in question here, but do you even acknowledge the role of systemic racism, at least in the past if not currently, on the current standing of black society?

I'm not claiming to have the solutions, but at least I am able to properly see the problem clearly. You, however, prefer to view racism as a thing of the past-- somehow, at some fantastic point in time, racism was rendered into nonexistence by our society-- I would love to hear from you when and how that happened. Now, the burden is on black society to catch up with everyone else after centuries of being held back. In other words, your solution is for the larger society to "do nothing more."

Because doing nothing has always solved problems historically [sarcasm].

Hey, he needs to blame someone right. Why not both considering he has something against both black men and liberals, his bias is just reflected in the contradictory, and nonsensical bullsh-t that he posts. Instead of realizing the advantages he has in society over oppressed minority groups, he would rather deny it while simultaneously benefiting from it, and blame all of the issues that minorities face in society on themselves instead of realizing that they are, in fact, at a disadvantage and society is the cause.

It really all comes down to two things - privilege, and delusion.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 2:13:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/17/2015 8:28:22 PM, Fly wrote:
Wylted, I don't doubt that you cannot see the silly yet ubiquitous strawman you regurgitate here. You even have trouble recognizing the contradictions in your points. I will spell a small one out for you-- in your post I initially responded to, you actually said that the childlike state of black society is completely their own fault... AND completely the fault of white liberals. You actually wrote that.

It's completely their fault and liberals contribute to the problem in the ways I've indicated. Conservatives probably also contribute due to their unwillingness to face reality on it. If I stated anything different it was not my intention.

Not that I would agree on there being a "childlike state" in question here, but do you even acknowledge the role of systemic racism, at least in the past if not currently, on the current standing of black society?

Ofcourse they wouldn't be in their current situation if it weren't for America's horrible path. We're still recovering from that, I just Don't believe it is currently as bad as a lot of people do.

I'm not claiming to have the solutions, but at least I am able to properly see the problem clearly. You, however, prefer to view racism as a thing of the past-- somehow, at some fantastic point in time, racism was rendered into nonexistence by our society-- I would love to hear from you when and how that happened. Now, the burden is on black society to catch up with everyone else after centuries of being held back. In other words, your solution is for the larger society to "do nothing more."

Kinda, there are solutions I'd like to see, that I won't get into too much here, but I don't view blacks as inferior, and I don't think they need to be pampered anymore. I think some problems fix themselves if you do what Hippocrates said, which is "first do no harm". It's not an easy road, but few real solutions are actually comfortable to pursue and can hurt a lot in the short term.


Because doing nothing has always solved problems historically [sarcasm].

Doing nothing isn't always the correct course, but it should also be noted that doing something often causes problems to get worse, and some problems are actually self correcting and don't need intervention. A cold will heal it's self, you Don't need to intervene with medicine, nor would it be useful to do so.

I'm all for solutions, but only ones that treat the underlying cause of a problem. Things that merely treat the symptoms can help to mask the real problem and make it harder to correct.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 2:22:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2015 12:49:44 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 4/17/2015 8:28:22 PM, Fly wrote:
Wylted, I don't doubt that you cannot see the silly yet ubiquitous strawman you regurgitate here. You even have trouble recognizing the contradictions in your points. I will spell a small one out for you-- in your post I initially responded to, you actually said that the childlike state of black society is completely their own fault... AND completely the fault of white liberals. You actually wrote that.

Not that I would agree on there being a "childlike state" in question here, but do you even acknowledge the role of systemic racism, at least in the past if not currently, on the current standing of black society?

I'm not claiming to have the solutions, but at least I am able to properly see the problem clearly. You, however, prefer to view racism as a thing of the past-- somehow, at some fantastic point in time, racism was rendered into nonexistence by our society-- I would love to hear from you when and how that happened. Now, the burden is on black society to catch up with everyone else after centuries of being held back. In other words, your solution is for the larger society to "do nothing more."

Because doing nothing has always solved problems historically [sarcasm].

Hey, he needs to blame someone right. Why not both considering he has something against both black men and liberals, his bias is just reflected in the contradictory, and nonsensical bullsh-t that he posts. Instead of realizing the advantages he has in society over oppressed minority groups, he would rather deny it while simultaneously benefiting from it, and blame all of the issues that minorities face in society on themselves instead of realizing that they are, in fact, at a disadvantage and society is the cause.

It really all comes down to two things - privilege, and delusion.

This is a straight ad hominem attack, and I've made several good points.

I noted how liberalism contributes to the problems facing the black community, but I have not stated that all liberals contribute to the problem or have an ideology that contributes to it. I also acknowledge that many problems also continue to exist within the black community because Republicans often stick their head in the sand with certain problems.

I'd also note that, saying somebody need to accept responsibility for their station in life isn't a failure to acknowledge the unique or unfair challenges they must face. It's not the fault of blacks that they were given a harder lot in life based some bad things in America's past, but it is also their responsibility not to lay down and just give up.

The reality is that blacks may have a harder time in life due to their skin color, but the reality is also, that they are responsible for their position in life. So to simplify it.

The hard lot in life is not their fault, but how they respond to it is. Hopefully you can understand my position now and stop strawmanning it or approaching the subject we're talking about as an idealogue. You're too young to be an idealogue, not that it is appropriate at any age.
Fly
Posts: 2,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 9:52:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2015 2:13:43 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 4/17/2015 8:28:22 PM, Fly wrote:
Wylted, I don't doubt that you cannot see the silly yet ubiquitous strawman you regurgitate here. You even have trouble recognizing the contradictions in your points. I will spell a small one out for you-- in your post I initially responded to, you actually said that the childlike state of black society is completely their own fault... AND completely the fault of white liberals. You actually wrote that.

It's completely their fault and liberals contribute to the problem in the ways I've indicated. Conservatives probably also contribute due to their unwillingness to face reality on it. If I stated anything different it was not my intention.

Many, if not most black leaders are politically liberal. Why do you pin liberalism solely on white people?

You say conservatives "stick their head in the sand." How does this differ from "doing no harm," which you espouse?

Not that I would agree on there being a "childlike state" in question here, but do you even acknowledge the role of systemic racism, at least in the past if not currently, on the current standing of black society?

Ofcourse they wouldn't be in their current situation if it weren't for America's horrible path. We're still recovering from that, I just Don't believe it is currently as bad as a lot of people do.

I ask again: what do you think has caused any sort of recovery regarding racism? You seem to take it for granted without giving any credit to any person, group, or policy. It did not happen via "do no harm" centered philosophy!

It is better than it used to be, yes. Progress is being made, but I would say that is because of the progressive thinking that you think is contributing to the problem. And most people who do not personally suffer the effects of racism do not believe it is "as bad as a lot of people do."

If it is not that bad, and black people are not naturally inferior, misfit people, why is black society behind everyone else in just about every metric society evaluates itself by?

Not many people mention this, but I have seen it happen: one of the most insidious aspects of racism is that even the oppressed group starts believing in their own inferiority. It is difficult not to when the message is subcommunicated at every possible turn. Once that is done, it is very hard to undo.

I'm not claiming to have the solutions, but at least I am able to properly see the problem clearly. You, however, prefer to view racism as a thing of the past-- somehow, at some fantastic point in time, racism was rendered into nonexistence by our society-- I would love to hear from you when and how that happened. Now, the burden is on black society to catch up with everyone else after centuries of being held back. In other words, your solution is for the larger society to "do nothing more."

Kinda, there are solutions I'd like to see, that I won't get into too much here, but I don't view blacks as inferior, and I don't think they need to be pampered anymore. I think some problems fix themselves if you do what Hippocrates said, which is "first do no harm". It's not an easy road, but few real solutions are actually comfortable to pursue and can hurt a lot in the short term.


Because doing nothing has always solved problems historically [sarcasm].

Doing nothing isn't always the correct course, but it should also be noted that doing something often causes problems to get worse, and some problems are actually self correcting and don't need intervention. A cold will heal it's self, you Don't need to intervene with medicine, nor would it be useful to do so.

Here is our main disconnect. If the negative pressures are mostly gone, then problems can often work themselves out. But I see the negative pressures as still there, whereas you see them as largely gone. Again, how is your view different from the conservatives whom you criticize?

I'm all for solutions, but only ones that treat the underlying cause of a problem. Things that merely treat the symptoms can help to mask the real problem and make it harder to correct.

The real problem is only masked to people who want it to be masked.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 10:04:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Did you seriously ask why black people are behind when I'be already explained how their mentality is a large part of it? I'll address this more later, I have a lot to say. You should also know that the Black liberal leaders are distinctly different than the liberal yuppies, but I'm busy. I'll explain more later.
Fly
Posts: 2,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 10:12:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2015 10:04:15 AM, Wylted wrote:
Did you seriously ask why black people are behind when I'be already explained how their mentality is a large part of it? I'll address this more later, I have a lot to say. You should also know that the Black liberal leaders are distinctly different than the liberal yuppies, but I'm busy. I'll explain more later.

Can you explain it in a way that isn't condescending to black people as a whole and to white people you disagree with?
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 10:25:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
This black inferiority complex I mention isn't something new or I pulled out of my behind. I'll link to a few articles, but honestly it should be clear to you, just from observation.

http://m.news24.com...

http://newsbusters.org...

http://www.city-journal.org...

The things discussed in that article are the exact problems I've identified, and yes liberalism to a degree contributes to the problem. Not the typical liberalism that intelligent black men adhere to (that's harmful in my opinion, but in a different way), but the liberalism of yuppies.

It's also not a contradiction to identify that a large segment of conservatives fail to recognize these problems, while also admitting that some problems need to be left alone to work themselves out, such as the current homophobia. Society is continually and naturally becoming more socially liberal, so prejudice against gays, will jus naturally start fading.

Start treating black men like men, and stop coddling them, and the problem will take care of it's self. They'll lose the inferiority complex and start acting like men. It won't happen overnight, and it's tough to be weened from, but it will work.

Honestly hatred of blacks can signify fear and so outright racism isn't really as harmful as telling them, that they are weak and need the government to feed them, clothe them, and take it easy on them in certain circumstances.

If you honestly think black people are too weak and stupid, to fix themselves and needs the help and coddling of white people, you're a piece of crap racist, whether your conscious mind allows you to recognize that or not.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 10:28:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2015 10:12:26 AM, Fly wrote:
At 4/19/2015 10:04:15 AM, Wylted wrote:
Did you seriously ask why black people are behind when I'be already explained how their mentality is a large part of it? I'll address this more later, I have a lot to say. You should also know that the Black liberal leaders are distinctly different than the liberal yuppies, but I'm busy. I'll explain more later.

Can you explain it in a way that isn't condescending to black people as a whole and to white people you disagree with?

How is it condescending to black people. I understand it can come across that way, but it's really something black people already know about. They know that the black community has a huge problem with an inferiority complex. I'll find a clip for you that explains it better, and in a way that will have your average black person smiling and nodding their head in agreement. Give me one minute, you'll like this.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 10:49:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2015 10:12:26 AM, Fly wrote:
At 4/19/2015 10:04:15 AM, Wylted wrote:
Did you seriously ask why black people are behind when I'be already explained how their mentality is a large part of it? I'll address this more later, I have a lot to say. You should also know that the Black liberal leaders are distinctly different than the liberal yuppies, but I'm busy. I'll explain more later.

Can you explain it in a way that isn't condescending to black people as a whole and to white people you disagree with?

A piece is unfortunately cut off in this clip, but I think it gets the point across. https://m.youtube.com...

Here is the full quote to go along with the clip.

" There's this psychiatrist, a lady named Frances Chris Walson. She has a theory about the black man in America. She says because of the system of racism in this country, the black man is meant to think of himself as a baby. A not yet fully formed being, who has not yet realized his full potential. To support her claim, she offers the following: First off, what does a black man call his woman? Mama. Secondly, what does a black man call his closest acquaintances? His boys. And finally, what does a black man call his place of residence? The crib."
Fly
Posts: 2,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 11:06:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2015 10:25:35 AM, Wylted wrote:
This black inferiority complex I mention isn't something new or I pulled out of my behind. I'll link to a few articles, but honestly it should be clear to you, just from observation.

Odd that you would go to the trouble of saying that, even after I wrote this:

"Not many people mention this, but I have seen it happen: one of the most insidious aspects of racism is that even the oppressed group starts believing in their own inferiority. It is difficult not to when the message is subcommunicated at every possible turn. Once that is done, it is very hard to undo."

Your problem is that you called it "a childlike state." I would like to see what McWhorter would say to that! And what McWhorter leaves out is that the defeatist mentality has been cultivated by a racist society. I get it, though. He wants to be "edgy."

http://m.news24.com...

http://newsbusters.org...

http://www.city-journal.org...

Not really sure of the point of the news busters article, but the other two are decent. I have many issues with McWhorter's reasoning in his article, though.

The things discussed in that article are the exact problems I've identified, and yes liberalism to a degree contributes to the problem. Not the typical liberalism that intelligent black men adhere to (that's harmful in my opinion, but in a different way), but the liberalism of yuppies.

It's also not a contradiction to identify that a large segment of conservatives fail to recognize these problems, while also admitting that some problems need to be left alone to work themselves out, such as the current homophobia. Society is continually and naturally becoming more socially liberal, so prejudice against gays, will jus naturally start fading.

You seem to be contradicting yourself again-- society becoming more liberal decreases historical prejudices... but largely holds black society back?

Start treating black men like men, and stop coddling them, and the problem will take care of it's self. They'll lose the inferiority complex and start acting like men. It won't happen overnight, and it's tough to be weened from, but it will work.

Mass incarceration is coddling? With that, who needs "tough love"?

Also, you make it sound as though our society doesn't also attempt to feed and house the white poor. We just do this for the black poor?

Honestly hatred of blacks can signify fear and so outright racism isn't really as harmful as telling them, that they are weak and need the government to feed them, clothe them, and take it easy on them in certain circumstances.

Seeing as how racism is the problem in the first place, this just sounds like a feeble attempt to sound profound. Stick to quoting McWhorter.

If you honestly think black people are too weak and stupid, to fix themselves and needs the help and coddling of white people, you're a piece of crap racist, whether your conscious mind allows you to recognize that or not.

Now, was this really necessary? How is this a direct response to ANYTHING I have written?

Or are you just shaking your righteously angry fist at the sky?
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 1:26:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm only responding to one point at a time, for convenience. I'm a very busy person. The liberalism helping end racism and helping keep blacks down isn't really contradictory.

The liberalism that helps to end bigotry is social liberalism. When a shampoo says apply liberally it isn't talking about applying something like a Democrat would. Liberal means different things considering the context.

Liberalism, the political philosophy as applied by probably atleast 50% of Democrats is harmful to the black community, specifically. That is my contention.

Being socially liberal refers to how accepting people are of each other. It's possible to be socially conservative and politically liberal or to be politically liberal but socially conservative.

Society is becoming more socially and politically liberal all the time, and there are both positve and negative things that come along with both those things. I'm all for being socially liberal.

We can return to other points, but let's just stick to one point at a time, so we don't go in circles.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 1:52:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2015 11:06:38 AM, Fly wrote:
Odd that you would go to the trouble of saying that, even after I wrote this:

"Not many people mention this, but I have seen it happen: one of the most insidious aspects of racism is that even the oppressed group starts believing in their own inferiority. It is difficult not to when the message is subcommunicated at every possible turn. Once that is done, it is very hard to undo."

Your problem is that you called it "a childlike state." I would like to see what McWhorter would say to that! And what McWhorter leaves out is that the defeatist mentality has been cultivated by a racist society. I get it, though. He wants to be "edgy."

Okay, so we agree this is just semantics. Childlike state is just considered offensive somehow. One of my downfalls, I don't think how something comes across is important, only the relaying of facts.

Honestly though, I'd rather it be offensive. Maybe the fear of being seen as childlike will awaken somebody.

Not really sure of the point of the news busters article, but the other two are decent. I have many issues with McWhorter's reasoning in his article, though.

I probably do to, it was just provided to help you understand what I mean when I refer to this inferiority complex, even though I'm referring to it by a different namE.

You seem to be contradicting yourself again-- society becoming more liberal decreases historical prejudices... but largely holds black society back?

Addressed in previous post, but I specifically stated socially liberal which is different than politically liberal.

Mass incarceration is coddling? With that, who needs "tough love"?

The mass incarceration is a result of the crimes a lot of them break, because of the inferiority complex among many other factors. My debate with Thett on caning points to why this recurring cycle occurs. However the fact that more black men are arrested, because they commit more crimes or because they commit the same crimes, but in more of a public way, doesn't mean that the criminal justice system doesn't coddle them. Both things can be true.

Also, you make it sound as though our society doesn't also attempt to feed and house the white poor. We just do this for the black poor?

Some programs, though they are available to everyone, are intended to bridge the gap between whites and blacks. I don't really think anyone writing up these policies would disagree with that statement. I'm also not criticizing safety net programs at this time. It's possible to have these safety nets in place, without coddling.

Unfortunately though, in cases such as welfare. A higher percentage of blacks than whites will get the benefits. This is unfortunate, because it has been proven that, welfare not only encourages dependency, but it also discourages marriage because of the fear of the marraige causing a reduction in benefits. It's my belief that welfare has been a huge destroyer of black families, and that the black community is paying the price for that. Perhaps this can be fixed by finding ways to not punish women for getting married by reducing or eliminating benefits, but no such solution has happened yet.

This is not to say that welfare hasn't hurt white families, but it really isn't hurting them to the same degree.

Seeing as how racism is the problem in the first place, this just sounds like a feeble attempt to sound profound. Stick to quoting McWhorter.

I'd say racism is what caused the problem. Now that racism is no longer much of a problem, at least that type of racism a new problem has emerged. The old problem was that the majority of racists viewed blacks as inferior and hated them, the new problem is racists that view blacks as inferior but love them, and probably legitimitely believe, they're being helpful. So I'd say that, yes racism is still a problem, but not the way you see it.

Now, was this really necessary? How is this a direct response to ANYTHING I have written?

Or are you just shaking your righteously angry fist at the sky?

Sorry, I just really believe that a lot of people view blacks as inferior and want to coddle them. I view these people as racist. I shouldn't presume everyone I'm talking to is that way, perhaps some of them view blacks as equal, but mistakenly think that the liberal policies that are devastating the black community are helpful. Whether it's true or not, intended or not, I think the message that subconsciously get's across is;

"Your weak and pathetic, and you need the white man to save you".
Fly
Posts: 2,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 12:38:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Thanks for a very comprehensive reply. I think just two unaddressed points remain:

1. You said that there is a distinct difference between black liberals and white liberals on the race issue. Other than black people being more involved in the issue by its very nature, what is it?

2. You said this: "Now that racism is no longer much of a problem..."

Third request now-- how and when did this happen? If you answer that society has been evolving to becoming more and more socially liberal, I'm going to punch you.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
slo1
Posts: 4,353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 4:00:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 7:53:29 AM, Wylted wrote:
Typically I'd put this in the news section, but I wanted more opinions on this. The following article is the referance I'm using for this and will be a useful read to engage in productive dialogue here. http://theconservativetreehouse.com...

Highlights of the article;

1. Slager seems to have been tazed, pictures and video on close inspection, show prongs hanging out of Slagers chest.

2. Whether the officer is justified in a shooting is based on his perception, which may not be the truest reflection of reality.

This is one of those rare circumstance where an officer probably will see a trial for a shooting.

The defenses story will probably be something like this;

Officer Slager was being attacked by Scott and during the course of the fight Slager lost control of the tazer, and it was used on him as evidenced by injuries and the video, showing prongs hanging out of him. When the two got separated during the scuffle the officers adrenaline was already kicked in. He developed tunnel vision and thought Scott still had the tazer which has a 23 foot reach. The suspect continually hitting the trigger could incapacitate the officer and put his life in danger. This is when the officer shot Scott killing him.

At worst Slager will get manslaughter, but the more likely scenario is that a jury will find him innocent. Video will be played in slow motion and enhanced. Expert witnesses will be brought in to discuss police policies showing deadly force is reasonable when a suspect gains control of your tazer (a potentially dangerous weapon), psychologists will discuss the effects of adrenaline in dangerous situation tunnel vision, deafness, slowing of time etc..

Again, please read the article and watch the video before commenting, and although policing is heavily politicized, let's attempt to avoid it.

For whatever reasons, Republicans engage in cop worship and military worship and Democrats look at cops in a light that is also unfair. Even extremely smart people engage in that stuff here, as I've seen, but please comment.

Also related questions.

1. The media has a hard time accurately covering these types of things. They sometimes do a great job in the initial stages, but rarely if ever correct themselves when new evidence changes the original narrative provided. Do you think anyone will actually cover this story in a balanced way in spite of new evidence?

2. When Slager is found innocent, will there be riots? Right now the community is calm, because quick action was taken and Slager was behind bars incredibly fast.

3. Did the police department do the wrong thing by potentially arresting a fellow officer, so quickly?

1. The official report never states that he officer was tazed.

2. Even if a wire is hanging from the officer, one does not know whether he was tazed or whether it stuck to him from the scuffle with Scott. It would be more likely it stuck to his clothing during the scuffle, since the report does not state the officer was shot with the tazer.

3. It is difficult to determine that Scott was a threat to the officer's life if it can be demonstrated he was fleeing for his safety at the point the officer tazed him.

4. No warning was given prior to implementing deadly force and it is tough to argue there was not enough time to give a warning considering that Scott was fleeing on foot and it only takes 1 second to issue a verbal warning.

5. His demeanor including tampering with evidence after the shooting is extremely tough to defend.

I agree 1st degree will not fly. I think he will get third degree. He is still on the hook for what he did unless a jury can be convinced a reasonable person would have acted the same in that situation.

This is really a failure not only of the officer, but a failure of police protocol. An officer should never chasing a fleeing perp alone, with the exception the person is armed and dangerous and even then it should only be to stop a crime of body harm as it is happening. Otherwise wait until back up is there.

A warrant for not paying child support and fleeing an officer can be probably resolved at another time with a very high degree of success especially when you have the guys car and a buddy sitting in the passenger seat.

It is time for all those who support the police to start requesting for protocols which protect the officers rather than focus on trying to capture someone fleeing at all costs.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 4:09:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 4:00:46 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/16/2015 7:53:29 AM, Wylted wrote:
Typically I'd put this in the news section, but I wanted more opinions on this. The following article is the referance I'm using for this and will be a useful read to engage in productive dialogue here. http://theconservativetreehouse.com...

Highlights of the article;

1. Slager seems to have been tazed, pictures and video on close inspection, show prongs hanging out of Slagers chest.

2. Whether the officer is justified in a shooting is based on his perception, which may not be the truest reflection of reality.

This is one of those rare circumstance where an officer probably will see a trial for a shooting.

The defenses story will probably be something like this;

Officer Slager was being attacked by Scott and during the course of the fight Slager lost control of the tazer, and it was used on him as evidenced by injuries and the video, showing prongs hanging out of him. When the two got separated during the scuffle the officers adrenaline was already kicked in. He developed tunnel vision and thought Scott still had the tazer which has a 23 foot reach. The suspect continually hitting the trigger could incapacitate the officer and put his life in danger. This is when the officer shot Scott killing him.

At worst Slager will get manslaughter, but the more likely scenario is that a jury will find him innocent. Video will be played in slow motion and enhanced. Expert witnesses will be brought in to discuss police policies showing deadly force is reasonable when a suspect gains control of your tazer (a potentially dangerous weapon), psychologists will discuss the effects of adrenaline in dangerous situation tunnel vision, deafness, slowing of time etc..

Again, please read the article and watch the video before commenting, and although policing is heavily politicized, let's attempt to avoid it.

For whatever reasons, Republicans engage in cop worship and military worship and Democrats look at cops in a light that is also unfair. Even extremely smart people engage in that stuff here, as I've seen, but please comment.

Also related questions.

1. The media has a hard time accurately covering these types of things. They sometimes do a great job in the initial stages, but rarely if ever correct themselves when new evidence changes the original narrative provided. Do you think anyone will actually cover this story in a balanced way in spite of new evidence?

2. When Slager is found innocent, will there be riots? Right now the community is calm, because quick action was taken and Slager was behind bars incredibly fast.

3. Did the police department do the wrong thing by potentially arresting a fellow officer, so quickly?

1. The official report never states that he officer was tazed.

Maybe not, but he clearly stated it over his Wilkie during the scuffle.

2. Even if a wire is hanging from the officer, one does not know whether he was tazed or whether it stuck to him from the scuffle with Scott. It would be more likely it stuck to his clothing during the scuffle, since the report does not state the officer was shot with the tazer.


3. It is difficult to determine that Scott was a threat to the officer's life if it can be demonstrated he was fleeing for his safety at the point the officer tazed him.

It doesn't actually matter if he was a threat. All that matters is if he percieved it to be a threat.

4. No warning was given prior to implementing deadly force and it is tough to argue there was not enough time to give a warning considering that Scott was fleeing on foot and it only takes 1 second to issue a verbal warning.

Again, he doesn't need to give one, he merely has to percieve somebody is a threat to his life or the life of others. I think there is enough reasonable doubt there as to what his perception may have been.


5. His demeanor including tampering with evidence after the shooting is extremely tough to defend.

Yes, that shows signs of guilt and I can't think a jury would look to fondly on that. I'm wondering how the defense will respond to that portion of the vehicle.

I agree 1st degree will not fly. I think he will get third degree. He is still on the hook for what he did unless a jury can be convinced a reasonable person would have acted the same in that situation.

I think manslaughter is the most likely charge that actually stands a chance of getting a conviction, time will tell.

This is really a failure not only of the officer, but a failure of police protocol. An officer should never chasing a fleeing perp alone, with the exception the person is armed and dangerous and even then it should only be to stop a crime of body harm as it is happening. Otherwise wait until back up is there.

I tend to agree on terms of car chasers, because the chance of harming civilians is large, but I'd disagree about somebody fleeing on foot.


A warrant for not paying child support and fleeing an officer can be probably resolved at another time with a very high degree of success especially when you have the guys car and a buddy sitting in the passenger seat.

It is time for all those who support the police to start requesting for protocols which protect the officers rather than focus on trying to capture someone fleeing at all costs.
slo1
Posts: 4,353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 4:22:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 4:09:28 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 4/20/2015 4:00:46 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/16/2015 7:53:29 AM, Wylted wrote:
Typically I'd put this in the news section, but I wanted more opinions on this. The following article is the referance I'm using for this and will be a useful read to engage in productive dialogue here. http://theconservativetreehouse.com...

Highlights of the article;

1. Slager seems to have been tazed, pictures and video on close inspection, show prongs hanging out of Slagers chest.

2. Whether the officer is justified in a shooting is based on his perception, which may not be the truest reflection of reality.

This is one of those rare circumstance where an officer probably will see a trial for a shooting.

The defenses story will probably be something like this;

Officer Slager was being attacked by Scott and during the course of the fight Slager lost control of the tazer, and it was used on him as evidenced by injuries and the video, showing prongs hanging out of him. When the two got separated during the scuffle the officers adrenaline was already kicked in. He developed tunnel vision and thought Scott still had the tazer which has a 23 foot reach. The suspect continually hitting the trigger could incapacitate the officer and put his life in danger. This is when the officer shot Scott killing him.

At worst Slager will get manslaughter, but the more likely scenario is that a jury will find him innocent. Video will be played in slow motion and enhanced. Expert witnesses will be brought in to discuss police policies showing deadly force is reasonable when a suspect gains control of your tazer (a potentially dangerous weapon), psychologists will discuss the effects of adrenaline in dangerous situation tunnel vision, deafness, slowing of time etc..

Again, please read the article and watch the video before commenting, and although policing is heavily politicized, let's attempt to avoid it.

For whatever reasons, Republicans engage in cop worship and military worship and Democrats look at cops in a light that is also unfair. Even extremely smart people engage in that stuff here, as I've seen, but please comment.

Also related questions.

1. The media has a hard time accurately covering these types of things. They sometimes do a great job in the initial stages, but rarely if ever correct themselves when new evidence changes the original narrative provided. Do you think anyone will actually cover this story in a balanced way in spite of new evidence?

2. When Slager is found innocent, will there be riots? Right now the community is calm, because quick action was taken and Slager was behind bars incredibly fast.

3. Did the police department do the wrong thing by potentially arresting a fellow officer, so quickly?

1. The official report never states that he officer was tazed.

Maybe not, but he clearly stated it over his Wilkie during the scuffle.

Right there is a huge discrepancy of integrity that can be used to demonstrate how the officer had intention of cover up because he realized what he did was wrong.


2. Even if a wire is hanging from the officer, one does not know whether he was tazed or whether it stuck to him from the scuffle with Scott. It would be more likely it stuck to his clothing during the scuffle, since the report does not state the officer was shot with the tazer.


3. It is difficult to determine that Scott was a threat to the officer's life if it can be demonstrated he was fleeing for his safety at the point the officer tazed him.

It doesn't actually matter if he was a threat. All that matters is if he percieved it to be a threat.

Not exactly, there is a "reasonableness" standard that has to be met. The person has to feel the other individual was a threat and the jury has to agree that any "reasonable" person in the same situation would feel threatened.


4. No warning was given prior to implementing deadly force and it is tough to argue there was not enough time to give a warning considering that Scott was fleeing on foot and it only takes 1 second to issue a verbal warning.

Again, he doesn't need to give one, he merely has to percieve somebody is a threat to his life or the life of others. I think there is enough reasonable doubt there as to what his perception may have been.

He needs to give a warning of deadly force if there is enough time to do so, regardless of feeling or how dangerous the person is or isn't.


5. His demeanor including tampering with evidence after the shooting is extremely tough to defend.

Yes, that shows signs of guilt and I can't think a jury would look to fondly on that. I'm wondering how the defense will respond to that portion of the vehicle.

I agree 1st degree will not fly. I think he will get third degree. He is still on the hook for what he did unless a jury can be convinced a reasonable person would have acted the same in that situation.

I think manslaughter is the most likely charge that actually stands a chance of getting a conviction, time will tell.

This is really a failure not only of the officer, but a failure of police protocol. An officer should never chasing a fleeing perp alone, with the exception the person is armed and dangerous and even then it should only be to stop a crime of body harm as it is happening. Otherwise wait until back up is there.

I tend to agree on terms of car chasers, because the chance of harming civilians is large, but I'd disagree about somebody fleeing on foot.


A warrant for not paying child support and fleeing an officer can be probably resolved at another time with a very high degree of success especially when you have the guys car and a buddy sitting in the passenger seat.

It is time for all those who support the police to start requesting for protocols which protect the officers rather than focus on trying to capture someone fleeing at all costs.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 4:23:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 12:38:07 PM, Fly wrote:
Thanks for a very comprehensive reply. I think just two unaddressed points remain:

1. You said that there is a distinct difference between black liberals and white liberals on the race issue. Other than black people being more involved in the issue by its very nature, what is it?

If you exude the scum bags like Jesse Jackson who are for a lack of a better word merely attention whoress than the difference would be in the motivation behind policies that help blacks and people of low social status. Black liberals support social nets, but focus on initiatives that legitimately help the black community such as education and fixing the criminal justice system, a lot of the white liberals just seem to want to keep throwing money at the problems and really focus on handouts. So it's a matter of motives and focus. You'll see the liberals racism come out when a black person so happens to be conservative, because he'll often get called an Uncle Tom.

2. You said this: "Now that racism is no longer much of a problem..."

Third request now-- how and when did this happen? If you answer that society has been evolving to becoming more and more socially liberal, I'm going to punch you.

Lol, I'm sure you think it's because a bunch of white dudes ended segregation, and started giving blacks their civil rights, which is not correct. The policies created at the time to end Jim Crow laws, were a direct result of social liberalism. You had strong leaders Like MLK and Malcolm X stand up and lead the black community, which helped as well. So I think the reason that blacks have a lot of the rights they do now and aren't as heavily persecuted is A. Because of how socially liberal everyone was becoming and because B. Black men started to act like men and demanded the respect that comes with that.

If you look at why so much progress happened then and so little happens now, I think you can conclude that it's because of this empowerment they felt. They stopped being victims mentally. Now days you have these black kids thinking they're victims and you can see the results of that thinking any time you drive through a predominantly black area.

Somebody needs to step up now, to be a strong leader within the black community, a new Malcolm X or MLK. Somebody with practically the same message as Bill Cosby, but who can say it in a way that both sinks in and p1sses people off.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 4:34:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think that the jury will find a reasonable person would take the same actions, as soon as they put an expert on the stand to discuss how adrenaline in that situation, would've distorted the perceptions of an officer.
Fly
Posts: 2,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 6:19:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 4:23:49 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 4/20/2015 12:38:07 PM, Fly wrote:
Thanks for a very comprehensive reply. I think just two unaddressed points remain:

1. You said that there is a distinct difference between black liberals and white liberals on the race issue. Other than black people being more involved in the issue by its very nature, what is it?

If you exude the scum bags like Jesse Jackson who are for a lack of a better word merely attention whoress than the difference would be in the motivation behind policies that help blacks and people of low social status. Black liberals support social nets, but focus on initiatives that legitimately help the black community such as education and fixing the criminal justice system, a lot of the white liberals just seem to want to keep throwing money at the problems and really focus on handouts. So it's a matter of motives and focus. You'll see the liberals racism come out when a black person so happens to be conservative, because he'll often get called an Uncle Tom.

This answer comprises only bare assertions-- no support that rings true historically.

2. You said this: "Now that racism is no longer much of a problem..."

Third request now-- how and when did this happen? If you answer that society has been evolving to becoming more and more socially liberal, I'm going to punch you.

Lol, I'm sure you think it's because a bunch of white dudes ended segregation, and started giving blacks their civil rights, which is not correct. The policies created at the time to end Jim Crow laws, were a direct result of social liberalism. You had strong leaders Like MLK and Malcolm X stand up and lead the black community, which helped as well. So I think the reason that blacks have a lot of the rights they do now and aren't as heavily persecuted is A. Because of how socially liberal everyone was becoming and because B. Black men started to act like men and demanded the respect that comes with that.

If you look at why so much progress happened then and so little happens now, I think you can conclude that it's because of this empowerment they felt. They stopped being victims mentally. Now days you have these black kids thinking they're victims and you can see the results of that thinking any time you drive through a predominantly black area.

Somebody needs to step up now, to be a strong leader within the black community, a new Malcolm X or MLK. Somebody with practically the same message as Bill Cosby, but who can say it in a way that both sinks in and p1sses people off.

Wow, you must really want to get punched!

I fear that we have a non-starter here because we are unable to agree on the very nature of the problem that we are discussing. Thanks for your time and effort.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 7:42:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Fly, you haven'tade your position clear, and I think I've made mine clear. I believe policy change was a result of social change, do you believe social change to be a result of policy change?

If you believe that policy change reduced racism, instead of reduced racism causing policy change, I'd love to debate you on that.
Fly
Posts: 2,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 8:27:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 7:42:57 PM, Wylted wrote:
Fly, you haven'tade your position clear, and I think I've made mine clear. I believe policy change was a result of social change, do you believe social change to be a result of policy change?

If you believe that policy change reduced racism, instead of reduced racism causing policy change, I'd love to debate you on that.

Heh, that is a false dichotomy you offer there. Don't forget "C. Both A and B." You fail to account for how social change occurs and gains traction because it is not something that can be expected to occur with no premeditated effort involved. And to reiterate what I have said already, policy change does not involve "standing back and letting the problem work itself out," as you espouse on this thread.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz