Graphic video released of police killing another black man in cold blood

[TroutBum]

Likewise, if a woman is stupid enough to dress in tight, revealing clothes, or anything that makes her looks like a tramp in public, she should expect to be treated like a tramp.

Yep. He got exactly what he deserved

Except that's not what he said. Other than that, solid post.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Except that's not what he said. Other than that, solid post.

No sh** Sherlock. And herein lies the difference between explicit and implied.

I used an analogy to demonstrate the fallacy of the implication of his statement.

I thought you were down with using analogies, even lousy ones, although my analogy isn't a lousy one.

Other than your failure to understand common debating/argumentation tactics, solid post.

 

[TroutBum]

No sh** Sherlock. And herein lies the difference between explicit and implied.

Other than confusing these two concepts, solid post.

Riiiight.

Other than every word you typed, solid post.

 

[LogGrad98]

I'm dismissing his comments because it uses a stawman argument to dismiss concerns expressed here and elsewhere about police bias and policing tactics. By describing opposing arguments in an extreme and caricaturized manner, he is seeking to dismiss the arguments as invalid.

For a similar reason, I also reject extreme portrayals of police.
er
As a general rule, I don't see any responsibility to take seriously arguments that rely on extreme caricatures and that are not being offered in a good faith manner to advance debate.

It is possible to address other points of a topic without summarily dismissing any points at all. I never dismissed anything. I just chose to focus on a point that I felt wasn't being adequately addressed.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Who, perhaps beyond HH, is calling the police murderous, evil racist pigs bent on killing black people?

Is it not legitimate to ask whether police and policing tactics demonstrate a bias against black people and if this is an example of it?

Is it not further legitimate to ask whether the police tactic of shoot first and ask questions later is appropriate in this and other cases?

Is it not also legitimate to ask whether the shoot first tactic is perhaps more prone to be employed with the perp is black?

More broadly, is it not legitimate to ask whether the police doctrine of overwhelming and/or deadly force is appropriate to be employed so frequently or when risk is perceived, as opposed to other possible policing tactics/doctrines?

By creating this straw-man argument, you're avoiding dealing with the obvious questions that this tragic event, and many more like it, raises.

These are all very good questions that get obscured by the likes of Highland Homie. That's is one of the many reasons I maintain that those who approach this issue with his attitude do the people they are purporting to help more harm than good.

 

[fishonjazz]

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

^Have you been searching for a thread to plug that into for a long time?

I think you picked the wrong one.

 

[fishonjazz]

^Have you been searching for a thread to plug that into for a long time?

I think you picked the wrong one.

Yes
And yes

 

[One Brow]

These are all very good questions that get obscured by the likes of Highland Homie. That's is one of the many reasons I maintain that those who approach this issue with his attitude do the people they are purporting to help more harm than good.

I think that the level of anger these behaviors engender needs to be clearly, unequivocally expressed, and if it makes other people uncomfortable, that can be a good thing. When you react calmly, people have a tendency to ignore the reaction entirely. It's much harder to say a behavior is not important when you see the anger it causes in people. The participation in this discussion would probably be a lot smaller if not for HighlandHomie's initial, angry post; I've see a few posters chime in that often stay out.

 

[Yell42]

Likewise, if a woman is stupid enough to dress in tight, revealing clothes, or anything that makes her looks like a tramp in public, she should expect to be treated like a tramp.

Yep. He got exactly what he deserved

So a woman dressed like a slut poses the same danger to the public as someone waving a gun around

What a stupid comparison buddy

 

[moevillini]

I think that the level of anger these behaviors engender needs to be clearly, unequivocally expressed, and if it makes other people uncomfortable, that can be a good thing. When you react calmly, people have a tendency to ignore the reaction entirely. It's much harder to say a behavior is not important when you see the anger it causes in people. The participation in this discussion would probably be a lot smaller if not for HighlandHomie's initial, angry post; I've see a few posters chime in that often stay out.

You can certainly express strong, angry feelings without the kind of name-calling and labeling that Highland Homie often uses. It is ugly and can completely obliterate other opinions he may be trying to express.

To me, he often gives the impression in his posts that he cares more about name-calling than making a valid point about the issue.

 

[Gameface]

You can certainly express strong, angry feelings without the kind of name-calling and labeling that Highland Homie often uses. It is ugly and can completely obliterate other opinions he may be trying to express.

To me, he often gives the impression in his posts that he cares more about name-calling than making a valid point about the issue.

Not only does his name calling diminish the point he's trying to make it also demonstrates how little consideration he gives to the responses he receives, as any simple disagreement typically results in him labeling the person a racist or whatever other insult he decides to throw around.

 

[HighlandHomie]

You can certainly express strong, angry feelings without the kind of name-calling and labeling that Highland Homie often uses. It is ugly and can completely obliterate other opinions he may be trying to express.

To me, he often gives the impression in his posts that he cares more about name-calling than making a valid point about the issue.

Yeah because I'm not called names, sent vile reps/PMs by posters for my initial opinion. That's okay though.

 

[Gameface]

Yeah because I'm not called names, sent vile reps/PMs by posters for my initial opinion. That's okay though.

I haven't sent you vile PMs or reps (haven't given a single rep, positive or negative, since my return) or called you vile names, yet you still include me in your generalized condemnations.

 

[HighlandHomie]

I haven't sent you vile PMs or reps (haven't given a single rep, positive or negative, since my return) or called you vile names, yet you still include me in your generalized condemnations.

Yeah, I've already admitted I post irresponsibly and like an *******. The meat and potatoes of the issues I present, I'm still passionate about and still stand firmly behind. Me being an idiot and unjustifiably calling a dissenter a racist doesn't change the fact Mike Brown was wrongly killed, and that the Ferguson PD and Missouri's gov grossly mishandled everything about the case from the start.

 

[LogGrad98]

Yeah because I'm not called names, sent vile reps/PMs by posters for my initial opinion. That's okay though.

I haven't called you anything, except maybe attention whore once, nor have I sent PMs or reps of any kind your way. Yet you use unrelated threads to spread the complete racist ******** about me. But stick to your troll shtick it is definitely getting you the attention you want.

 

[HighlandHomie]

But stick to your troll shtick it is definitely getting you the attention you want.

I've noticed on message boards, twitter, social media, etc. the word troll a bunch. At first I didn't really get it, then I was like okay trolls are people who prank others but now it seems like it's just morphed into a word someone calls another with a different opinion. Saying I have a 'troll shtick' is no different than me calling you a racist for defending Darren Wilson.

 

[moevillini]

So a woman dressed like a slut poses the same danger to the public as someone waving a gun around

What a stupid comparison buddy

Reading is fundamental, buddy...
And comprehension counts, too!

Likewise, if a woman is stupid enough to dress in tight, revealing clothes, or anything that makes her looks like a tramp in public, she should expect to be treated like a tramp.

In reference to the post above, I think the danger posed by the behavior in either case is a danger to oneself, not to the public.


Open to interpretation of course.

 

[LogGrad98]

I've noticed on message boards, twitter, social media, etc. the word troll a bunch. At first I didn't really get it, then I was like okay trolls are people who prank others but now it seems like it's just morphed into a word someone calls another with a different opinion. Saying I have a 'troll shtick' is no different than me calling you a racist for defending Darren Wilson.

Not exactly. A troll is someone who does what he does solely to get a rise out of people, either specific people or an individual, though repeated ridicule or disruptions in other ways. So calling someone a racist in a thread about racism, or at least where the topic may be valid, is an insult, but not necessarily an act of trolling. But calling someone a racist in a totally unrelated thread just to throw the insult around more is trolling. It can reach that level in a related thread if it is done purely to antagonize someone for no reason. So when you address me as a racist in a Jazz forum thread where I haven't even posted, that is blatant trolling.

 

[LogGrad98]

Not to mention I have endure more than one neg rep from you with similar insults.


Here it is, although small...