I direct you to my post about that - it’s #5 in this thread.
I direct you to the post you’re responding to, as well as post #s 60,58,53,52 and 1. I’ve repeatedly tried to make my opinion clear and succinct in every post to which I’ve replied. I have also asked several questions regarding your position, of which you have repeatedly dodged, or ignored. Do you only read the last sentence of every post? I know I am long winded or written or whatever this qualifies as, but really, you should probably read the whole things or not comment on them. I know that in your head, justification and understanding are the same thing, but forgive me if I choose to use their traditional meanings. Are you now satisfied with the things I posted, or are you still having trouble understanding(funny how that word keeps popping up) that you and I have a different understanding of the meaning of understanding?
Wow. :eek:
I agree with Richard Parker: it is absolutely not human nature to think that. In fact, it’s also not rational and it’s not even remotely normal.
Ah, empathy portrayed as a villainous trait. :rolleyes:
That’s stupid, Terr. Even Robert McNamara came to know that.
Thanks Bo, I’m still not going anywhere to throw anything anywhere.
I see what Shodan is saying. and what you are saying. I think you just need to put the emphasis on his “less likely”. I mean, “if the people in his community resort to such dumb thinking and destructive behavior, he, as part of that community, probably shares some of those traits”. I’m not saying he does, I’m just think you are not really understanding Shodan’s point. I certainly don’t think that you’d argue the converse, i.e., that it increases the likelihood in people’s eyes that he is innocent. So that leaves “no change one way or the other”. And I think that’s unlikely.
Again, if you read what I posted, you’d know that’s not true.
You are even more stupid and more racist than I already thought you were.
Pay attention:
There are opportunists who use the chaos of a major riot to loot and steal. You didn’t know that? They say “Dog bites man” is not news but the way you and your ilk use it to deflect from the reason for the riots makes me wonder if you realize it.
I condemn the rioters and pity the store-owners. There, I had to say the obvious because you are so stupid or malicious as to make up meanings for my words. I also condemn the dog who bit a man yesterday in Idaho, and pity the man he bit. If I were like you, I’d pretend you were on the side of the dog since you’ve not explicitly condemned it. 
The real story is neither that dog bit man, nor that riots led to looting. The real story is: Why did the people feel the need to riot?
The story that’s developing seems to be that a white cop killed an innocent black youth in cold blood. We may never have a completely reliable story, but multiple witnesses have the victim hands-up surrendering while the cop continued to fire bullets.
And you are only outraged at the dog biting a man. What a filthy specimen of humanity you are.
You pretend you’re not a racist. Ha! We’ve seen your nasty racist posts over and over. If it were a black cop murdering a white man, your posting in this thread would be very VERY different. Hell, you’d probably be one of the assholes stealing from stores owned by blacks.
Shoot the looters.
Problem solved.
After all, it’s not as if the local police don’t have any experience shooting people. They seem to be very good at it.
What a maroon. Again, YOU are the one that brought race into this. My points stand regardless of the color of people shooting, being shot, or looting. Now here’s a little exercise for you. Look at what you wrote here and then look at the what you cited from me. Please tell me which part of what I wrote you actually object to. Here it is:
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Here’s your problem right here. Vandalism and theft do are not justified. And the people doing the looting aren’t looking for justice, they’re looking for flat screen TVs and Air Jordans.
[/QUOTE]
Breaking it up, do you think,
A) Do you think vandalism and theft are justified? Granted you have stated that the looters are victims. :rolleyes: You’ve been called on it, and your post is still there saying so. But is is the vandalism and looting justifiable?
B) Do you think the people doing the looting are looking for justice by looting?
C) Or do you think that they are not looking for flat screen TVs and Air Jordans?
So, help me out here. What part of what you cited do you actually object to. I can easily show you what it is that you wrote that I disagree with.For instance, your beyond dumbfuck opinion that the looters are victims. Let me be helpful and point to your contorted reality again:
[QUOTE=septimus]
Originally Posted by septimus
Once again, let’s all blame the victims.
…
Leave it to the right-wing racist assholes to make the story about the looters, not about the innocent unarmed teenager shot dead by police.
[/QUOTE]
I did NOT imply the looters were victims. I can see how a racist moron might try to twist my words to that effect.
I did NOT imply the looters were victims. I can see how a racist moron might try to twist my words to that effect.
I did NOT imply the looters were victims. I can see how a racist moron might try to twist my words to that effect.
Before now I just thought of you as an ordinary racist dolt. You’ve now sunk considerably in my estimation. :rolleyes:
I think the issue is that it seems . . .bizarre . . . to get all het up about property crimes when there is this much more horrid miscarriage of justice. It’s like some guy loses his kids to a crazed axe murderer, and in following weeks he snaps and hits his wife. And nothing makes hitting your wife cool, or acceptable, or justified, but considering the horrific circumstances around it, it seems weird to focus on that action as the most relevant, the most historic, part of the whole incident. Fixating on those damn looters and how horrible and counter productive they are and acting like that’s anything but a detail in the major event of “cops shoot unarmed kid to death” is problematic.
I think it suggests a couple motivations:
[ul]
[li]I only really care about crime that happens to me. As a white, middle-class citizen, Neither myself nor my loved ones are are ever going to be shot by the cops for no reason, so while I think it’s sad and wrong, it doesn’t upset me the way looters do, because I and people I love could plausibly be the victims in these crimes.[/li]
[li]I identify with the white cop in my mental picture. I need a narrative that justifies the actions, so I find comfort in the idea that the whole community was seething with violence, just looking for an excuse. If that’s true, the cop being on a hair-trigger is understandable, even wise, and his actions–even if they were a mistake in hindsight–were human and he’s not evil.[/li][/ul]
In both cases, the issue is rooted in identity–feeling like the main character in the story is the cop, not the kid. I don’t know that that’s “racism”, but I think it’s something in one’s internal world map that needs to be considered.
I said similar things. I’d probably be more inclined to want to do something that would directly affect the police. And, with the right encouragement, I’m not sure I’d be able to hold off.
I think only a fool is sure.
Like I said, people very much overestimate their ability to resist temptation. The line between wanting to do something out of anger and actually doing it is not as big as people like to think. It’s comforting to think you would never do something like that, but I’m sure most people in the mob felt the same way.
That’s why it’s called a mob mentality. Somehow the group winds up doing things the individuals never would. It’s why I do my best to stay away from angry groups of people.
I do note you are focusing on the wrong part of what I said, though.
Also, I take back what I said about magellan. He clearly does think the rioters are biggest miscarriage of justice.
Because they’re criminal scum. That the local police may also be criminal scum doesn’t change this - not that it actually looks like they are.
Correct. You stated it outright.
I don’t see a “miscarriage of justice” anywhere… The police are being investigated, as are the rioters. Justice is happening, as it should.
If it’s found that the police have no case to answer - and the description of events by eyewitnesses suggest that they don’t - that still won’t mean that there’s been a miscarriage.
Some people are capable of chewing gum and walking at the same time.
If the police kill someone who was unarmed, it is a miscarriage of justice. Even if the police officer is jailed for it, it was still a miscarriage of justice. The police officer is part of the justice system and was acting as a police officer. The justice system failed to protect the guy who was killed.
Even if you disagree and only use the term for people who are falsely convicted, you knew what I meant. magellan thinks the biggest thing wrong with what happened is that people rioted. He’s downplaying the needless death.
Yes. You did. You didn’t even imply it. You stated it outright.
You know we can go back to the last page and read what you posted, right?