The burden of proof does not require irrefutable proof. It can simply shift the burden to the other side to refute.
nm: I misread an earlier post. tbc…
I’d like a cite that I blamed them, please. I’ve stated repeatedly that I don’t.
Agreed. But it has to be SOMETHING beyond bare assertion. What is the evidence that shifts the burden to the other side?
I didn’t say you blamed them. What I said is clearly quoted above: you seem perfectly content to let folks get blamed for what they didn’t do.
Would you like a cite for your being content to let them get blamed?
Lots of oxen around here.
You’re reading a hell of a lot more into that statement than I actually put in there. You seem to do that a lot, it seems. One might think you’re purposefully ignoring what I’ve written, and are instead assigning me a motive and position which you’re then demanding that I defend.
There’s a word for that, isn’t there?
Bricker, I had misread your ‘burden of proof’ comment to be aimed at the assertion that the political climate was directly to blame for Loughner’s action. On a 2nd read, I see that you’re looking for ‘proof’ of my allegation that the political climate created by right wing rhetoric makes violence more likely.
To which I can respond by citing the acts of violence perpetrated or attempted within the present general political period by people citing right wing pundits as direct sources feeding their fear or hatred of their intended targets (Scott Roeder, assassin of Dr. Tiller; the Tennesse Unitarian church shooter; the guy who wanted to shoot up the ACLU and Tides Foundation in SF; etc.).
To which you can counter by citing acts of violence perpetrated or attempted by people citing left wing sources etc.
And we could trade examples and dispute their validity as left or right wing, and never actually prove or refute any particular theory of influence.
Or, I could respond by citing other sources agreeing with my allegation, which you can call appeals to authority. Or I could provide a syllogistic argument that divisive rhetoric generates political thought promoting action against an “other side” and that specific political thought leads to specific political action, ergo divisive and violent rhetoric could produce specific violence against the perceived “other side”, but then we’d be back to ‘burden of proof’.
But that’s only if we argue as if we were trying to justify punitive action against the alleged rhetoricians. We’re not. We’re trying to establish whether certain political rhetoric produces increased **risk **of violence in our society. That’s not a binary “At Risk/Not at Risk” assessment, and it’s not static or subject to absolute quantitative assignment.
However, qualitative risk analysis can be accomplished without ever establishing a causative chain. In the project world, this is mostly done using historical data and the judgement of subject matter experts to make educated estimates of probability and impact. If we use the same techniques, we can certainly show a historical connection between violent rhetoric and acts of violence, and we can certainly find current analyses from subject matter experts in the fields of psychological medicine and social theory.
Shall we do that, Bricker? Frankly, I’m not prepared to devote more time to these discussions than I already average, but if you want to pursue such a risk assessment, I’ll contribute to the best of my time & ability.
I would guess in all honesty that if we both independently produced a probability and impact matrix that included ‘politically motivated violence’, ‘random criminal violence’ and ‘deranged gunmen’, we’d both assign low prob/low impact to the last category and high prob/medium or high impact to the second, but I might justify a higher probability to the first than you would. But I also guess you wouldn’t assign a zero probability, and that you’d raise the numerical level in a climate with more instances of motivating factors.
So it would come down to an assessment of whether rhetoric is a motivating factor. And I would have to ask after all of that discussion the same thing I ask of you now:
Why wouldn’t extreme political rhetoric be a motivating factor for political violence?
Here is the rope with which the right wing can be hung on this particular debate:
“Second Amendment remedies.” That exactly the remedy Laughner used.
And the rhetoric of Islam has already lead to violence, repeatedly.
But the same people who so quickly knew who to blame for Tucson did the exact opposite for Fort Hood.
They fell over backwards to avoid any hints that the crazy guy had ever been influenced by extremist rhetoric.
No, I’d say you were very clear; your sarcasm dripped off the page. You don’t really feel sympathy for conservatives.
Are you saying that you intended to be serious by saying, “Poor conservatives?”
For complaining and playing the victim (which seems to be all they’re good for, lately), not for being blamed.
Who are these “same people”?
Yes, he means every republican voter. Read some of his other posts some time.
Interesting. Can you tell me which remedy Yigal Amir used?
Conservatives have liberals beat in the threat department.
Anyway, this intense desire to find meaning in a tragedy, even a misplaced meaning, is nothing new. More than one person dredged up this quote this week:
That was Jackie Kennedy, talking to her mother some time after Dallas.
Cite. The themes of his crazy (besides the usual schizo government mind control stuff): Gold, literacy in English, gun rights.
“You prove to us that you are not Wrangel’s agent.”
At this point all of them; if they don’t realize the kind of violent and irrational political party they are supporting then they are being willfully blind. The relatively rational, reasonable, principled Republicans have left.
And so has the rhetoric of Christianity. Both are religions and therefore irrational and destructive by nature.
Did you really expect the argument of “you can’t criticize the Right without criticizing religion” to work? On me?