Fat rich cats, maybe looking to deal a blow to the small businesses, or rival businesses, that have been torched by the hordes of bigoted protestors.
Maybe all the protesters are really actors and Ferguson is just a big movie set and this whole thing is a ploy to keep people away from Missouri so the alien lizard people can land there for their annual conference with the Illuminati.
Many of the looted businesses are big chain stores owned by "rich fat cats" so I think my theory makes more sense.
Fat rich cats, maybe looking to deal a blow to the small businesses, or rival businesses, that have been torched by the hordes of bigoted protestors.
Maybe all the protesters are really actors and Ferguson is just a big movie set and this whole thing is a ploy to keep people away from Missouri so the alien lizard people can land there for their annual conference with the Illuminati.
Many of the looted businesses are big chain stores owned by "rich fat cats" so I think my theory makes more sense.
Fat rich cats get insurance money because their stores were destroyed, and use that money to rebuild the stores with no competition!
What if the small businesses had insurance claims? Obviously the alien lizard people control the insurance business and will find excuses to invalidate their claims.
More on topic: As ridiculous as this might sound, I'm amazed how peaceful the situation in Ferguson has been over the past 24 hours. If you think about the history of civilization, popular uprisings and ethnic conflicts have caused unbelievable numbers of deaths. The fact that both sides of the conflict have (mostly) refrained from killing each other is pretty remarkable.
The thing that amazes me is how polarizing these riots are... I have seen everything from people calling the looters inbred morons to people stating their "friends" on Facebook posted the most racist thing they have ever seen.
It seems that some people believe that if you don't support looting and rioting you are a racist privileged white kid that represents everything wrong in the world (even though looting and rioting are illegal and all the evidence points to this not being a racially motivated/unjust shooting)... and on the other side if you let your emotions get the best of you in this case you must be the scum of the Earth (never-mind the fact that people also loot and riot over major sporting events).
Sadly I have a feeling once these completely ridiculous overreactions are past us nothing will have changed and our chance for a real discussion on what is right and wrong with law enforcement will be missed.
Dehumanizing the "bad guys" and being ready to violently oppose them is a helpful survival trait, evolutionary speaking. Thinking through the nuances of a conflict and discussing its underlying causes with the "bad guys," not so much. The underlying cause, back in the day, was usually that the bad guys wanted your women and livestock; dialogue wasn't really going to solve anything.
Those of us with the desire to dispassionately discuss this stuff on a debate forum are the ones who were lucky enough to inherit the crappy conflict-resolution genes.
I'm very disappointed right now. Not because of the protests and riots but because a good majority of my friends on FB are jumping on the "Darren Wilson is a guilty racist murder" bandwagon. It boggles my mind that not all the facts are known (well they will be made known soon) and that they come to a judgement so soon.
Dehumanizing the "bad guys" and being ready to violently oppose them is a helpful survival trait, evolutionary speaking. Thinking through the nuances of a conflict and discussing its underlying causes with the "bad guys," not so much. The underlying cause, back in the day, was usually that the bad guys wanted your women and livestock; dialogue wasn't really going to solve anything.
Those of us with the desire to dispassionately discuss this stuff on a debate forum are the ones who were lucky enough to inherit the crappy conflict-resolution genes.
It's funny you say that because i'm a psychology major in college and I subscribe to many of the views of evolutionary psychology. While I understand what you're saying completely and is most likely correct. I'm still disappointed with my friends for not being more rational about this.
Those of us with the desire to dispassionately discuss this stuff on a debate forum are the ones who were lucky enough to inherit the crappy conflict-resolution genes.
I disagree with this.
I bet you all a million internet dollars that if it's a situation that is actually relevant to something in your life, you will not be dispassionate. Instead, you will commit a number of logical and cognitive fallacies and refuse to realize that you are committing them even if you are shown undeniable proof of that fact.
Honestly, my single greatest pet peeve is the notion that "I" am above a certain thing. That is why I don't understand people who say they're trying to be logical and such. I don't believe it to be possible, nor do I believe it to be desirable. And I believe if you actually do buy into the notion that you're a logical being, then you run the risk of becoming a smug ******** who refuses to listen to anyone, and indeed commit a whole crap-ton of fallacies yourself.
Those of us with the desire to dispassionately discuss this stuff on a debate forum are the ones who were lucky enough to inherit the crappy conflict-resolution genes.
I disagree with this.
I bet you all a million internet dollars that if it's a situation that is actually relevant to something in your life, you will not be dispassionate. Instead, you will commit a number of logical and cognitive fallacies and refuse to realize that you are committing them even if you are shown undeniable proof of that fact.
Honestly, my single greatest pet peeve is the notion that "I" am above a certain thing. That is why I don't understand people who say they're trying to be logical and such. I don't believe it to be possible, nor do I believe it to be desirable. And I believe if you actually do buy into the notion that you're a logical being, then you run the risk of becoming a smug ******** who refuses to listen to anyone, and indeed commit a whole crap-ton of fallacies yourself.
I agree with everything you're saying, yet I still think what I said was correct.
On the one hand, no one is above these cognitive biases. Like I said, it's hardwired evolutionary circuitry. I absolutely would and do fall prey to biases under certain circumstances. And probably more often than I think (because by definition, I'm blind to the bias).
That said, just like intelligence, athletic ability, and charisma, there's bound to be a certain degree of genetic variation at play as well. If someone is consistently frustrated with partisanship and the "sports team" attitude about politics, if someone's interested in getting on debate forums and parsing things out logically, that's probably a sign they're less receptive to this "us-against-them" bias as compared with the average person.
Is it potentially dangerous to believe you're less susceptible to biases than others? Sure, just like any form of hubris. It's potentially dangerous to overestimate your intelligence or athletic ability too. That doesn't make my statement false, though. It may mean that I should have qualified the statement, so I appreciate you adding a disclaimer.
According to the radio on my way home someone purposefully ran their car through protesters in Minneapolis MN today...
This is really ridiculous
Here's more on that story. Apparently the car tried to drive through an intersection blocked by protesters. Several protesters apparently jumped on the hood of the car after the driver honked their horn. The driver then tried to move forward and hit one of the other protesters nearby. The other protesters began attacking the car following the incident before it took off. The driver is currently in police custody, has not yet been charged, and is supposedly being cooperative.
I don't have access to a VPN at the moment, but the video is attached so draw your own judgments from that.
Quote from "raver" »
I'm very disappointed right now. Not because of the protests and riots but because a good majority of my friends on FB are jumping on the "Darren Wilson is a guilty racist murder" bandwagon. It boggles my mind that not all the facts are known (well they will be made known soon) and that they come to a judgement so soon.
I'm having the opposite problem. Everyone on my wall is calling this a miscarriage of justice, and I'm posting links to the evidence telling them to first view what the jury had to work with before assuming they screwed up.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Proving god exists isn't hard. Proving god is God is the tricky part" - Roommate
That said, just like intelligence, athletic ability, and charisma, there's bound to be a certain degree of genetic variation at play as well. If someone is consistently frustrated with partisanship and the "sports team" attitude about politics, if someone's interested in getting on debate forums and parsing things out logically, that's probably a sign they're less receptive to this "us-against-them" bias as compared with the average person.
Well, when you put it this way I can't disagree either.
I just disagreed with the notion I got from your post that some people are above it. Most likely certain people are better at handling it, but no one is above it (save Jesus).
Those of us with the desire to dispassionately discuss this stuff on a debate forum are the ones who were lucky enough to inherit the crappy conflict-resolution genes.
Honestly, my single greatest pet peeve is the notion that "I" am above a certain thing. That is why I don't understand people who say they're trying to be logical and such. I don't believe it to be possible, nor do I believe it to be desirable. And I believe if you actually do buy into the notion that you're a logical being, then you run the risk of becoming a smug ******** who refuses to listen to anyone, and indeed commit a whole crap-ton of fallacies yourself.
That's cool. My biggest pet peeve is when a group of people try to railroad someone, in large part due to irrelevant factors such as the color of that person's skin. This used to be called "racism." At least, that's what we called it on my block. Now it's become the opposite of racism... somehow.
I bet you all a million internet dollars that if it's a situation that is actually relevant to something in your life, you will not be dispassionate. Instead, you will commit a number of logical and cognitive fallacies and refuse to realize that you are committing them even if you are shown undeniable proof of that fact.
Most people, most of the time. But sudden attacks of self-awareness do occur - people do look at themselves in the mirror and say, "What the hell am I doing?" Philosophers recant their arguments, Klansmen join the cause of interracial healing, and wastrels become Christian saints. So I wouldn't give up hope on the human race just yet.
Honestly, my single greatest pet peeve is the notion that "I" am above a certain thing. That is why I don't understand people who say they're trying to be logical and such. I don't believe it to be possible, nor do I believe it to be desirable. And I believe if you actually do buy into the notion that you're a logical being, then you run the risk of becoming a smug ******** who refuses to listen to anyone, and indeed commit a whole crap-ton of fallacies yourself.
Are you then saying that you're above being logical?
I just disagreed with the notion I got from your post that some people are above it. Most likely certain people are better at handling it, but no one is above it (save Jesus).
Jesus got pissed off just like the rest of us. I certainly wouldn't call his approach to the moneylenders in the Temple "dispassionate".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Most people, most of the time. But sudden attacks of self-awareness do occur - people do look at themselves in the mirror and say, "What the hell am I doing?" Philosophers recant their arguments, Klansmen join the cause of interracial healing, and wastrels become Christian saints. So I wouldn't give up hope on the human race just yet.
According to the radio on my way home someone purposefully ran their car through protesters in Minneapolis MN today...
This is really ridiculous
Here's more on that story. Apparently the car tried to drive through an intersection blocked by protesters. Several protesters apparently jumped on the hood of the car after the driver honked their horn. The driver then tried to move forward and hit one of the other protesters nearby. The other protesters began attacking the car following the incident before it took off. The driver is currently in police custody, has not yet been charged, and is supposedly being cooperative.
I don't have access to a VPN at the moment, but the video is attached so draw your own judgments from that.
I dunno, watching the video (particularly the traffic cam view) the car did intentionally drive into a crowded portion of the protesters rather than trying to go around them, or through the thinnest portion. It looks to me like the car at least did *something* wrong, even if I don't know exactly what the driver should be charged with.
any of the lawyers able to chime in on the claim that the prosecution acted like a defense attorney or didn't push as hard as they should have for an indictment?
any of the lawyers able to chime in on the claim that the prosecution acted like a defense attorney or didn't push as hard as they should have for an indictment?
I am not a lawyer but from my understanding the prosecutor could have skipped the grand jury all together and filed a direct indictment. There is also the fact that prosecutors have a lot of power when it comes to grand jury proceedings and it is rare for a grand jury to refuse an indictment. The joke goes that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a sandwich if he wants to.
Clearly, in this case the prosecutor thought that he had an unwinnable case on his hands and chose the grand jury as a validation of that belief. Grand juries usually only get to examine a few pieces of evidence and almost never get all the evidence the prosecution has.
any of the lawyers able to chime in on the claim that the prosecution acted like a defense attorney or didn't push as hard as they should have for an indictment?
Nope. At least, not this one. I don't do crim law, and if it was the only option for me as a lawyer I'd look into pursuing a different career.
Can someone explain why it takes more than 2 months to get a National Guard unit in place in Ferguson, MO for a riot that we all saw coming? The U.S. could have soldiers on the ground in China on that timetable, but it can't get a National Guard unit in place in Ferguson, MO? Really?
How do you achieve the state of "above being logical"?
I dunno. You tell me.
That deserves a special spot in my sig.
What we have here is a pattern of cops shooting black men and even young boys in 'self-defense'. *snort* Perhaps the most ludicrous claim in the Ferguson case in particular is that he was unpredictable because...he was on weed. Which, first, you wouldn't know that just by looking at him, and secondly, weed, makes you out of control? I would think cocaine or meth could, but weed? We also have the government doing their best to keep journalists out of Ferguson. And finally, surveys have shown that, after Ferguson, white people were more convinced than ever that America doesn't have a racism problem.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
Can someone explain why it takes more than 2 months to get a National Guard unit in place in Ferguson, MO for a riot that we all saw coming? The U.S. could have soldiers on the ground in China on that timetable, but it can't get a National Guard unit in place in Ferguson, MO? Really?
They did have a National Guard unit in place. They've just reinforced it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Maybe all the protesters are really actors and Ferguson is just a big movie set and this whole thing is a ploy to keep people away from Missouri so the alien lizard people can land there for their annual conference with the Illuminati.
Many of the looted businesses are big chain stores owned by "rich fat cats" so I think my theory makes more sense.
Fat rich cats get insurance money because their stores were destroyed, and use that money to rebuild the stores with no competition!
What if the small businesses had insurance claims? Obviously the alien lizard people control the insurance business and will find excuses to invalidate their claims.
It seems that some people believe that if you don't support looting and rioting you are a racist privileged white kid that represents everything wrong in the world (even though looting and rioting are illegal and all the evidence points to this not being a racially motivated/unjust shooting)... and on the other side if you let your emotions get the best of you in this case you must be the scum of the Earth (never-mind the fact that people also loot and riot over major sporting events).
Sadly I have a feeling once these completely ridiculous overreactions are past us nothing will have changed and our chance for a real discussion on what is right and wrong with law enforcement will be missed.
Those of us with the desire to dispassionately discuss this stuff on a debate forum are the ones who were lucky enough to inherit the crappy conflict-resolution genes.
It's funny you say that because i'm a psychology major in college and I subscribe to many of the views of evolutionary psychology. While I understand what you're saying completely and is most likely correct. I'm still disappointed with my friends for not being more rational about this.
This is really ridiculous
I disagree with this.
I bet you all a million internet dollars that if it's a situation that is actually relevant to something in your life, you will not be dispassionate. Instead, you will commit a number of logical and cognitive fallacies and refuse to realize that you are committing them even if you are shown undeniable proof of that fact.
Honestly, my single greatest pet peeve is the notion that "I" am above a certain thing. That is why I don't understand people who say they're trying to be logical and such. I don't believe it to be possible, nor do I believe it to be desirable. And I believe if you actually do buy into the notion that you're a logical being, then you run the risk of becoming a smug ******** who refuses to listen to anyone, and indeed commit a whole crap-ton of fallacies yourself.
I agree with everything you're saying, yet I still think what I said was correct.
On the one hand, no one is above these cognitive biases. Like I said, it's hardwired evolutionary circuitry. I absolutely would and do fall prey to biases under certain circumstances. And probably more often than I think (because by definition, I'm blind to the bias).
That said, just like intelligence, athletic ability, and charisma, there's bound to be a certain degree of genetic variation at play as well. If someone is consistently frustrated with partisanship and the "sports team" attitude about politics, if someone's interested in getting on debate forums and parsing things out logically, that's probably a sign they're less receptive to this "us-against-them" bias as compared with the average person.
Is it potentially dangerous to believe you're less susceptible to biases than others? Sure, just like any form of hubris. It's potentially dangerous to overestimate your intelligence or athletic ability too. That doesn't make my statement false, though. It may mean that I should have qualified the statement, so I appreciate you adding a disclaimer.
Here's more on that story. Apparently the car tried to drive through an intersection blocked by protesters. Several protesters apparently jumped on the hood of the car after the driver honked their horn. The driver then tried to move forward and hit one of the other protesters nearby. The other protesters began attacking the car following the incident before it took off. The driver is currently in police custody, has not yet been charged, and is supposedly being cooperative.
I don't have access to a VPN at the moment, but the video is attached so draw your own judgments from that.
I'm having the opposite problem. Everyone on my wall is calling this a miscarriage of justice, and I'm posting links to the evidence telling them to first view what the jury had to work with before assuming they screwed up.
Well, when you put it this way I can't disagree either.
I just disagreed with the notion I got from your post that some people are above it. Most likely certain people are better at handling it, but no one is above it (save Jesus).
That's cool. My biggest pet peeve is when a group of people try to railroad someone, in large part due to irrelevant factors such as the color of that person's skin. This used to be called "racism." At least, that's what we called it on my block. Now it's become the opposite of racism... somehow.
Are you then saying that you're above being logical?
Jesus got pissed off just like the rest of us. I certainly wouldn't call his approach to the moneylenders in the Temple "dispassionate".
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I never gave up on the human race =P
How do you achieve the state of "above being logical"?
Hah. Fair enough.
I dunno, watching the video (particularly the traffic cam view) the car did intentionally drive into a crowded portion of the protesters rather than trying to go around them, or through the thinnest portion. It looks to me like the car at least did *something* wrong, even if I don't know exactly what the driver should be charged with.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I am not a lawyer but from my understanding the prosecutor could have skipped the grand jury all together and filed a direct indictment. There is also the fact that prosecutors have a lot of power when it comes to grand jury proceedings and it is rare for a grand jury to refuse an indictment. The joke goes that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a sandwich if he wants to.
Clearly, in this case the prosecutor thought that he had an unwinnable case on his hands and chose the grand jury as a validation of that belief. Grand juries usually only get to examine a few pieces of evidence and almost never get all the evidence the prosecution has.
Nope. At least, not this one. I don't do crim law, and if it was the only option for me as a lawyer I'd look into pursuing a different career.
That deserves a special spot in my sig.
What we have here is a pattern of cops shooting black men and even young boys in 'self-defense'. *snort* Perhaps the most ludicrous claim in the Ferguson case in particular is that he was unpredictable because...he was on weed. Which, first, you wouldn't know that just by looking at him, and secondly, weed, makes you out of control? I would think cocaine or meth could, but weed? We also have the government doing their best to keep journalists out of Ferguson. And finally, surveys have shown that, after Ferguson, white people were more convinced than ever that America doesn't have a racism problem.
On phasing:
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.