You add up the cards that make up each of them and whichever is higher wins, dummy

Thank You! Now if we can just figure out whether slavery is racist or not, we can lock this mother ****er up.

Fly is most likely to be a white 37 yr old virgin. Everyones careful not pile on him in the off chance he is black.

Has Fly done this shtick for 40 k posts? That would be going full ******.

lol, after going hard in the paint to defend BruceZ's Mexican circus music outburst, Foldn now really wants everyone to show some decorum. Who in the actual **** do you imagine you're fooling with this bull****?

And to clarify, I don't consider anything metaname does to be trolling. It's usually cute. There should be another name for it.

It's when people start to get really rustled and attack one another that conversations go downhill. Bruce was guilty of that too.

My defense of Bruce's rant was that people were taking him wrong. I stand by that.

If this is how you feel, then I'm in the "shut it down" camp.

There is no "taking him wrong" in his presupposition that the eyewitnesses would be biased because they are racist. There is no "taking him wrong" in his discussion of the necessity of beatings in the master-slave relationship.

Man I told you guys from day one this would become a cesspool of racism and *******ry. It's astonishing to me that it took over a year for internet-literate people to realize that unmodded, anonymous forums produce AIDS.

self-fulfilling prophecy ITT

You are like the thought police. You take people wrong and don't let go- which makes you just as wrong and possibly worst.

Two good examples, and I respectfully disagree on both accounts. I explained the first awhile back in this thread, that basically anybody from that area is likely to be biased due to the police oppression. Any reasonable juror would know to take that possibility into account when listening to those witnesses' recollection of events.

In the thread on slavery he was arguing from the point of view of a slave master in a time when beatings were common everywhere, not just to slaves. He made it clear later in the thread he wasn't in favor of slavery, not that anyone should have presumed he was. That so many of you don't get this reenforces my opinions on the matter, though I'll admit I'm very tired of it being rehashed and would like to move on.

Believing you cant take things wrong is extraordinary. It explains a lot though. It takes very special sorts of people to be so convinced they get it right when they quite likely got it wrong.

Given how much damage you can cause with your ridiculous certainties then maybe it would be best to enforce the personal attacks aren't allowed rule in P and abolish PU.

Awwww the old he may have said something wrong but you took him the wrong way and that means you're really the worst reverse judo flip. Well played. But I'll see that and respond with a not really understanding Wookie's point and not taking into account his feelings and emotional state and the context of his statements is the real problem in the second order making your mistake possibly the worst thing in the world way above actual racism and misunderstanding people in the first order!

Bro you go HAM on subjects that you admit you know nothing about because you think of yourself as some kind of "thinker" when you're actually just an ordinary moron. The way in which the internet has a potential to be a force for political change does not involve idiots like you.

I am evil because I read words on a screen and understand what they mean!

No you just suffer from a ludicrous and unjustifiable level of certainty.

That's not remotely evil. It isn't a good thing though.

The problem with this (and I believe I said so before) is that, if "reasonable" jurors act as you say, it leads to perversely unjust results.

You are suggesting that in full acceptance and awareness of actual oppression against a group of people, that jurors should be inclined to give less consideration to the complaints of oppression coming from that group, because the oppression makes them biased, even though you believe the complaints are valid and legitimate. This is entirely wrong-headed even from a purely probabilistic standpoint. If the prior probability of the police being oppressive is high enough to cause antipathy towards them, that is a far greater factor in assessing whether a complaint is likely to be valid than the antipathy.

Beyond that of course, what you're suggesting has the effect of reinforcing oppression by making the bar for complaints to be heard higher where it should be lower. It's a pretty pernicious feedback loop. The worse the oppression, the worse the bias (according to you), and therefore the less likely jurors should be to pay attention to complaints of oppression. How is that supposed to help end oppression?

Exactly. What incentive is there for someone who's being oppressed to exaggerate or lie about events when telling the truth about the oppression should suffice?

No you are mistaken because you failed to understand other people's perspectives.

Look at you still fixated on thought experiments in a philosophy forum and zero of the trademark question begging and outrage for a real racial slur and real slurs towards other oppressed groups in this thread and in this forum. You have an extremely biased disposition towards people and use narrow points to rationalize the superiority of your opinionated viewpoint.

You have a responsibility in a position of authority in a social environment and do not show it for everyone equally by sticking to your opinions about users when your opinions are questionable or even flat out wrong.

I question authority. Real individual people take priority over abstract systemic concepts as a matter of practicality.

Another problem that I brought up in the original thread that BruceZ chose to ignore that if we allow police oppression to color the eye witness testimony then that hopelessly colors Officer Wilson's testimony as well. Can't have police oppression without the police.

hue: there is also that.

True, but it's less AIDS than when some people are moderated and have their sock puppets outted by mods and others are not moderated and are allowed to run rampant in general.

What incentive do you have to be over certain you are right when being reasonable about it is sufficient?

It's a horrible catch-22 and I don't know how to solve it, but simply ignoring it can't be the answer. Take race out of it and put yourself in a neighborhood where the cops routinely harass you and your neighbors. You can honestly say you wouldn't be biased against any future cop's actions? That if a cop shot your neighbor you wouldn't expect it to be murder? The justice system should attempt to be completely unbiased, it can't take sides even when we want it to.

The good news is there were so many witnesses, investigators ought to be able to find consistencies or inconsistencies in their stories, along with other physical evidence to paint a pretty clear picture. At least that's the hope.