timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you (1 Viewer)

[joffer]

bad ideas is a bad idea. simply calling it religion doesn't make it impervious to criticism.

 

[bostonfred]

bad ideas is a bad idea. simply calling it religion doesn't make it impervious to criticism.

I agree.

 

[timschochet]

1. e4 d5

2. exd5 Qxd5

3. Nc3 Qa5

4. d4 Nf6

5. Nf3 Bg4

6. h3 Bh5

7. g4 Bg6

8. Ne5 c6

9. h4

That should be move 8. Nbd7

 

[timschochet]

bad ideas is a bad idea. simply calling it religion doesn't make it impervious to criticism.

A religion is never one idea though. Otherwise what would be wrong with this formula?

1. The killing of innocent people is evil.

2. The Christian Bible has God either encouraging the killing of innocent people or doing it Himself.

3. Christianity is evil.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

I don't think anyone is stopping you from criticizing bad ideas. I do think it's offensive to criticize people's religions because you disagree with their ideas. If you choose to offend people, that's your call.

You have the right to be an atheist. You have the right to believe that religious people are wrong. You have the right to say so. You don't have the right to prevent them from doing what they want to do.

They have the right to believe things you don't like. They have the right to say so. They have the right to criticize you for doing things they don't like. They don't have the right to stop you.

The bolded is the only part I disagree with. The rest is spot on.

That's pretty tone deaf of you if it's true, but I think you're just misspeaking. Of course it's offensive to crocuses someone's religion. Offense is taken by the receiver of the message, whether it's intended by the sender or not. And I assure you that most religious people take offense to criticism of their firmly held beliefs.(note that last bit as I don't mean all Christians are offended by all criticism of Christianity, but would be offended if you criticized the things they actually believed. You can criticize new earth creationism all day and not bother most Christians I've met)

I think what you mean to say is that you know you're offending people, but you don't care because you look down on them. I would agree with that statement and defend your right to say so, but that doesn't make it much less offensive than your example of someone who doesn't believe homosexuals should exist.

It's human nature for people to think they're better than one another. Sad but true.

I think what's important here is that we're able to criticize bad ideas. If people take offense to that, so be it. That doesn't mean I don't care that they are offended or that I look look down on them. The alternative, of never criticizing a bad idea for fear of offending someone, is not only asinine, but also quite scary.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

bad ideas is a bad idea. simply calling it religion doesn't make it impervious to criticism.

I agree.

But does make the criticism offensive?

 

[timschochet]

The thread about the two cops being killed has become almost unreadable at this point. I am frankly thankful and proud that I have taken no part in that discussion.

However, there have been, as always, a few worthy posts hidden among the name-calling and generally offensive statements. Somebody pointed out that we live in a safer society, both for police and non-police, than we ever have before, with less crime. There are others who have reasonably put forward the idea that, as horrific as this incident was, it's not indicative of some approaching race war or general hatred of authority.

 

[NCCommish]

OK you're still not getting it. It wasn't wrong for me to suggest that the guy who shot Giffords was motivated by a crazed version of right wing ideology (though I don't think that turned out to be true); it was wrong for me to suggest that Sarah Palin inspired the shooter, and therefore Palin deserved part of the blame. That's what you and others are doing here: you're blaming the protestors, Di Blasio/ anyone who spoke out against the Brown or Garner deaths as partially responsible for this. I think that sucks. Now some people in that thread (not you) are arguing that this sort of thing justifies how cops react in situations like Brown and Garner/ I think that sucks too.

That's because Palin did not in fact have an impact on what the Giffords killer did. Farrakhan, Sharpton and De Blasio may have ultimately increased the tone of hate that impacted this killer, though we don't know that yet. What is ultimately known though is that they have been wrong to varying degrees and they should be very saddened by what has happened here.

Palin and her ilk have certainly done their part to stoke the flames of hatred. Let's not pretend they haven't.

 

[timschochet]

Let's say that two guys (I'll use Mr. Roboto and myself as examples), are debating abortion. I take the pro-choice side of the debate, and Mr. Roboto takes the pro-life side. We're having a reasonable, polite intelligent debate, and then in the middle of it we learn that some crazed anti-abortionist just blew up a Planned Parenthood clinic, killing 4 people.

Would it be legitimate for me, as the pro-choice person, to bring this up, and to say "You see? That's what happens when you call it murder!" Or is it out of bounds for a legitimate discussion? IMO, it's out of bounds, because I don't think either side should be defined (or constrained) by the crazies and extremists. It's a cheap, easy way out when you try that. You don't have to win any serious points on your side; all you have to do is point to the other side and say, "See? They're nuts. Therefore, I'm right by default."

This is exactly what is wrong with the "discussion" that has been going on in the cop killer thread.

 

[NCCommish]

The thread about the two cops being killed has become almost unreadable at this point. I am frankly thankful and proud that I have taken no part in that discussion.

However, there have been, as always, a few worthy posts hidden among the name-calling and generally offensive statements. Somebody pointed out that we live in a safer society, both for police and non-police, than we ever have before, with less crime. There are others who have reasonably put forward the idea that, as horrific as this incident was, it's not indicative of some approaching race war or general hatred of authority.

I haven't read one post in there. Back in the day I would have been hip deep in it. Glad I skipped it.

 

[timschochet]

OK you're still not getting it. It wasn't wrong for me to suggest that the guy who shot Giffords was motivated by a crazed version of right wing ideology (though I don't think that turned out to be true); it was wrong for me to suggest that Sarah Palin inspired the shooter, and therefore Palin deserved part of the blame. That's what you and others are doing here: you're blaming the protestors, Di Blasio/ anyone who spoke out against the Brown or Garner deaths as partially responsible for this. I think that sucks. Now some people in that thread (not you) are arguing that this sort of thing justifies how cops react in situations like Brown and Garner/ I think that sucks too.

That's because Palin did not in fact have an impact on what the Giffords killer did. Farrakhan, Sharpton and De Blasio may have ultimately increased the tone of hate that impacted this killer, though we don't know that yet. What is ultimately known though is that they have been wrong to varying degrees and they should be very saddened by what has happened here.

Palin and her ilk have certainly done their part to stoke the flames of hatred. Let's not pretend they haven't.

I think it's a legitimate question how much influence a Sarah Palin or an Louis Farrakhan has on actual acts of violence. I have gone back and forth on this, but in recent years I've been reluctant to assign them too much blame. For every person who commits a horrific act in part because of something they heard from a political figure, there are thousands, in some cases millions, who don't.

 

[timschochet]

In the specific case of this latest cop-killer, the fact that he stated he was motivated by the recent protests against police is not something we should consider too seriously IMO. Yes, it played a part; otherwise he wouldn't have stated it. But just as obviously other things played a part as well, primarily his mental outlook and condition. Sane and happy people don't go around killing cops and themselves. 99.99% of Americans who are interested and upset by politics don't pull this kind of #### either. I think it's reasonable to suggest that this guy had all sorts of other stuff going on in his head, and that the resentment of police was only the most outward thing, something that he could grasp onto and claim was his motivation.

 

[timschochet]

I often discover great songs 20 years later- sometimes much longer than that. Lately, I become obsessed with "Follow" by Richie Havens. I do believe this is one of the greatest songs ever. If it had been written by Bob Dylan (and it sounds quite "Dylanesque") it would have been regarded as an alltime classic. But somehow it has been forgotten.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmJM99baLaA

 

[NCCommish]

OK you're still not getting it. It wasn't wrong for me to suggest that the guy who shot Giffords was motivated by a crazed version of right wing ideology (though I don't think that turned out to be true); it was wrong for me to suggest that Sarah Palin inspired the shooter, and therefore Palin deserved part of the blame. That's what you and others are doing here: you're blaming the protestors, Di Blasio/ anyone who spoke out against the Brown or Garner deaths as partially responsible for this. I think that sucks. Now some people in that thread (not you) are arguing that this sort of thing justifies how cops react in situations like Brown and Garner/ I think that sucks too.

That's because Palin did not in fact have an impact on what the Giffords killer did. Farrakhan, Sharpton and De Blasio may have ultimately increased the tone of hate that impacted this killer, though we don't know that yet. What is ultimately known though is that they have been wrong to varying degrees and they should be very saddened by what has happened here.

Palin and her ilk have certainly done their part to stoke the flames of hatred. Let's not pretend they haven't.

I think it's a legitimate question how much influence a Sarah Palin or an Louis Farrakhan has on actual acts of violence. I have gone back and forth on this, but in recent years I've been reluctant to assign them too much blame. For every person who commits a horrific act in part because of something they heard from a political figure, there are thousands, in some cases millions, who don't.

Well of course. That's why you won't find me blaming Call of Duty for the latest school shooting. Still sometimes you can be an unwitting match for a fuse. Words can have consequences, They can inspire heroic deeds they can inspire evil.

 

[NCCommish]

I often discover great songs 20 years later- sometimes much longer than that. Lately, I become obsessed with "Follow" by Richie Havens. I do believe this is one of the greatest songs ever. If it had been written by Bob Dylan (and it sounds quite "Dylanesque") it would have been regarded as an alltime classic. But somehow it has been forgotten.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmJM99baLaA

I think Havens is pretty well respected by critics and muscians. He just isn't very commercial.

 

[jon_mx]

Let's say that two guys (I'll use Mr. Roboto and myself as examples), are debating abortion. I take the pro-choice side of the debate, and Mr. Roboto takes the pro-life side. We're having a reasonable, polite intelligent debate, and then in the middle of it we learn that some crazed anti-abortionist just blew up a Planned Parenthood clinic, killing 4 people.

Would it be legitimate for me, as the pro-choice person, to bring this up, and to say "You see? That's what happens when you call it murder!" Or is it out of bounds for a legitimate discussion? IMO, it's out of bounds, because I don't think either side should be defined (or constrained) by the crazies and extremists. It's a cheap, easy way out when you try that. You don't have to win any serious points on your side; all you have to do is point to the other side and say, "See? They're nuts. Therefore, I'm right by default."

This is exactly what is wrong with the "discussion" that has been going on in the cop killer thread.

If people try to rationalize or justify the act, then they should be called out. If anyone is cheering, that is disgusting.

 

[jon_mx]

OK you're still not getting it. It wasn't wrong for me to suggest that the guy who shot Giffords was motivated by a crazed version of right wing ideology (though I don't think that turned out to be true); it was wrong for me to suggest that Sarah Palin inspired the shooter, and therefore Palin deserved part of the blame. That's what you and others are doing here: you're blaming the protestors, Di Blasio/ anyone who spoke out against the Brown or Garner deaths as partially responsible for this. I think that sucks. Now some people in that thread (not you) are arguing that this sort of thing justifies how cops react in situations like Brown and Garner/ I think that sucks too.

That's because Palin did not in fact have an impact on what the Giffords killer did. Farrakhan, Sharpton and De Blasio may have ultimately increased the tone of hate that impacted this killer, though we don't know that yet. What is ultimately known though is that they have been wrong to varying degrees and they should be very saddened by what has happened here.

Palin and her ilk have certainly done their part to stoke the flames of hatred. Let's not pretend they haven't.

No different than those on the left. The difference in this case is the rhetoric may have had a real impact instead of an imaginary one trumpt up by the media.

 

[timschochet]

Let's say that two guys (I'll use Mr. Roboto and myself as examples), are debating abortion. I take the pro-choice side of the debate, and Mr. Roboto takes the pro-life side. We're having a reasonable, polite intelligent debate, and then in the middle of it we learn that some crazed anti-abortionist just blew up a Planned Parenthood clinic, killing 4 people.

Would it be legitimate for me, as the pro-choice person, to bring this up, and to say "You see? That's what happens when you call it murder!" Or is it out of bounds for a legitimate discussion? IMO, it's out of bounds, because I don't think either side should be defined (or constrained) by the crazies and extremists. It's a cheap, easy way out when you try that. You don't have to win any serious points on your side; all you have to do is point to the other side and say, "See? They're nuts. Therefore, I'm right by default."

This is exactly what is wrong with the "discussion" that has been going on in the cop killer thread.

If people try to rationalize or justify the act, then they should be called out. If anyone is cheering, that is disgusting.

It depends on who exactly is cheering. If some public figure comes out and defends or cheers on these latest shootings, then I agree that person is subject to tons of criticism. But if some anonymous people in a crowd scream "right on!" or something dumb like that, I don't care. And the news source that reports it is only trying to make a big deal out of nothing.

 

[timschochet]

Bryant has made a HUGE difference for the Steelers. Nobody can double team Antonio Brown anymore. It's completely changed the offense. Right now this Steelers offense is as good as any in football.

 

[otello]

1. e4 d5

2. exd5 Qxd5

3. Nc3 Qa5

4. d4 Nf6

5. Nf3 Bg4

6. h3 Bh5

7. g4 Bg6

8. Ne5 c6

9. h4

That should be move 8. Nbd7

10. Nc4

 

[timschochet]

1. e4 d5

2. exd5 Qxd5

3. Nc3 Qa5

4. d4 Nf6

5. Nf3 Bg4

6. h3 Bh5

7. g4 Bg6

8. Ne5 c6

9. h4

That should be move 8. Nbd7

10. Nc4

Qc7

 

[bostonfred]

bad ideas is a bad idea. simply calling it religion doesn't make it impervious to criticism.

I agree.

But does make the criticism offensive?

depends on the criticism and who you're talking to, but often times, yes.

 

[timschochet]

Steelers got away with a fumble there. KC should have challenged.

 

[mr roboto]

Let's say that two guys (I'll use Mr. Roboto and myself as examples), are debating abortion. I take the pro-choice side of the debate, and Mr. Roboto takes the pro-life side. We're having a reasonable, polite intelligent debate, and then in the middle of it we learn that some crazed anti-abortionist just blew up a Planned Parenthood clinic, killing 4 people.

Would it be legitimate for me, as the pro-choice person, to bring this up, and to say "You see? That's what happens when you call it murder!" Or is it out of bounds for a legitimate discussion? IMO, it's out of bounds, because I don't think either side should be defined (or constrained) by the crazies and extremists. It's a cheap, easy way out when you try that. You don't have to win any serious points on your side; all you have to do is point to the other side and say, "See? They're nuts. Therefore, I'm right by default."

This is exactly what is wrong with the "discussion" that has been going on in the cop killer thread.

I agree that an isolated extreme action taken by one 'side' of a polarizing debate like abortion or racial crime/targeting is irrevelant to the merits of the position. I disagree that it's completely irrevelant to judging the tactics and rhetoric of each 'side'.If a cop murdered an outspoken protestor (say Farrakhan) and wrote note indicating that he did this as retaliation for Farrakhan's rhetoric and his public approval of anti-cop protests. Let's say the cop shooter had no real prior history of violence. But he had recently become an avid reader of websites which call for an all out war on the protestors.

Would the 'protestor side' have no claim that this incident was motivated by the current debate and that it's not indicative of what can happen when a 'side' is very angered?

Extreme actors and actions do not define the relative merits of a position. But they are a potential indictment of the extreme rhetoric within a 'side' and may call into question that 'sides' leaders and calls to action.

 

[timschochet]

Let's say that two guys (I'll use Mr. Roboto and myself as examples), are debating abortion. I take the pro-choice side of the debate, and Mr. Roboto takes the pro-life side. We're having a reasonable, polite intelligent debate, and then in the middle of it we learn that some crazed anti-abortionist just blew up a Planned Parenthood clinic, killing 4 people.

Would it be legitimate for me, as the pro-choice person, to bring this up, and to say "You see? That's what happens when you call it murder!" Or is it out of bounds for a legitimate discussion? IMO, it's out of bounds, because I don't think either side should be defined (or constrained) by the crazies and extremists. It's a cheap, easy way out when you try that. You don't have to win any serious points on your side; all you have to do is point to the other side and say, "See? They're nuts. Therefore, I'm right by default."

This is exactly what is wrong with the "discussion" that has been going on in the cop killer thread.

I agree that an isolated extreme action taken by one 'side' of a polarizing debate like abortion or racial crime/targeting is irrevelant to the merits of the position. I disagree that it's completely irrevelant to judging the tactics and rhetoric of each 'side'.If a cop murdered an outspoken protestor (say Farrakhan) and wrote note indicating that he did this as retaliation for Farrakhan's rhetoric and his public approval of anti-cop protests. Let's say the cop shooter had no real prior history of violence.

Would the 'protestor side' have no claim that this incident was motivated by the current debate and that it's not indicative of what can happen when a 'side' is very angered?

Extreme actors and actions do not define the relative merits of a position. But they are a potential indictment of the extreme rhetoric within a 'side' and may call into question that 'sides' leaders and calls to action.

Potential is the key word here, and while I don't disagree with you overall, I think you're playing with fire. The ramifications of blaming a group for a crime are often more dangerous than the crime itself, especially when the connection is tenuous, as it is here.

Let's get right to the point- there are people in the other thread who are blaming the protestors and anyone who says they might be wary of police. That's an absurd position to have, IMO.

 

[mr roboto]

Let's say that two guys (I'll use Mr. Roboto and myself as examples), are debating abortion. I take the pro-choice side of the debate, and Mr. Roboto takes the pro-life side. We're having a reasonable, polite intelligent debate, and then in the middle of it we learn that some crazed anti-abortionist just blew up a Planned Parenthood clinic, killing 4 people.

Would it be legitimate for me, as the pro-choice person, to bring this up, and to say "You see? That's what happens when you call it murder!" Or is it out of bounds for a legitimate discussion? IMO, it's out of bounds, because I don't think either side should be defined (or constrained) by the crazies and extremists. It's a cheap, easy way out when you try that. You don't have to win any serious points on your side; all you have to do is point to the other side and say, "See? They're nuts. Therefore, I'm right by default."

This is exactly what is wrong with the "discussion" that has been going on in the cop killer thread.

I agree that an isolated extreme action taken by one 'side' of a polarizing debate like abortion or racial crime/targeting is irrevelant to the merits of the position. I disagree that it's completely irrevelant to judging the tactics and rhetoric of each 'side'.If a cop murdered an outspoken protestor (say Farrakhan) and wrote note indicating that he did this as retaliation for Farrakhan's rhetoric and his public approval of anti-cop protests. Let's say the cop shooter had no real prior history of violence.

Would the 'protestor side' have no claim that this incident was motivated by the current debate and that it's not indicative of what can happen when a 'side' is very angered?

Extreme actors and actions do not define the relative merits of a position. But they are a potential indictment of the extreme rhetoric within a 'side' and may call into question that 'sides' leaders and calls to action.

Potential is the key word here, and while I don't disagree with you overall, I think you're playing with fire. The ramifications of blaming a group for a crime are often more dangerous than the crime itself, especially when the connection is tenuous, as it is here.Let's get right to the point- there are people in the other thread who are blaming the protestors and anyone who says they might be wary of police. That's an absurd position to have, IMO.

Of course it is. That's not what most people are saying. Most people are annoyed that there is a rush to say that this guy was not motivated at all by the current debate. That's intellectual dishonesty. I am not advocating blaming a group for the action of an extreme person that may be acting in that group's name. As a religious person, I am far too used to being on the wrong side of that logical fallacy. But if you find that this shooter was motivated by extreme rhetoric on the side of the protesters then you can absolutely call into question the extreme rhetoric that may have contributed to this incident. That does not invalidate the key message of the protesters which is that police are not held accountable for racial profiling, excessive use of force and are not held to the same standards as average citizens regarding indictments and charges being brought.In other words I don't think most people are saying that this shooting proves that the protesters are wrong. I think what it does prove is that some of these protesters are going to fire rhetorically and in this one particular case this gentleman was motivated to do something extreme based at least in part by extreme rhetoric from the protesters side.

 

[timschochet]

Also, shouldn't we be able to agree or disagree whether or not rhetoric is extreme without relying on related extreme action?

For example, if Louis Farrakhan says, "Cops deserve to die!" that should be considered extreme rhetoric and worth condemning even if there is no tangible result of his statement. On the other hand, if Farrakhan says something more mild, such as "We should always distrust cops", no amount of extreme tangible action makes his statement MORE extreme.

And this is the problem when we try to decipher rhetoric and it's effect on what people do. There is no more complicated subject than trying to figure out peoples' motivations, especially when they commit sinister acts. To simplify it, even in part, by blaming rhetoric makes very little sense to me.

 

[timschochet]

Let's say that two guys (I'll use Mr. Roboto and myself as examples), are debating abortion. I take the pro-choice side of the debate, and Mr. Roboto takes the pro-life side. We're having a reasonable, polite intelligent debate, and then in the middle of it we learn that some crazed anti-abortionist just blew up a Planned Parenthood clinic, killing 4 people.

Would it be legitimate for me, as the pro-choice person, to bring this up, and to say "You see? That's what happens when you call it murder!" Or is it out of bounds for a legitimate discussion? IMO, it's out of bounds, because I don't think either side should be defined (or constrained) by the crazies and extremists. It's a cheap, easy way out when you try that. You don't have to win any serious points on your side; all you have to do is point to the other side and say, "See? They're nuts. Therefore, I'm right by default."

This is exactly what is wrong with the "discussion" that has been going on in the cop killer thread.

I agree that an isolated extreme action taken by one 'side' of a polarizing debate like abortion or racial crime/targeting is irrevelant to the merits of the position. I disagree that it's completely irrevelant to judging the tactics and rhetoric of each 'side'.If a cop murdered an outspoken protestor (say Farrakhan) and wrote note indicating that he did this as retaliation for Farrakhan's rhetoric and his public approval of anti-cop protests. Let's say the cop shooter had no real prior history of violence.

Would the 'protestor side' have no claim that this incident was motivated by the current debate and that it's not indicative of what can happen when a 'side' is very angered?

Extreme actors and actions do not define the relative merits of a position. But they are a potential indictment of the extreme rhetoric within a 'side' and may call into question that 'sides' leaders and calls to action.

Potential is the key word here, and while I don't disagree with you overall, I think you're playing with fire. The ramifications of blaming a group for a crime are often more dangerous than the crime itself, especially when the connection is tenuous, as it is here.Let's get right to the point- there are people in the other thread who are blaming the protestors and anyone who says they might be wary of police. That's an absurd position to have, IMO.

Of course it is. That's not what most people are saying. Most people are annoyed that there is a rush to say that this guy was not motivated at all by the current debate. That's intellectual dishonesty. I am not advocating blaming a group for the action of an extreme person that may be acting in that group's name. As a religious person, I am far too used to being on the wrong side of that logical fallacy. But if you find that this shooter was motivated by extreme rhetoric on the side of the protesters then you can absolutely call into question the extreme rhetoric that may have contributed to this incident. That does not invalidate the key message of the protesters which is that police are not held accountable for racial profiling, excessive use of force and are not held to the same standards as average citizens regarding indictments and charges being brought.In other words I don't think most people are saying that this shooting proves that the protesters are wrong. I think what it does prove is that some of these protesters are going to fire rhetorically and in this one particular case this gentleman was motivated to do something extreme based at least in part by extreme rhetoric from the protesters side.

I understand why you might be frustrated with the bolded, but it seems to me that it was the other side that reacted first by blaming the protestors (and Sharpton and DiBlasio) and that the "not motivated" comments were a reaction to that.

 

[mr roboto]

Also, shouldn't we be able to agree or disagree whether or not rhetoric is extreme without relying on related extreme action?

For example, if Louis Farrakhan says, "Cops deserve to die!" that should be considered extreme rhetoric and worth condemning even if there is no tangible result of his statement. On the other hand, if Farrakhan says something more mild, such as "We should always distrust cops", no amount of extreme tangible action makes his statement MORE extreme.

And this is the problem when we try to decipher rhetoric and it's effect on what people do. There is no more complicated subject than trying to figure out peoples' motivations, especially when they commit sinister acts. To simplify it, even in part, by blaming rhetoric makes very little sense to me.

Great. I expect you to defend all actions taken in someone's name or religion or political stripe as being completely unmotivated by and disconnected to that persons intentions.

 

[mr roboto]

Let's say that two guys (I'll use Mr. Roboto and myself as examples), are debating abortion. I take the pro-choice side of the debate, and Mr. Roboto takes the pro-life side. We're having a reasonable, polite intelligent debate, and then in the middle of it we learn that some crazed anti-abortionist just blew up a Planned Parenthood clinic, killing 4 people.

Would it be legitimate for me, as the pro-choice person, to bring this up, and to say "You see? That's what happens when you call it murder!" Or is it out of bounds for a legitimate discussion? IMO, it's out of bounds, because I don't think either side should be defined (or constrained) by the crazies and extremists. It's a cheap, easy way out when you try that. You don't have to win any serious points on your side; all you have to do is point to the other side and say, "See? They're nuts. Therefore, I'm right by default."

This is exactly what is wrong with the "discussion" that has been going on in the cop killer thread.

I agree that an isolated extreme action taken by one 'side' of a polarizing debate like abortion or racial crime/targeting is irrevelant to the merits of the position. I disagree that it's completely irrevelant to judging the tactics and rhetoric of each 'side'.If a cop murdered an outspoken protestor (say Farrakhan) and wrote note indicating that he did this as retaliation for Farrakhan's rhetoric and his public approval of anti-cop protests. Let's say the cop shooter had no real prior history of violence.

Would the 'protestor side' have no claim that this incident was motivated by the current debate and that it's not indicative of what can happen when a 'side' is very angered?

Extreme actors and actions do not define the relative merits of a position. But they are a potential indictment of the extreme rhetoric within a 'side' and may call into question that 'sides' leaders and calls to action.

Potential is the key word here, and while I don't disagree with you overall, I think you're playing with fire. The ramifications of blaming a group for a crime are often more dangerous than the crime itself, especially when the connection is tenuous, as it is here.Let's get right to the point- there are people in the other thread who are blaming the protestors and anyone who says they might be wary of police. That's an absurd position to have, IMO.

Of course it is. That's not what most people are saying. Most people are annoyed that there is a rush to say that this guy was not motivated at all by the current debate. That's intellectual dishonesty. I am not advocating blaming a group for the action of an extreme person that may be acting in that group's name. As a religious person, I am far too used to being on the wrong side of that logical fallacy. But if you find that this shooter was motivated by extreme rhetoric on the side of the protesters then you can absolutely call into question the extreme rhetoric that may have contributed to this incident. That does not invalidate the key message of the protesters which is that police are not held accountable for racial profiling, excessive use of force and are not held to the same standards as average citizens regarding indictments and charges being brought.In other words I don't think most people are saying that this shooting proves that the protesters are wrong. I think what it does prove is that some of these protesters are going to fire rhetorically and in this one particular case this gentleman was motivated to do something extreme based at least in part by extreme rhetoric from the protesters side.

I understand why you might be frustrated with the bolded, but it seems to me that it was the other side that reacted first by blaming the protestors (and Sharpton and DiBlasio) and that the "not motivated" comments were a reaction to that.

People are literally saying 'the shooter's stated reasoning for his actions are irrevelant he's just crazy no need to look at his own admitted motivations.' That's just stupid iMO. He killed 2 cops because he hates cops. His hatred for cops is partially informed by recent events and the rhetorical backlash. How much? Probably very little. Possibly a lot.

 

[timschochet]

I'm not trying to toot my own horn here- this would be true even if I wasn't a participant- but the current discussion/debate between Mr. Roboto and myself in this thread is far superior to any discussion which has so far taken place in the shooting thread, and that's because we're able to discuss these matters intelligently without all the stupid insulting interruptions and personal attacks.

 

[timschochet]

Also, shouldn't we be able to agree or disagree whether or not rhetoric is extreme without relying on related extreme action?

For example, if Louis Farrakhan says, "Cops deserve to die!" that should be considered extreme rhetoric and worth condemning even if there is no tangible result of his statement. On the other hand, if Farrakhan says something more mild, such as "We should always distrust cops", no amount of extreme tangible action makes his statement MORE extreme.

And this is the problem when we try to decipher rhetoric and it's effect on what people do. There is no more complicated subject than trying to figure out peoples' motivations, especially when they commit sinister acts. To simplify it, even in part, by blaming rhetoric makes very little sense to me.

Great. I expect you to defend all actions taken in someone's name or religion or political stripe as being completely unmotivated by and disconnected to that persons intentions.

No I would never say that. But like I wrote it's a very complicated subject. I think it's dangerous to make absolute statements one way or the other.

 

[mr roboto]

I'm not trying to toot my own horn here- this would be true even if I wasn't a participant- but the current discussion/debate between Mr. Roboto and myself in this thread is far superior to any discussion which has so far taken place in the shooting thread, and that's because we're able to discuss these matters intelligently without all the stupid insulting interruptions and personal attacks.

Agreed here. I tried to drop in and provide some semblance of reasonableness. We'll see.

 

[timschochet]

Let's say that two guys (I'll use Mr. Roboto and myself as examples), are debating abortion. I take the pro-choice side of the debate, and Mr. Roboto takes the pro-life side. We're having a reasonable, polite intelligent debate, and then in the middle of it we learn that some crazed anti-abortionist just blew up a Planned Parenthood clinic, killing 4 people.

Would it be legitimate for me, as the pro-choice person, to bring this up, and to say "You see? That's what happens when you call it murder!" Or is it out of bounds for a legitimate discussion? IMO, it's out of bounds, because I don't think either side should be defined (or constrained) by the crazies and extremists. It's a cheap, easy way out when you try that. You don't have to win any serious points on your side; all you have to do is point to the other side and say, "See? They're nuts. Therefore, I'm right by default."

This is exactly what is wrong with the "discussion" that has been going on in the cop killer thread.

I agree that an isolated extreme action taken by one 'side' of a polarizing debate like abortion or racial crime/targeting is irrevelant to the merits of the position. I disagree that it's completely irrevelant to judging the tactics and rhetoric of each 'side'.If a cop murdered an outspoken protestor (say Farrakhan) and wrote note indicating that he did this as retaliation for Farrakhan's rhetoric and his public approval of anti-cop protests. Let's say the cop shooter had no real prior history of violence.

Would the 'protestor side' have no claim that this incident was motivated by the current debate and that it's not indicative of what can happen when a 'side' is very angered?

Extreme actors and actions do not define the relative merits of a position. But they are a potential indictment of the extreme rhetoric within a 'side' and may call into question that 'sides' leaders and calls to action.

Potential is the key word here, and while I don't disagree with you overall, I think you're playing with fire. The ramifications of blaming a group for a crime are often more dangerous than the crime itself, especially when the connection is tenuous, as it is here.Let's get right to the point- there are people in the other thread who are blaming the protestors and anyone who says they might be wary of police. That's an absurd position to have, IMO.

Of course it is. That's not what most people are saying. Most people are annoyed that there is a rush to say that this guy was not motivated at all by the current debate. That's intellectual dishonesty. I am not advocating blaming a group for the action of an extreme person that may be acting in that group's name. As a religious person, I am far too used to being on the wrong side of that logical fallacy. But if you find that this shooter was motivated by extreme rhetoric on the side of the protesters then you can absolutely call into question the extreme rhetoric that may have contributed to this incident. That does not invalidate the key message of the protesters which is that police are not held accountable for racial profiling, excessive use of force and are not held to the same standards as average citizens regarding indictments and charges being brought.In other words I don't think most people are saying that this shooting proves that the protesters are wrong. I think what it does prove is that some of these protesters are going to fire rhetorically and in this one particular case this gentleman was motivated to do something extreme based at least in part by extreme rhetoric from the protesters side.

I understand why you might be frustrated with the bolded, but it seems to me that it was the other side that reacted first by blaming the protestors (and Sharpton and DiBlasio) and that the "not motivated" comments were a reaction to that.

People are literally saying 'the shooter's stated reasoning for his actions are irrevelant he's just crazy no need to look at his own admitted motivations.' That's just stupid iMO. He killed 2 cops because he hates cops. His hatred for cops is partially informed by recent events and the rhetorical backlash. How much? Probably very little. Possibly a lot.

I agree the bolded is stupid. It is also stupid to write "DiBlasio has blood on his hands", which was also posted and defended several times. Both of these arguments, made and defended, are part of the reason the thread became a disaster very quickly.

 

[timschochet]

I think the two important questions are these:

1. Do these latest killings in any way invalidate the legitimacy of the recent protests against police treatment of minorities in this country? No. You can agree or disagree with those protests, but these killings have no effect on whether they're right or wrong.

2. Should these latest killings make us as a society more concerned about the current relationship between police and minorities in general? Maybe. I hope not. Unfortunately horrible anecdotes, even if they don't affect us directly, make a huge impression on people. Terrorists have known this for years; it is the basis for all their activity. Certainly if there is another deadly incident that closely follows this one we're going to have lots of trouble. And I would already wager that the GOP Presidential race will be heavily focused on law and order issues.

 

[timschochet]

Another stupid decision by KC not to kick the field goal there. That's two bad decisions that the Andy Reid haters will no doubt focus on. (I loved the fake fg kick earlier though.)

 

[timschochet]

Joe Flacco and Jay Cutler are the two highest paid quarterbacks in the NFL, and they both suck. How did they get those contracts?

 

[BassNBrew]

Joe Flacco and Jay Cutler are the two highest paid quarterbacks in the NFL, and they both suck. How did they get those contracts?

Flacco by winning a ring.

 

[timschochet]

Joe Flacco and Jay Cutler are the two highest paid quarterbacks in the NFL, and they both suck. How did they get those contracts?

Flacco by winning a ring.

Big Ben has won two of those, and he's never made that much. And I would much rather have him.

 

[mr roboto]

Joe Flacco and Jay Cutler are the two highest paid quarterbacks in the NFL, and they both suck. How did they get those contracts?

The timing of their contracts along with the dearth of true pocket QBs coming out of college and the fear by NFL front offices to be unsettled at the QB position. See also Dalton, Kaep, Stafford.

 

[timschochet]

Joe Flacco and Jay Cutler are the two highest paid quarterbacks in the NFL, and they both suck. How did they get those contracts?

The timing of their contracts along with the dearth of true pocket QBs coming out of college and the fear by NFL front offices to be unsettled at the QB position.See also Dalton, Kaep, Stafford.

Yeah. Dalton's contract mystified me too.

I like Stafford. I don't think he's the reason that team won't win the championship. Kaepernick- that dude frustrates me to no end. I think he has the talent to be the very best at his position. But he just hasn't put it together. Maybe a new coach will change things.

 

[Gawain]

Joe Flacco and Jay Cutler are the two highest paid quarterbacks in the NFL, and they both suck. How did they get those contracts?

The timing of their contracts along with the dearth of true pocket QBs coming out of college and the fear by NFL front offices to be unsettled at the QB position.See also Dalton, Kaep, Stafford.

Yeah. Dalton's contract mystified me too.

I like Stafford. I don't think he's the reason that team won't win the championship. Kaepernick- that dude frustrates me to no end. I think he has the talent to be the very best at his position. But he just hasn't put it together. Maybe a new coach will change things.

For Kaep, I think that he's too confused between when to run and when not to, a similar issue as the one RG3 has struggled with.

I was amazed that the 90 yard TD was his first rushing score of the year. Guy's too talented to not have run more in.

 

[timschochet]

Roethlisberger leaves with an injury. Didn't look serious but...

 

[timschochet]

Flacco 3-20, 27 yards, 2 picks- That is worse than Cutler. That is really dreadful. We're talking Manziel level here.

 

[BassNBrew]

Joe Flacco and Jay Cutler are the two highest paid quarterbacks in the NFL, and they both suck. How did they get those contracts?

Flacco by winning a ring.

Big Ben has won two of those, and he's never made that much. And I would much rather have him.

Ben hasn't won a SB in the recent cap ear.

 

[timschochet]

Joe Flacco and Jay Cutler are the two highest paid quarterbacks in the NFL, and they both suck. How did they get those contracts?

Flacco by winning a ring.

Big Ben has won two of those, and he's never made that much. And I would much rather have him.

Ben hasn't won a SB in the recent cap ear.

I suppose you're right.

 

[timschochet]

I don't want to discuss Eminence's racism (hard fore to think of a less interesting topic) but his defense of it, as insipid as it is, does raise a good question, one which I've been grappling with for years: when should we consider somebody racist? When they express thoughts we consider to be racist even if the person in question doesn't consider them to be so? Or does one have to act in a racist manner or declare themselves a racist?

if you have black friends, is that a legitimate defense against the charge that you are anti-black? I don't think so, but it's always the first thing offered in rebuttal.

 

[timschochet]

In the shooting thread rockaction made the interesting assertion that the American public is afraid to discuss certain issues and that the Fourth Estate plays a role in the limitation of discussion.

rockaction, assuming that I've stated your position accurately (if I haven't please let me know) then I'm curious. I'm not trying to challenge your point (I honestly don't know if I agree with you or not) but I'd like to you to post some examples of this phenomenon.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Also, shouldn't we be able to agree or disagree whether or not rhetoric is extreme without relying on related extreme action?

For example, if Louis Farrakhan says, "Cops deserve to die!" that should be considered extreme rhetoric and worth condemning even if there is no tangible result of his statement. On the other hand, if Farrakhan says something more mild, such as "We should always distrust cops", no amount of extreme tangible action makes his statement MORE extreme.

And this is the problem when we try to decipher rhetoric and it's effect on what people do. There is no more complicated subject than trying to figure out peoples' motivations, especially when they commit sinister acts. To simplify it, even in part, by blaming rhetoric makes very little sense to me.

Great. I expect you to defend all actions taken in someone's name or religion or political stripe as being completely unmotivated by and disconnected to that persons intentions.

No I would never say that. But like I wrote it's a very complicated subject. I think it's dangerous to make absolute statements one way or the other.

I think it's dangerous to make absolute statements one way or the other.

Isn't that an absolute statement?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

OK you're still not getting it. It wasn't wrong for me to suggest that the guy who shot Giffords was motivated by a crazed version of right wing ideology (though I don't think that turned out to be true); it was wrong for me to suggest that Sarah Palin inspired the shooter, and therefore Palin deserved part of the blame. That's what you and others are doing here: you're blaming the protestors, Di Blasio/ anyone who spoke out against the Brown or Garner deaths as partially responsible for this. I think that sucks. Now some people in that thread (not you) are arguing that this sort of thing justifies how cops react in situations like Brown and Garner/ I think that sucks too.

That's because Palin did not in fact have an impact on what the Giffords killer did. Farrakhan, Sharpton and De Blasio may have ultimately increased the tone of hate that impacted this killer, though we don't know that yet. What is ultimately known though is that they have been wrong to varying degrees and they should be very saddened by what has happened here.

Palin and her ilk have certainly done their part to stoke the flames of hatred. Let's not pretend they haven't.

Willing to listen but point to a death or even an injury resulting from her statements or rhetoric.

And sorry but she doesn't compare to a Sharpton or Farrakhan in duration, impact or words either.