Laquan McDonald

Duck and cover
User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12214
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Laquan McDonald

Postby JO 753 » Wed Nov 25, 2015 3:15 am

Herez the vid uv the kid in Chicago.

Laquan McDonald

It showz the entire trip to the sene, so it takes 5:20 befor it gets there.

I'm not defending the cop. He overreacted and apparently haz a record uv complaints, but.

Considering that Chicago iz famous for hi shooting rates and the behavior uv the teenajer, maybe the case iz not az clear cut az the media makes it out to be.

Laquan iz acting defiant. Due to the good probability that he coud hav a consealed gun its not an unreazonable course uv action to shoot first. The cop coud hav thot the reazon Laquan wuznt obeying the standard commandz to drop with handz behind hiz hed wuz bekuz he had a gun and intended to uze it. Certainly, unloading hiz clip wuz going too far even if he knew for sure the kid had a gun, but we're talking about a human making split second desisionz in an extreem situation full uv flashing lites, sirenz gun shots and deadly danjer.

I beleev that if it wuznt so likely that Laquan had a gun, Offiser Jason Van Dyke woud probably hav been in a different frame uv mind from the beginning and it woudnt hav ended this way.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7360
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby TJrandom » Wed Nov 25, 2015 5:17 am

JO 753 wrote:Herez the vid uv the kid in Chicago.

Laquan McDonald

It showz the entire trip to the sene, so it takes 5:20 befor it gets there.

I'm not defending the cop. He overreacted and apparently haz a record uv complaints, but.

Considering that Chicago iz famous for hi shooting rates and the behavior uv the teenajer, maybe the case iz not az clear cut az the media makes it out to be.

Laquan iz acting defiant. Due to the good probability that he coud hav a consealed gun its not an unreazonable course uv action to shoot first. The cop coud hav thot the reazon Laquan wuznt obeying the standard commandz to drop with handz behind hiz hed wuz bekuz he had a gun and intended to uze it. Certainly, unloading hiz clip wuz going too far even if he knew for sure the kid had a gun, but we're talking about a human making split second desisionz in an extreem situation full uv flashing lites, sirenz gun shots and deadly danjer.

I beleev that if it wuznt so likely that Laquan had a gun, Offiser Jason Van Dyke woud probably hav been in a different frame uv mind from the beginning and it woudnt hav ended this way.


OK – but people have a right to act defiant, and many do – when drunk, on drugs, or in front of friends. You shouldn`t get shot for acting defiant. Pose an immediate threat to life, then yes, then and only then, take your bullets.

And even if he had a gun – you don`t shoot unless you see it and the perp is going for it. And even then, you don`t keep on shooting – unless of course you want to make damn sure the perp dies.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12214
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby JO 753 » Wed Nov 25, 2015 10:09 am

The time between no vizable gun & having a bullet in your brain can be less than a second.

Therez no question that Laquan made sum terrible desisionz himself, but also haz the excuse uv being an ordinary human in a bad situation.

My point iz that ubiquitous gunz iz a major contributing factor in hiz deth.

Dividing up the gilt, I say 30% Offiser Van Dyke, 30% Laquan McDonald, 40% the gun ownerz uv America and their reprezentativez.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29080
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby Gord » Wed Nov 25, 2015 10:21 am

I think he was shot because he was carrying a knife, refused to do as he was told (like "drop the knife" or "get on the ground"), and veered ever so slightly toward the officer who shot him. To me, it looks like he makes a small shift in direction slightly toward the cops just before he does the spin; I think the spin in the result of being shot, which was the cop's reaction to the change in direction he took. It could have seemed like he was "lunging" at the cop, in the cop's own mind at the time.

Once the guy's on the ground, though, I don't know what to make of the cop continuing to shoot.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 16074
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Wed Nov 25, 2015 10:49 am

Gord wrote:Once the guy's on the ground, though, I don't know what to make of the cop continuing to shoot.

I know what I make of it. And . . . jumping a bit ahead . . . McCarthy, Emanuel, and Alvarez need to be held accountable, first by removing them from office and then by doing whatever can be done to those who cover up murder for personal and political reasons. The Emanuel-McCarthy press conference yesterday and comments by Alvarez were as disgraceful a display of dishonesty as I've seen since . . . uh . . . reading posts here made by our Holocaust deniers.

As to the %'s, I'd put the incident down to 50% Van Dyke and 50% the attitude of City Hall and the Chicago PD toward cop behavior and a large part of this city's population. Ok, maybe zero for gun culture is going too far, but, really, I do not see how Van Dyke's actions can be understood in significant part as a reaction to a possible gun - rather, they most likely come from a dark place in an officer with a history of 17 complaints about his policing. I desperately want more to be done to get guns off our streets . . . but this shooting isn't about that, unless we are talking about taking guns out of the hands of unfit cops. The big thing for Chicago in this is the way in which police oversight and review do - or don't - work, the PD's attitude toward the law and its officers, the structures for local communities and neighborhoods to participate in policing and especially review, whether the city will hold its officials and police accountable, how the press deals with news involving minority communities and the police, the city's attitude toward public information - as Jamie Kalven wrote months ago, "The reality is that in a police force the size of Chicago's, no matter how well trained and supervised, bad things will sometimes happen. The critical question is how the institution responds when they do." The city covered up a murder, and that makes trust for the officials involved impossible.

(There is a theory which has it that Emanuel tried suppressing the shooting as he faced a difficult re-election against Chuy Garcia and, African American voters potentially defecting from him, partly because it was so explosive and he didn't want yet another example out there, one so egregious, of what he's presiding over. I don't really buy this theory - seeing the suppression of the the case more as fairly typical institutional wagon-circling for Rahm - but people who know more about the administration than I are promoting the "election" theory. In any event, had Karen Lewis not fallen ill, the African American vote would have certainly been very different than it turned out to be, and Emanuel very likely would have lost to her. Emanuel has also stonewalled, denied, persisted in the face of the Homan Square revelations, without any tie to his re-election - and the Tribune which had a unique, for the Tribune, editorial yesterday, barely covered what the UK's Guardian covered in depth.)
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

nmblum88
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7815
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:28 pm

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby nmblum88 » Wed Nov 25, 2015 5:42 pm

TJrandom wrote:
JO 753 wrote:Herez the vid uv the kid in Chicago.

Laquan McDonald

It showz the entire trip to the sene, so it takes 5:20 befor it gets there.

I'm not defending the cop. He overreacted and apparently haz a record uv complaints, but.

Considering that Chicago iz famous for hi shooting rates and the behavior uv the teenajer, maybe the case iz not az clear cut az the media makes it out to be.

Laquan iz acting defiant. Due to the good probability that he coud hav a consealed gun its not an unreazonable course uv action to shoot first. The cop coud hav thot the reazon Laquan wuznt obeying the standard commandz to drop with handz behind hiz hed wuz bekuz he had a gun and intended to uze it. Certainly, unloading hiz clip wuz going too far even if he knew for sure the kid had a gun, but we're talking about a human making split second desisionz in an extreem situation full uv flashing lites, sirenz gun shots and deadly danjer.

I beleev that if it wuznt so likely that Laquan had a gun, Offiser Jason Van Dyke woud probably hav been in a different frame uv mind from the beginning and it woudnt hav ended this way.


OK – but people have a right to act defiant, and many do – when drunk, on drugs, or in front of friends. You shouldn`t get shot for acting defiant. Pose an immediate threat to life, then yes, then and only then, take your bullets.

And even if he had a gun – you don`t shoot unless you see it and the perp is going for it. And even then, you don`t keep on shooting – unless of course you want to make damn sure the perp dies.


Thanks…
It's "an eye for an eye…."
Not " your life for an eye…"

The punishment, equally meted out , HAS to fit the crime or any rational concept of societally ordained justice is completely impossible..
We might as well all agree (with the NRA) that every man should have the right to use his cudgel, and the responsibility to defend his own domain however and wherever he can…
As to defiance? It is a normal human attribute, and usually admired.
Who among us, after all, wishes to be known as a sheep?
Ironically, defiance is most often admired,on our own behalf, and to an almost unreasonable degree, by White men: "REMEMBER THE ALAMO!!" of course, immediately comes to mind.

NMB

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8097
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby Poodle » Wed Nov 25, 2015 7:14 pm

:sheep: :sheep:

Sheep are people, too!

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby supervitor » Wed Nov 25, 2015 7:28 pm

JO, there's no need to use this as an argument for gun control.

"If he had not had a gun, he wouln't have been shot. Therefore we need to control guns" as an argument: We can't establish the veracity of the premise (it seems unlikely, since he kept being shot in the ground). And it's convoluted.

There's much better arguments than this.

nmblum88
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7815
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:28 pm

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby nmblum88 » Wed Nov 25, 2015 7:37 pm

Poodle wrote::sheep: :sheep:

Sheep are people, too!



But surely not here..… in Skeptic Land!!
Where two legs ( and not necessarily in working order) are really the only requirement for membership.

NMB

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29080
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby Gord » Wed Nov 25, 2015 8:21 pm

nmblum wrote:
Poodle wrote::sheep: :sheep:

Sheep are people, too!

But surely not here..… in Skeptic Land!!
Where two legs ( and not necessarily in working order) are really the only requirement for membership.

NMB

You don't need legs to type.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

nmblum88
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7815
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:28 pm

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby nmblum88 » Wed Nov 25, 2015 8:50 pm

Gord wrote:
nmblum wrote:
Poodle wrote::sheep: :sheep:

Sheep are people, too!

But surely not here..… in Skeptic Land!!
Where two legs ( and not necessarily in working order) are really the only requirement for membership.

NMB

You don't need legs to type.


I always defer to your wisdom in such matters.
After all, you are an acknowledged paradigm for skepticism for obvious reason.
And reason WILL prevail.

NMB

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12214
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby JO 753 » Wed Nov 25, 2015 9:20 pm

supervitor wrote:There's much better arguments than this.


Do tell.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby supervitor » Wed Nov 25, 2015 9:32 pm

JO 753 wrote:
supervitor wrote:There's much better arguments than this.


Do tell.

People die when people have guns?
No need to complicate, involving police, specific cases..

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby xouper » Wed Nov 25, 2015 10:58 pm

JO 753 wrote:My point iz that ubiquitous gunz iz a major contributing factor in hiz deth.

Dividing up the gilt, I say 30% Offiser Van Dyke, 30% Laquan McDonald, 40% the gun ownerz uv America and their reprezentativez.

The same argument can be made for knives, cars, swimming pools, etc. If knives were not so readily available, criminals would be less likely to use knives to harm people.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7360
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby TJrandom » Thu Nov 26, 2015 12:25 am

Gord wrote:... It could have seemed like he was "lunging" at the cop, in the cop's own mind at the time. ...


I do agree with that, and if he can make that his case in court, then he will most probably be let off. But he shouldn`t be IMO - since a lunge (or the beginning fraction of a second of one) from 10 feet away - still gives the police time to assess risks and possibly take alternate options. Of course that would be in an ideal world, where police dogs, tasers, nets, or even long polls were employed by police departments. My guess is that Chicago may have some of these, but that their training is to shoot first. It shouldn`t be.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12214
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby JO 753 » Thu Nov 26, 2015 1:25 am

supervitor wrote:People die when people have guns?
No need to complicate, involving police, specific cases..


There iz a need. See xouperz comment.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby supervitor » Thu Nov 26, 2015 4:39 am

JO 753 wrote:
supervitor wrote:People die when people have guns?
No need to complicate, involving police, specific cases..


There iz a need. See xouperz comment.

Sorry, I don't follow: it seems a nonsensical comment, a false equivalence.

Either way, he's replying to you, saying that whatever you say about guns (including this new Laquan approach) he's going to reply "the same" about knives and swimming pools. You need to cut fallacious arguments by the stem with something like:

"Please use reason, sir. This is about guns."

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10156
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Nov 26, 2015 6:08 am

What xouper means is that if guns were not available, the cop would have stabbed Laquand 16 times because.... you know.... its just a tool and you have to look at the person using it.

Its just really stupid AND dishonest to imply that cops should use swimming pools to protect society from people walking down the street.

On subject, I only heard it once that Laquand was high on PCP? I do wonder how much crime would decrease it we had more active social services deployed rather than armed border line sociopaths.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby xouper » Thu Nov 26, 2015 6:22 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:What xouper means is that if guns were not available, the cop would have stabbed Laquand 16 times because....

No, that is not what I meant.

JO knows what I meant — we've had this conversation before — and I give him much credit for being able to disagree with me without getting nasty about it.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Its just really stupid AND dishonest to imply that cops should use swimming pools to protect society from people walking down the street.

:lol: I have to admit, some straw men are funnier than others.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby xouper » Thu Nov 26, 2015 6:28 am

supervitor wrote:
JO 753 wrote:
supervitor wrote:People die when people have guns?
No need to complicate, involving police, specific cases..

There iz a need. See xouperz comment.

Sorry, I don't follow: it seems a nonsensical comment, a false equivalence.

Either way, he's replying to you, saying that whatever you say about guns (including this new Laquan approach) he's going to reply "the same" about knives and swimming pools. You need to cut fallacious arguments by the stem with something like:

"Please use reason, sir. This is about guns."

There is nothing faulty with my argument. I understand you do not agree with my position, but there is nothing fallacious about it.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29080
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby Gord » Thu Nov 26, 2015 6:29 am

nmblum wrote:After all, you are an acknowledged paradigm for skepticism for obvious reason.

Yes.

postcount = postcount + 1
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10156
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Nov 26, 2015 6:48 am

xouper: It really bothers me that you can see the humor in opposing sarcasm, but still maintain your absolutist gun idiocy. Thats not the way intelligence is supposed to be distributed.

Your position on guns while argued quite intellectually, is still based on emotions. Ever figured out what those are?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby xouper » Thu Nov 26, 2015 6:50 am

Gord wrote:postcount = postcount + 1

Say what? Are you still using BASIC? :shock:

Real programmers do this:

Code: Select all

postcount++;


Or at worst, this:

Code: Select all

postcount += 1


;)

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12214
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby JO 753 » Thu Nov 26, 2015 6:53 am

supervitor wrote:Sorry, I don't follow: it seems a nonsensical comment, a false equivalence.


xouper'z comment showz that you kant just make a simple statement and expect everybody to understand all the implicationz.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29080
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby Gord » Thu Nov 26, 2015 6:54 am

xouper wrote:
Gord wrote:postcount = postcount + 1

Say what? Are you still using BASIC? :shock:

It's my native tongue. I have to translate everything from English to BASIC in my head before I can understand it.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby xouper » Thu Nov 26, 2015 6:55 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:xouper: It really bothers me that you can see the humor in opposing sarcasm, but still maintain your absolutist gun idiocy. Thats not the way intelligence is supposed to be distributed.

Your position on guns while argued quite intellectually, is still based on emotions. Ever figured out what those are?

I assume your position is grounded in some fundamental core values, same as mine is. We disagree at a very deep core level of personal values. On an issue such as this, how can it be otherwise?

And yes, I do know exactly what my core values are, but thanks for asking.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10156
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:13 am

xouper: what do you need, a lollipop?

My own core emotional basis is my empathetic sympathy for the survivors of gun murders. Not those shot, but the family members of those shot. I can't imagine the misery of what so many of them feel and hope to never have anything near that myself. More personally, I used to have business in several bad areas of town. I "feared" for my safety from the gang members in the area and luckily I never had an encounter. Again, I feel for the people who had no choices to get out of that environment. Lastly, as is so often the case, I am dumbfounded by too many of the pro-gun arguments that are made. If people supporting any position are so defective/dishonest/irrational in their position, then said position is likely faulty.

Not a lollipop, but I went first by way of continuing invitation. I assume its a direction you don't often post about, but if so, just post the link. No need to repeat yourself.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby supervitor » Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:23 am

JO 753 wrote:
supervitor wrote:Sorry, I don't follow: it seems a nonsensical comment, a false equivalence.


xouper'z comment showz that you kant just make a simple statement and expect everybody to understand all the implicationz.

The intention is to keep things simple, while at the same time show your opponent you know what you're talking about and you won't be taken for a spin.

If the opponent refuses to acknowledge by just denying you pointed out his error, for instance, you can go two ways.

1- indulge and explain more clearly: Link to the Wikipedia page that explains why it was a false equivalency:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

copy/paste the meaningful bits

False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.
A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result. False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.


bolding the most relevant parts, perhaps going further, explaining that using knives when talking about guns is oversimplifying and ignoring the additional factors

Or

2- you can expose your opponent ideas to a bit of ridicule by
2.1 - cracking a joke:
JO's potential reply wrote:Well, if you're so concerned about the widespread of knives and swimming pools, why don't you request your Congressman or Senator to do something about it? Maybe start a grassroots movement demanding the prohibition? Fund an Anti-Swimming-Pool lobby?

I prefer to stick with opposing guns, which is what concerns me


the more ridiculous the ideas, the better

Or

2.2 - taking his argument as a serious and valid one and turn it against him, by saying something like
By your reasoning, If there's no distinction to be made between different stuff, maybe we should also allow ownership of tanks or nuclear bombs. What's the difference really, between a gun and a nuclear bomb?


If you go 1 or 2, it's a personal choice. I usually prefer to take a sense of my opponent, try to figure out where he's coming from, and then give him what he's asking for.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby xouper » Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:38 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:My own core emotional basis is my empathetic sympathy for the survivors of gun murders. Not those shot, but the family members of those shot. I can't imagine the misery of what so many of them feel and hope to never have anything near that myself. More personally, I used to have business in several bad areas of town. I "feared" for my safety from the gang members in the area and luckily I never had an encounter. Again, I feel for the people who had no choices to get out of that environment.

I understand your position here. Your position is entirely reasonable given your ethical priorities.

It's not that I do not feel the same compassions you do. But rather, for me, and for many others, there are other compassions that take precedence.

Example: Many people, JO included, are fully aware that drunk drivers kill about as many people each year as there are firearm homicides (CDC 2013). But that is a price many people are willing to accept because there are other considerations that are more important. That's how I feel about guns. In my moral code, there is something far more important at stake than the number of tragedies caused by people who misuse guns.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Lastly, as is so often the case, I am dumbfounded by too many of the pro-gun arguments that are made. If people supporting any position are so defective/dishonest/irrational in their position, then said position is likely faulty.

Many gun advocates feel the same way about your position. Stalemate. So let's not go there.

There is nothing defective/dishonest/irrational/faulty about my position on guns. It is a logical and necessary consequence of my core values.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26342
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:45 am

Gord wrote: You don't need legs to type.
my_left_foot_blk&wht3.jpg

No wonder we don't get as many amputees as the old forum..
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby xouper » Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:52 am

supervitor wrote:
JO 753 wrote:
supervitor wrote:Sorry, I don't follow: it seems a nonsensical comment, a false equivalence.

xouper'z comment showz that you kant just make a simple statement and expect everybody to understand all the implicationz.

The intention is to keep things simple, while at the same time show your opponent you know what you're talking about and you won't be taken for a spin.

If the opponent refuses to acknowledge by just denying you pointed out his error, for instance, you can go two ways.

1- indulge and explain more clearly: Link to the Wikipedia page that explains why it was a false equivalency:

I have explained numerous times on this forum why my comparisons are not false equivalencies and why your objection is not valid.

supervitor wrote:Or

2- you can expose your opponent ideas to a bit of ridicule by
2.1 - cracking a joke:

JO's potential reply wrote:Well, if you're so concerned about the widespread of knives and swimming pools, why don't you request your Congressman or Senator to do something about it? Maybe start a grassroots movement demanding the prohibition? Fund an Anti-Swimming-Pool lobby?

I prefer to stick with opposing guns, which is what concerns me

the more ridiculous the ideas, the better

Or

2.2 - taking his argument as a serious and valid one and turn it against him, by saying something like

By your reasoning, If there's no distinction to be made between different stuff, maybe we should also allow ownership of tanks or nuclear bombs. What's the difference really, between a gun and a nuclear bomb?

I do not claim (and have not claimed) there is no difference between different stuff. I have already explained this too, elsewhere on the forum. It is indeed legal to own a tank in the US and they are not a threat to the public as a nuclear bomb is. Also, nuclear bombs do not qualify under the laws regarding personal self defense as a gun does.

supervitor wrote:I usually prefer to take a sense of my opponent, try to figure out where he's coming from, and then give him what he's asking for.

Are you sincere about trying to understand my position or "where I'm coming from"?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10156
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Nov 26, 2015 8:38 am

Xouper: so what are your core (emotional) values?

"Many gun advocates feel the same way about your position. Stalemate. So let's not go there." /// Ummmmm....YOU said my position was "entirely reasonable given your ethical priorities". So, no Stalemate but rather checkmate.

So...what are your core (emotional) values?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby xouper » Thu Nov 26, 2015 11:28 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:"Many gun advocates feel the same way about your position. Stalemate. So let's not go there." /// Ummmmm....YOU said my position was "entirely reasonable given your ethical priorities". So, no Stalemate but rather checkmate.

:roll: :roll:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10156
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Nov 26, 2015 11:45 am

Xouper: so what are your core (emotional) values?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby xouper » Thu Nov 26, 2015 3:01 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Xouper: so what are your core (emotional) values?

I have already explained this elsewhere on the forum. The primary one is the right of self sovereignty.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12214
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby JO 753 » Thu Nov 26, 2015 5:53 pm

Seemz like a reazonable set uv tactics, supervitor. A good initial stratejy.

Wut you shoud do iz read sum uv the older topics on gunz here on the Skeptic's Society Forum. The 2nd Amendment thred iz probably enuf to get a good idea uv wuts been churned over for the last bunch uv yirz.

Wen youv made your best points but your opponents still disagree, you hav to think up more points or fresh perpectivez on old points. It can be very exasperating and seem like a total waste uv time, but it haz actually prodused serious rezults.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby supervitor » Thu Nov 26, 2015 6:51 pm

JO 753 wrote:Seemz like a reazonable set uv tactics, supervitor. A good initial stratejy.

Wut you shoud do iz read sum uv the older topics on gunz here on the Skeptic's Society Forum. The 2nd Amendment thred iz probably enuf to get a good idea uv wuts been churned over for the last bunch uv yirz.

Wen youv made your best points but your opponents still disagree, you hav to think up more points or fresh perpectivez on old points. It can be very exasperating and seem like a total waste uv time, but it haz actually prodused serious rezults.

Ok, I won't contest your efforts. Keep in mind, though, that the soundest strategy is to stick with "sorry, my interest is with guns, not knives or pools". Indulging is just that, see where your opponent is willing to go and having a bit of fun in the process, because, in the end knive control and pool control are not real issues, and we can confirm that by the small number of Knive Control and Swimming Pool Control threads in the forum (I never come across with any, but can't be sure; either way, we can confirm there's no Knives nor Swimming Pools subforums, that we can be sure of), all these arguments are just rethorical sand thrown to prevent progress.*


About convincing xouper, I'm not sure it's possible. His position is very clear, here:

xouper wrote:But that is a price many people are willing to accept because there are other considerations that are more important. That's how I feel about guns. In my moral code, there is something far more important at stake than the number of tragedies caused by people who misuse guns.


to which I agree, he does have to right to his own moral principles. He's basically saying that the right to bear guns superseeds the sanctity of human life, or in other words, that what is saint is the right to have a gun and not human life. I think it's a case of a broken moral compass, but who are we to impose our own moral values? How he views things it's his business.

So no matter what you throw at him, he'll just disagree. It's against his moral code.

Thankfully, the long trend in history is that sanity and rationality prevails (in the long run), and even the USA will become civilized in terms of social issues. It's just a matter of time. People who argue against those values will be engolfed by Human Progress and will just have to accept.

Your effort is valued, though: the point of all this is more to be read by outsiders than to convince each other. Usually the one on the side of reason prevails, and that's why society progresses.

*Gun control itself is not even a real issue for me, because I live in the civilized part of the world ;)

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby xouper » Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:58 pm

supervitor wrote:About convincing xouper, I'm not sure it's possible.

That's correct. You are not likely to change my core moral principles. I assume that's true of almost everyone, including you, and thus in that regard you have no claim to moral superiority.

supervitor wrote:His position is very clear, here:

xouper wrote:Example: Many people, JO included, are fully aware that drunk drivers kill about as many people each year as there are firearm homicides (CDC 2013). But that is a price many people are willing to accept because there are other considerations that are more important. That's how I feel about guns. In my moral code, there is something far more important at stake than the number of tragedies caused by people who misuse guns.

to which I agree, he does have to right to his own moral principles.

As do you.

supervitor wrote:He's basically saying that the right to bear guns superseeds the sanctity of human life,

Yes, that is what I am saying. Both you and JO say the same thing about other things, such as cars, knives, and swimming pools. You have no claim to moral superiority here.

supervitor wrote:... I think it's a case of a broken moral compass, but who are we to impose our own moral values? How he views things it's his business.

Let's also be clear that both you and JO and say the right to have a car supersedes the sanctity of human life.

Your moral compass is no less broken than mine since you are willing to sacrifice thousands of lives each year for the privilege of using a car.

You put the right to own a swimming pool above the sanctity of innocent children's lives.

You have no claim to moral superiority here.

supervitor wrote:So no matter what you throw at him, he'll just disagree. It's against his moral code.

Unless you can show why I should change my moral code. No one has tried that yet.

supervitor wrote:Gun control itself is not even a real issue for me, because I live in the civilized part of the world ;)

Like Paris?

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby supervitor » Thu Nov 26, 2015 8:12 pm

xouper wrote:
supervitor wrote:About convincing xouper, I'm not sure it's possible.

That's correct. You are not likely to change my core moral principles. I assume that's true of almost everyone, including you, and thus in that regard you have no claim to moral superiority.

And I haven't
supervitor wrote:His position is very clear, here:

xouper wrote:Example: Many people, JO included, are fully aware that drunk drivers kill about as many people each year as there are firearm homicides (CDC 2013). But that is a price many people are willing to accept because there are other considerations that are more important. That's how I feel about guns. In my moral code, there is something far more important at stake than the number of tragedies caused by people who misuse guns.

to which I agree, he does have to right to his own moral principles.

As do you.

supervitor wrote:He's basically saying that the right to bear guns superseeds the sanctity of human life,

Yes, that is what I am saying. Both you and JO say the same thing about other things, such as cars, knives, and swimming pools. You have no claim to moral superiority here.

That's untrue, xouper. I haven't said any of that. You can try to quote me, but you won't, because I haven't
supervitor wrote:... I think it's a case of a broken moral compass, but who are we to impose our own moral values? How he views things it's his business.

Let's also be clear that both you and JO and say the right to have a car supersedes the sanctity of human life.

Again, no. Untrue (in my case). Quote, please.
Your moral compass is no less broken than mine since you are willing to sacrifice thousands of lives each year for the privilege of using a car.

False
You put the right to own a swimming pool above the sanctity of innocent children's lives.

False. Quote to prove me wrong.
You have no claim to moral superiority here.

supervitor wrote:So no matter what you throw at him, he'll just disagree. It's against his moral code.

Unless you can show why I should change my moral code. No one has tried that yet.

I'm not trying to, xouper. I don't care.
supervitor wrote:Gun control itself is not even a real issue for me, because I live in the civilized part of the world ;)

Like Paris?

You could say that, yes.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby xouper » Thu Nov 26, 2015 8:46 pm

supervitor wrote:
xouper wrote:
supervitor wrote:He's basically saying that the right to bear guns superseeds the sanctity of human life,

Yes, that is what I am saying. Both you and JO say the same thing about other things, such as cars, knives, and swimming pools. You have no claim to moral superiority here.

That's untrue, xouper. I haven't said any of that. You can try to quote me, but you won't, because I haven't

If that is indeed true, then I apologize for misstating your position.

I can quote where JO has said those things. Are you saying his moral compass is also broken because he puts a moral principle above the sanctity of human lives?

Please clarify: Is it your position that to save the lives of innocent children you would ban all swimming pools?

Is it your position that the sanctity of human lives supersedes the right to own swimming pools, cars, knives, etc, and thus all those things should be banned?

Is that your position?

supervitor wrote:
xouper wrote:
supervitor wrote:So no matter what you throw at him, he'll just disagree. It's against his moral code.

Unless you can show why I should change my moral code. No one has tried that yet.

I'm not trying to, xouper. I don't care.

Excellent. Thank you for clarifying that. The feeling is mutual. ;)

Please explain, what exactly are you trying to do here if not present a persuasive argument?

supervitor wrote:
xouper wrote:
supervitor wrote:Gun control itself is not even a real issue for me, because I live in the civilized part of the world ;)

Like Paris?

You could say that, yes.

Let the record show that in France, which has far stricter gun control than the US, their gun laws did not stop the recent mass shooting in Paris. When was the last time there was a mass shooting in the US with that many victims?

Have you ever noticed that there is never a mass shooting at a gun show? Criminals may be evil, but they are not that  stupid. They prefer to do their mass shootings where they know the victims will be unarmed.

Is it your position that the lives of those Paris victims is an acceptable cost to having gun control in France? Is it your position that the moral principle of gun control supersedes the sanctity of those human lives?


Return to “Guns”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest