National Guard called into Minneapolis

[crimson5pheonix]

I was under the impression it was a play on the Deez meme

You should research more before you post.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

You should research more before you post.

I see a video showing it I post it and don't spent however long researching to make sure the person is sufficiently progressive enough because the video speaks for itself mostly far more than their identity.

I just figured it was a play on Deez Nuts.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I see a video showing it I post it and don't spent however long researching to make sure the person is sufficiently progressive enough because the video speaks for itself mostly far more than their identity.

I just figured it was a play on Deez Nuts.

Well uhhh, you posted something from Mormon Nazis, so I don't know how much the video speaks for itself.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Well uhhh, you posted something from Mormon Nazis, so I don't know how much the video speaks for itself.

You hear the shooting.
In the 2nd video you see the gun pulled.

 

[Revnak]

I see a video showing it I post it and don't spent however long researching to make sure the person is sufficiently progressive enough because the video speaks for itself mostly far more than their identity.

I just figured it was a play on Deez Nuts.

Well, it’s 15 seconds long so it’s entirely possible that car was running people over and the shooting was in self-defense, based on the video alone. That’s particularly true given the source is a Mormon Nazi who would happily do deceptive editing. That doesn’t appear to be the case, but you didn’t look into that at all.

Edit - I want to reiterate that this in no way appears to be self-defense as the shooter was at the side of the vehicle and I’ve seen no claims that the driver was attempting to hit anyone before being shot. He endangered everyone there.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

You hear the shooting.
In the 2nd video you see the gun pulled.

Yeah but we don't know any context for the situation. On the extreme, for all we know, that driver could have just run a bunch of people down.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Well, it’s 15 seconds long so it’s entirely possible that car was running people over and the shooting was in self-defense, based on the video alone. That’s particularly true given the source is a Mormon Nazi who would happily do deceptive editing. That doesn’t appear to be the case, but you didn’t look into that at all.

Yeah but we don't know any context for the situation. On the extreme, for all we know, that driver could have just run a bunch of people down.

Well I'm sure other videos will emerge most likely.

 

[Revnak]

Well I'm sure other videos will emerge most likely.

Wuh... they already exist. Further, you can just also post the police info on it. Just, anything else backing this up. Local news is already covering it. I believe this happened and by all appearances this was not warranted (though there were a host of cars just continually driving up to that intersection and then trying to drive through full speed, I’ve seen nothing showing that to be the case with this driver, whose assault occurred early in the protest).

 

[Houseman]

You assume you're the one paying the mortgage, and have that power. If you don't have the power on your own, or it IS in fact, a vote because you're all paying the mortgage together, you're out of luck.

Well what are the premises of the hypothetical? You never specified, beyond saying that it was YOUR house.

But wait, what kind of discrimination do they tackle first?

They'll spin someone around in an office chair really fast and then make them throw a dart at a bunch of index cards on a dart board, and whichever one they hit will be the one they choose.

Or, you know, a random number generator.

Who leads it? Is it being staffed by people who are bigots themselves and people don't know yet? Who vets them so that doesn't happen, etc etc

Good questions that I don't know the answers to, but at least we're thinking on the right track.

True enough....But...Well, there are people deliberately gumming up the works everywhere you look when it comes to social issues because they ARE bigoted and want to discriminate, either because they're assholes, or because they were raised to believe that it's normal.

I don't think that fighting discrimination with discrimination is justifiable even in this case.

You know, I'm really beginning to think that you process things differently from most of us. Like...With VERY little emotion for everything.

The thought has occurred to me more than once...

Can it be said to be "based in law" if it in no way represents the intent, wording, or practice of that law? It's "based in" it in a pretty tenuous way.

It's "based in law" in that it's copy-pasted from law. The law that #BLM is trying to repeal.

It's trying to solve a racial disparity in treatment.

By discriminating. They're trying to solve a racial disparity by discriminating on the basis of race. That's unjustifiable in my opinion.

Just as if 1 neighbourhood is receiving 100 dollars in grant money, and a 2nd neighbourhood is receiving 200 dollars, it's more to-the-point to say, "invest more in neighbourhood 1" rather than "all neighbourhoods deserve money!"

The first addresses the discrepancy. The second ignores it: allows people to carry on pretending that the two neighbourhoods are on equal footing.

And that would be fine, because a neighborhood is a geographic location, not a protected class like race.

Why must a solution intended for our world, context and all, also work in an absurd hypothetical or a vacuum?

Because if it's not valid logic in an absurd hypothetical or a vacuum, it's not valid logic anywhere.

Strictly, of course, that it's "in base 10" is context. Absolutely every specification you could add is context; just a less complex level of context.

Ok, then context is part of the premise and can’t just be ignored.

Yes, premises make up context, and yes, they can be ignored. That's the thing about logic, you can tweak it to your satisfaction by adding and subtracting premises to your hearts content. Whether or not you get something useful at the end of it is a separate matter.

If you want to say "your logic is useless because it doesn't take into account X, Y, and Z, when doing so would change the outcome", that would be fair. But people here have been saying "Noooo you can't just remove the context like that!" like the mere act of making a hypothetical is the objectionable thing.