PC and Muslim Agenda

[Blake]

He won't let me arrest him. Kill him!

Can't seem to get enough of the skin-deep reasoning.

Brown came at him. Keep trying, pot.

[Spurminator]

No. Those are private businesses, and their names aren't subject to a public vote. I'm pretty sure if you did a poll, most people would be against it.

These polls would suggest otherwise:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/new-poll-says-large-majority-of-americans-believe-redskins-should-not-change-name/2014/09/02/496e3dd0-32e0-11e4-9e92-0899b306bbea_story.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/young-people-redskins-poll_us_55ae780ae4b0a9b948529c90

Most issues of political correctness aren't related to anything that can be voted on.


No idea. I saw it after, but I'm not a great person to ask about fashion or business news.

It became news when Gap apologized.


Are kids sent home for praying in school? Is that not allowed anymore?

Not very often. But occasionally a teacher or administrator will overreach on issues of religion in the school, and that's when the local news station sends a reporter. They're not reporting on examples of kids praying in school and not being punished. A school having a prayer before a football game isn't news. A school deciding not to have a prayer, or a few parents complaining about the prayer... that's what becomes news. That's what gets people leaving comments on your station website and visiting advertiser links.



Yeah, that's not true at all. Simply put, being PC has its power in siding with the majority.

Power to do what? Make people talk? Make companies apologize?

A lot of social progress has been made in this country before that progress was accepted by the majority. It's often not until changes are made that people learn to accept those changes.


Now, I agree that not everyone who is PC is militant about it. But the fact remains that PC is dominating the public discussion much more than anti-PC is. This is why Trump's anti-PC tactics are creating a groundswell of new support rather than just consolidating the old.

I would characterize Trump as being un-PC. I know that sounds like semantic acrobatics but hear me out...

How I think about it is anti-PC is when you don't think we should go to great lengths to make sure we're not profiling on race, don't think we should sanitize mascot names, don't think people should lose their shit if a black person is portrayed unfavorably or stereotypical in advertising, etc. You think people who are fighting for those things are PC whiners. Most polls and anecdotal examples I've seen on these kinds of subjects would suggest people are satisfied with the status quo.

Un-PC is straight up saying we should ban Muslims, or that Megyn Kelly is on her period, or suggesting that gays are pedophiles, etc. While most people might not actually say these things, I do not think most people are offended by someone saying them.



Really don't get the point of your contention. You're claiming that the media catering to anti-PC folks (which isn't true on the whole) proves that they are the majority, even though the coverage is aimed at making it seem like they are the minority?

Different media cater to different sides of the spectrum. It's a tried and true tactic to make your audience feel victimized or oppressed, and that you are the only leader speaking on their behalf in this world gone to hell. It's worked for centuries in churches, and it works in the media. Why do you think both liberals and conservatives complain about mainstream media bias against them?

[Chinook]

The DOJ is still assessing the situation in Irving.

How long as it been? If it were as obvious as you thought, wouldn't it have been an open-and-shut case?


Are you saying otherwise? Be clear about your own opinion.

Yes. Do I think the police were mostly at fault? Not really. But would Brown had survived the encounter had the cop been smarter? Yes.

[Blake]

How long as it been? If it were as obvious as you thought, wouldn't it have been an open-and-shut case?

They're not investigating on whether it was a bomb hoax or not, genius. They're investigating the school district for discrimination.

Feel free to ask for the facts first next time. Or you could Google them.





Yes. Do I think the police were mostly at fault? Not really. But would Brown had survived the encounter had the cop been smarter? Yes.

This tangent is irrelevant but that's fine. It could be entertaining.

What should the cop have done instead with Brown coming straight at him?

[Chinook]

These polls would suggest otherwise:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/new-poll-says-large-majority-of-americans-believe-redskins-should-not-change-name/2014/09/02/496e3dd0-32e0-11e4-9e92-0899b306bbea_story.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/young-people-redskins-poll_us_55ae780ae4b0a9b948529c90

I stand corrected (and stand clarified on the Gap thing). I do think that shows that PC is rooted in the majority, though, as the efforts of the minority to get the name changed haven't worked. PC needs public support, especially economically, and as those 18- to 29-year-olds age and become the dominant consumers, it'll grow even faster.


Not very often. But occasionally a teacher or administrator will overreach on issues of religion in the school, and that's when the local news station sends a reporter. They're not reporting on examples of kids praying in school and not being punished. A school having a prayer before a football game isn't news. A school deciding not to have a prayer, or a few parents complaining about the prayer... that's what becomes news. That's what gets people leaving comments on your station website and visiting advertiser links.

I mean, you have a right to pray in schools, so people exercising that right shouldn't be news. Schools infringing on that right violates the First Amendment (which was designed to protect religions from the State, not the other way around as people try to claim now). I don't know what the PC thing to do is in the situation, but in ones where a person is forced to pray or isn't allowed to pray and gets punished if they don't go along with it, those also get news.


Power to do what? Make people talk? Make companies apologize?

A lot of social progress has been made in this country before that progress was accepted by the majority. It's often not until changes are made that people learn to accept those changes.

First part is that they make companies change their ways of thinking using economic threats (mainly boycotting or bad-mouthing). This isn't a new tactic, but people are much more keen to whip it out nowadays.


I would characterize Trump as being un-PC. I know that sounds like semantic acrobatics but hear me out...

I don't disagree with your assessment. But I also think Trump is getting support from people who are tired of politics being dominated on both sides by PC. When people can't separate what a guy like Aiken said and a guy like Murdoch said, you have a problem. I can never support Trump personally, or any Republican that isn't moderate, but I do find it refreshing that his campaign is so pig-headed, because he's just being explicit about things politicians have been trying to refer to elliptically.


Different media cater to different sides of the spectrum. It's a tried and true tactic to make your audience feel victimized or oppressed, and that you are the only leader speaking on their behalf in this world gone to hell. It's worked for centuries in churches, and it works in the media. Why do you think both liberals and conservatives complain about mainstream media bias against them?

That's a fine explanation. I don't have an issue with it. I just think it is unrelated to whether PC is a majority or a minority thing. I didn't get the idea that PC was the majority from the news. I haven't ever really watched Fox news. Despite how confrontational I am with most liberals here, I am actually on the left side of most political issues. I just hate that the "enlightened" party keep wrapping itself in emotional responses instead of trying to reason out the truth of situations.

[Chinook]

They're not investigating on whether it was a bomb hoax or not, genius.

I never said they were investigating that, did I? That they didn't evacuate the school implies that no one thought it was a bomb.


What should the cop have done instead with Brown coming straight at him?

Ironic that you ask that I check on facts one something I didn't say, yet you are of the mind that Brown ran at a cop who wasn't doing anything. How could Brown be resisting arrest if the cop wasn't trying to arrest him?

[Blake]

I never said they were investigating that, did I? That they didn't evacuate the school implies that no one thought it was a bomb.

Discrimination is the only thing they're investigating.

What is the word "it" referencing here:

"If it were as obvious as you thought, wouldn't it have been an open-and-shut case?"



Ironic that you ask that I check on facts one something I didn't say, yet you are of the mind that Brown ran at a cop who wasn't doing anything. How could Brown be resisting arrest if the cop wasn't trying to arrest him?

Brown came at him. That's indisputable.

The cop was trying to arrest him. That's also indisputable.

Do you think his intent all along was just to shoot him for being a thief?

You're all over the place here, not making any sense.

[Quetzal-X]

It's good you brought this up.

I don't disagree with your claims.

You wanna know why, or at least one of the reasons, it happened tho?

Because it wasn't until AFTER the fact that these White terrorists killed, raped, stole and revealed their true intentions, that the Natives tried to put up any meaningful fight, at which point it was too late. Their naïveté and blind trust bit them and their rightfully bitter descendants in the ass.

Imo it was more to do with Cortez already having prior knowledge of the natives and the culture, religion and fear. He already had the prior knowledge that the Mexica were expecting their own god (Q)to come back. Mexicas thought THEIR own Mexica god would appear like a white light of some sort. Cortez took it an ran. He knew the approximate year the Mexicas expected him. He got that nice tip-off from torturing the Tainos. Mexicas were too confused to fight their own "god". The weakness of mexicans will always be loyalty to religion.
Tainos already knew Mexica legends and religion because there was no border wall to keep the natives confined . Mexicos former president has it right he says that Trump is a false prophet. This would be the 3rd major Lie the Christian Terrorists got Mexicans to believe. 1st was White Jesus -LIE 2) Cortez convincing Mexicas he was the Mexica god 3) Trump actually conning Mexicans and Blacks to vote for someone thats HATES them.

[Quetzal-X]

Even more wicked was the biological terrorism the white christian forefathers used against the natives. Smallpox for all , babies to elderly. The damn most destructive invasive parasite is white christianity. tbmfh

[Quetzal-X]

God of the bible has something for you white christians. Better get fit as of now because its gonna be sun-up to sundown picking that cotton. God of the bible wants it that way. Thus saith the Lord.

[Pelicans78]

50%
But we have to define what "knows" means.
"Knows" does not mean approves of or condones in any way. A lot of Muslims living in the US really like it here. They may have gotten good jobs, are eating well, like the educational system and some even root for the Spurs. They would say any with terrorist ideas are nutts to try to do damage.

Back to who do they know. I'll bet they can with very reasonable accuracy say which have UnIslamic violent tendencies.

50% of Muslims in this country knows a violent Jihadist Muslim?

[ElNono]

I agree with the idea that the country is adapting and all that. But the country adapts because of the people in it. So those resisting the flow aren't just obstructing. They are trying to change the flow itself.

I think it misses the point to say, "You can say anything you want ... as long as you're willing to deal with the consequences." We know that. The problem isn't that the government is forcing people to be PC. It's that our culture is doing so, and the only way to fight it is to speak out. Is PC all bad? No. But there are cases where it limits the free transmission of information. We've seen this with clock boy, Trayvon and Brown recently where there are two different sides to the story depending on what news source you go to. That really just shouldn't be the case, especially not about potential facts or context.

Like did clock kid just keep plugging in his project despite being told by a string of teachers to stop doing so? Some sources suggest that, but the main ones don't. Are those other sources just making it up, or at the main-stream outlets just unwilling to say anything that could be construed as "victim-blaming"? We don't know, and that is a tangible issue with our nation's epistemological trajectory. We live in a nation that's too integrated and has information too easily available for us to be this ignorant of information outside of our viewpoints.

And as I've said, being PC about not "blaming victims" prevents people from giving practical advice on how to keep yourself safe in an unfair world. Too many people focused on their dreams and not enough focused on their lives.

There's excesses on pretty much everything, PC is not an outlier on that, but our culture is what it is at any given time. You adapt to the times or the times leave you behind. There's plenty of examples about cultural shifts, from, say, smoking, to music, to clothing, to everything. We do live in a world now where you can find anything you want, pretty much, as far as opinion and information. It's up to you to be critical about how you inform yourself, and what you build your opinions on.

I just don't buy there's muzzling going on, when the exact opposite is probably true, there's more access to a gradient of opinions right now than ever before (and I'm not saying that's always great).

And overall, I don't think these cultural changes bring the "destruction" of our society or anything close to that, tbh. There might be pro and cons, but there's ample room to debate that.

[mingus]

I put cops at a higher standard for recognizing a bomb vs a clock than that.And I'm pretty sure he/they did. But you can recognize, or learn, that it isn't a bomb, and still think cosmetically that it looks like one. That opens up the floodgates for further questioning. And I'm fine with that. Too many kids/people have died due to people being scared of asking questions & throughly investigating things which on their face may be inconspicuous or innocuous, for fear of offending people. It's alright to be offensive sometimes.

[Blake]

But you can recognize, or learn, that it isn't a bomb, and still think cosmetically that it looks like one.

"This is what happens when we (IPD) screw something up," wrote senior IPD*detective Rodney Bergeron* in a September 17 email to another officer. "That thing didn't even look like a bomb. And now, the kid is being made into a hero."

http://m.chron.com/news/houston-texas/texas/article/clock-boy-ahmed-mohamed-hoax-bomb-irving-6620429.php

[Chinook]

Discrimination is the only thing they're investigating.

What is the word "it" referencing here:

"If it were as obvious as you thought, wouldn't it have been an open-and-shut case?"

The situation. You consider this to be an obvious example of discrimination, going so far as to say 'What else could it be?' That there has been no ruling on that means it's not obvious. There's really no way you can spin this while also relying on an arbiter's review in the Brown case.


Brown came at him. That's indisputable.

Was the cop following appropriate procedure when that happened?


The cop was trying to arrest him. That's also indisputable.

Or here?


Do you think his intent all along was just to shoot him for being a thief?

Doubt it. Nothing I have said suggested I had. However...


You're all over the place here, not making any sense.

It's clear you at least display the reading comprehension of a thimble in most of your ST disputes. I think that has a ton more to do with you only looking to confirm your beliefs than it does with your actually reading ability, but the fact remains that you repeatedly miss the point of my comparison.

I brought Brown up as an example of how mainstream news leaves out critical facts to make the scenarios more palatable for their audience. For Brown and clock boy, the new either did or may have left out things that would be seen as minority-bashing or victim-blaming, both non-PC things. For a group that calls themselves progressives, this is unacceptable. The "more enlightened" party cannot be so intellectually dishonest.

[Chinook]

There's excesses on pretty much everything, PC is not an outlier on that, but our culture is what it is at any given time. You adapt to the times or the times leave you behind. There's plenty of examples about cultural shifts, from, say, smoking, to music, to clothing, to everything. We do live in a world now where you can find anything you want, pretty much, as far as opinion and information. It's up to you to be critical about how you inform yourself, and what you build your opinions on.

But the "changing of the times" isn't a movement independent of individuals. It's the gestalt of our collective opinions and actions, and the more people who stand against the current movements, the more dirigible those movements become. That's how almost all social or cultural change happens, including this current PC movement. If we can get to a point where PC is the standard but people are fully aware of its limitations, then the fighting was worth it. It's in fact good for any movement for it to be opposed vehemently, so it can be honed and refined.


I just don't buy there's muzzling going on, when the exact opposite is probably true, there's more access to a gradient of opinions right now than ever before (and I'm not saying that's always great).

Eh, I disagree on that. I think when controlling for how accessible information is, we are as shut as we've ever been. This is what Obama was talking about not too long ago:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVZVCbW63lc


And overall, I don't think these cultural changes bring the "destruction" of our society or anything close to that, tbh. There might be pro and cons, but there's ample room to debate that.

I think there has been a fundamental shift in the progressive movement over the past few years. Before, it was about expanding negative and basic positive rights for multiple classes. And that's still the case with LGBT people. But now that we've pretty much secured those rights for everyone, we are looking at limiting rights so that people aren't offended. This is a complete turn from the previous speech movements where it was expanding people's rights to be offensive.

It's like it's crossed some line and forced liberals and conservatives to swap roles. So it's trajectory is concerning, as it's now unpredictable. If progressives are going to be the ones limiting rights in order to protect sensitivities while conservatives don't really want to expand rights, when where is right's theory headed?

[boutons_deux]

"conservatives don't really want to expand rights"

WTF? :lol

Repugs expand

the right-to-work-for-less,

right to discriminate against and express hate of LGBT,

right of BigCorp to pollute.

protect the rights of BigCorp and esp BigFinance to screw everybody

conservatives don't really want to expand rights??? :lol

[Blake]

The situation. You consider this to be an obvious example of discrimination, going so far as to say 'What else could it be?' That there has been no ruling on that means it's not obvious. There's really no way you can spin this while also relying on an arbiter's review in the Brown case.

I never said the discrimination was obvious. I said it was obviously not a bomb.
You're having trouble keeping up here and are all over the place.



Was the cop following appropriate procedure when that happened?



Or here?


He was found to be acting in self defense. I don't see any procedure he failed to follow. Do you?

Ferguson incident still irrelevant to Irving.



It's clear you at least display the reading comprehension of a thimble in most of your ST disputes. I think that has a ton more to do with you only looking to confirm your beliefs than it does with your actually reading ability, but the fact remains that you repeatedly miss the point of my comparison.

I brought Brown up as an example of how mainstream news leaves out critical facts to make the scenarios more palatable for their audience. For Brown and clock boy, the new either did or may have left out things that would be seen as minority-bashing or victim-blaming, both non-PC things. For a group that calls themselves progressives, this is unacceptable. The "more enlightened" party cannot be so intellectually dishonest.

I don't care about your sidebar rant on mainstream media. It's an irrelevant point to whether Irving police/school went overboard.

The facts are out there to find without msm's help. Go look up the facts, get them straight and then let's discuss.

[mingus]

"This is what happens when we (IPD) screw something up," wrote senior IPD*detective Rodney Bergeron* in a September 17 email to another officer. "That thing didn't even look like a bomb. And now, the kid is being made into a hero."

http://m.chron.com/news/houston-texas/texas/article/clock-boy-ahmed-mohamed-hoax-bomb-irving-6620429.php

Yeah, it prolly doesn't. I don't know. But it looks like a briefcase bomb prop.

Which is why you never answered my question a few posts ago. The general populace I'd imagine wouldn't bat an eye at it if it showed up on a movie set.

[Chinook]

I never said the discrimination was obvious. I said it was obviously not a bomb.
You're having trouble keeping up here and are all over the place.


If you're not going to blame prejudice, then what are you going to blame?


Right but he got arrested any way.

Pretty clear why. And some are ok with treating people unfairly like that.

You gonna keep trying to dance in circles?


He was found to be acting in self defense. I don't see any procedure he failed to follow. Do you?

Yes. And I've already stated those. He didn't murder the guy. That doesn't mean that his actions didn't lead to that confrontation. Same shit with Zimmerman.


Ferguson incident still irrelevant to Irving.

Thimbling again.


I don't care about your sidebar rant on mainstream media. It's an irrelevant point to whether Irving police/school went overboard.

The facts are out there to find without msm's help. Go look up the facts, get them straight and then let's discuss.

When the entire point of the argument is that the facts aren't being readily presented by the media, your "Go Google it" retort is idiotic and misplaced. Again, you've shown no ability to at least willingness to have a legitimate discussion. You try to act clever, and when that doesn't work, you shut down. You don't want to have a talk about PC and media bias? Well, then don't. That was my point, and you've done nothing to dispute it, because you don't even seem to disagree with it. My only question is if you understand that and are just stirring shit up or if you really don't understand and you think you have a side to argue.

[Blake]

Yeah, it prolly doesn't. I don't know. But it looks like a briefcase bomb prop.

Which is why you never answered my question a few posts ago. The general populace I'd imagine wouldn't bat an eye at it if it showed up on a movie set.

Well yeah, I guess I could be convinced as a movie watcher. The general populace would probably buy it in a movie too because suitcase bombs in movies with clocks are common.

Cops need to and have to be better than that.

And in real life to me, it looks like just a clock.

[Quetzal-X]

perhaps 'murikkkans watch too much Hollywood and TV shit.

[Blake]

You gonna keep trying to dance in circles?


Ah, ok. It's circumstantially obvious in my opinion. It's not obvious to prove though. Kind of like how we all know OJ did it.

But I'm asking your opinion. If it's obviously not a bomb, he never tried to pretend it was one, why do you think he was arrested?



Yes. And I've already stated those. He didn't murder the guy. That doesn't mean that his actions didn't lead to that confrontation. Same shit with Zimmerman.

The ol "I've already stated".

Somewhere in a huge block of text, I'm guessing.



When the entire point of the argument is that the facts aren't being readily presented by the media, your "Go Google it" retort is idiotic and misplaced.

Nobody is arguing against your media point. I don't give a fuck about the media bias here.

I just want to know if Irving is a town full of discriminating assholes or not. The mainstream media is an irrelevant tangent you're trying to force here.



Again, you've shown no ability to at least willingness to have a legitimate discussion. You try to act clever, and when that doesn't work, you shut down. You don't want to have a talk about PC and media bias? Well, then don't. That was my point, and you've done nothing to dispute it, because you don't even seem to disagree with it. My only question is if you understand that and are just stirring shit up or if you really don't understand and you think you have a side to argue.

Says dude that goes ad hominem almost out of the gate.

Go fuck yourself, pot.

[Chinook]

Ah, ok. It's circumstantially obvious in my opinion. It's not obvious to prove though. Kind of like how we all know OJ did it.

Courts seem very eager to prove it recently. After all this time, if they still aren't sure, it clearly isn't just because they're thinking it over.


But I'm asking your opinion. If it's obviously not a bomb, he never tried to pretend it was one, why do you think he was arrested?

We don't know what he tried to do. We do know that his only answer was, "It's a clock." By itself, that statement is unhelpful. It only made sense to answer that way once, and after that, every time he repeated it was stupid.

What is that? -- It's a clock. -- Well, put it away. -- It's a clock. -- And why do you keep plugging it in? -- It's a clock. -- Why did you even bring it anyway? It's not part of a school project. -- It's a clock. -- Ahmed, why do you keep doing stuff like this? We've asked you to stop whipping out beeping suit cases in class. -- It's a clock. -- Do we have to call the police in? Your dad threatened to sue us if we confiscated your property. -- It's a clock. -- I'm calling them.

That's all speculation, for sure. It was hopefully not that silly. It may have been worse, though. In any event, everything I read suggested the kid showed poor judgment in the situation. I don't know if he went into this with fully open eyes, but there's no way I look at that situation and not warn my kids against bringing shit like that to school or against them cooperating with authorities on what should be trivial matters. That is a much bigger concern to me than railing against discrimination. Obviously, you want to do both, but keeping my kids safe is the first priority.


The ol "I've already stated".

Somewhere in a huge block of text, I'm guessing.

I just don't get why you can be so flippant about reading. You're an adult.


Nobody is arguing against your media point. I don't give a fuck about the media bias here.

I just want to know if Irving is a town full of discriminating assholes or not. The mainstream media is an irrelevant tangent you're trying to force here.

This whole thread is about media bias. You're the one trying to make it about tangents. Does PC prevent people from examining Muslims with proper scrutiny? I think it prevents a lot of important questions from being asked. Clock boy was one of the examples I brought up. Brown was another. I don't agree with the idea that PC is allowing US culture to be infringed upon by Muslims, as the article proposed. But I think facts are getting obscured.

You, with your ever-present desire for the explanations of every situation to fit on a post-it note, jumped immediately to trying to debate the events in both examples rather than the topical point of PC's potential effect on the coverage. If you want to do that, that's fine. But that's not really relevant.


Says dude that goes ad hominem almost out of the gate.

I have yet to use an ad homenim on you. That term has been explained to you too many times for you to keep misunderstanding it.

[Blake]

Courts seem very eager to prove it recently. After all this time, if they still aren't sure, it clearly isn't just because they're thinking it over.

What "court" is out to prove it?

The Department of Justice is still investigating on whether there is enough concrete evidence to move for prosecution.

Do you understand how DOJ investigations work? Or our legal system in general?



I have yet to use an ad homenim on you. That term has been explained to you too many times for you to keep misunderstanding it.

Right, because me being pseudo intellectual is just you stating the facts!

You're an arrogant prick. That's a fact, no ad hominem.

[Chinook]

What "court" is out to prove it?

It, meaning discrimination. It's not nearly so hard to show in high-profile cases as you're suggesting.


The Department of Justice is still investigating on whether there is enough concrete evidence to move for prosecution.

Do you understand how DOJ investigations work? Or our legal system in general?

That shit happened six months ago. And they're still thinking about it? Where's your evidence to suggest that your interpretation of events is true and that they aren't just tabling this because they know clock boy has no case to stand on?


Right, because me being pseudo intellectual is just you stating the facts!

Um, ad homenims aren't based on being false. In fact, most ad homenims are true. The fallacious part is that you can't attack someone's points merely be trying to discredit them personally. Like if I made a defense stat that showed Danny Green was the best defender on the Spurs, dismissing it simply because I'm a known Green homer is an ad homenim. I have indeed called you and mainly your arguments pseudo-intellectual or tone-deaf, but that has never been the basis of my counter-argument. As you point out, I've been writing detailed responses showing why I disagree. You can obviously not find those compelling, but that doesn't make what I said an ad homenim.


You're an arrogant prick. That's a fact, no ad hominem.

It's neither, though it would be the first one if I had to pick.

[mingus]

Well yeah, I guess I could be convinced as a movie watcher. The general populace would probably buy it in a movie too because suitcase bombs in movies with clocks are common.

Cops need to and have to be better than that.

And in real life to me, it looks like just a clock.

Cops need to be better than what? And which cops?

[Blake]

What "court" is out to prove it?

It, meaning discrimination. It's not nearly so hard to show in high-profile cases as you're suggesting.


I don't think I could have asked the question any clearer. I even put the word "court" in quotes and avoided using a wall of text for you to lessen any risk of confusion.

Let's try again.

You claimed "courts seem very eager to prove it"

I asked "what court is out to prove it?"


I'm asking for a specific court you're referring to. "court"

[Blake]

Um, ad homenims aren't based on being false. In fact, most ad homenims are true.

Lol wut. Cite your reference, professor.

And your use of ad hominem here is textbook.

[Blake]

Cops need to be better than what? And which cops?

Cops need to be better than the general movie watching populace.

All cops responding to bomb calls.

[TheSanityAnnex]

If it's obviously not a bomb, he never tried to pretend it was one, If it was obviously not a bomb, and clock boy never pretended it was a bomb, why did clock boy say he made modifications to make it look less suspicious? I take his statement as he knew he was bringing something to school that could be mistaken for a bomb, how do you interpret his "make it look less suspicious" comment?

[Quetzal-X]

Too much tabloid teevee and hollywood tbh

[DarrinS]

Still makes no sense to just take the electronics out of one enclosure, slap them into another enclosure, and think you'd impress a teacher.

[DarrinS]

And the first teacher advised him not to show anyone else for some odd reason. Hmmm, what could that reason be?

[Blake]

And the first teacher advised him not to show anyone else for some odd reason. Hmmm, what could that reason be?

Why didn't the first teacher get scared

[Blake]

If it was obviously not a bomb, and clock boy never pretended it was a bomb, why did clock boy say he made modifications to make it look less suspicious? I take his statement as he knew he was bringing something to school that could be mistaken for a bomb, how do you interpret his "make it look less suspicious" comment?

He made it less suspicious so that he wouldn't get in trouble seems plausible enough.

If he really wanted to scare people, why didn't he make it more suspicious?

[DarrinS]

Why didn't the first teacher get scared

Was supposedly an engineer teacher, so probably understood it wasn't dangerous, but might appear dangerous to laypersons.

[vy65]

LvvQJ_zsL1U

[TheSanityAnnex]

He made it less suspicious so that he wouldn't get in trouble seems plausible enough.

If he really wanted to scare people, why didn't he make it more suspicious?

So he wouldn't get in trouble for what?

[Blake]

Was supposedly an engineer teacher, so probably understood it wasn't dangerous, but might appear dangerous to laypersons.

K, should have been enough right there not to get arrested

[Blake]

So he wouldn't get in trouble for what?

For bringing a digital clock to school that might look like something from MacGyver to some people.

So he tried to make it less suspicious.

And then told his first teacher about the clock.

[Quetzal-X]

lol macgyver got'em rattled

pussified murikkkans

[vy65]

So he wouldn't get in trouble for what?

https://etribuneblogs.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/29.jpg

[TheSanityAnnex]

For bringing a digital clock to school that might look like something from MacGyver to some people.

So he tried to make it less suspicious.

And then told his first teacher about the clock.Why would he bring something to school that he already admittedly knew would be viewed as suspicious?

[vy65]

So he wouldn't get in trouble for what?


“Anyone with even a basic hobby-level understanding could see it was a commercially available mass-produced product that was just taken out of its enclosure, and placed in a pencil box,” DiPasquale told The Daily Beast. “So I read some more about the story, and nowhere did I see anybody actually bring that point up.”

“Here we have a social media frenzy going on, with everybody to the president of the United States giving him a pat on the back, and I started thinking less about the clock, and more about us, as a society,” he added.
The public outcry over Mohamed’s arrest was also, presumably, less about the clock and more about what it says about us, as a society, that such a thing would happen.

DiPasquale questioned if other aspects of the teenager’s story about the clock aren’t being fully reported or fact-checked by reporters. In one interview, for example, Mohamed says he closed the pencil case with a cord so it wouldn’t look suspicious in school.

“I’m curious, why would ‘looking suspicious’ have even crossed his mind before this whole event unfolded, if he was truly showing off a hobby project, something so innocuous as an alarm clock. Why did he choose a pencil box, one that looks like a miniature briefcase no less, as an enclosure for a clock?” DiPasquale wrote.

Since carrying a pencil box is not a crime, Mohamed does not, presumably, owe anyone an explanation. But DiPasquale says that Mohamed and his poorly repurposed clock aren’t the problem—it’s the knee-jerk reaction from the press and social media activists crying racism and attacking school administrators and police without knowing all the facts.


A research scientist narrated a similar takedown of Mohamed’s device on YouTube and faced a surge of negative comments accusing him of racism and of picking on a 14-year-old kid.

Thomas Talbot, an electronics author and prominent medical virtual reality scientist, said the clock’s printed circuit boards and ribbon cables, along with the 9-volt battery backup, are signs of a commercial product.
In his video, Talbot displays a photo of Mohamed’s clock and on screen, flashes an arrow over a tangle of cords jutting from the case. “This was put in here to look like a device, with these cables and these… to look like a device that would be suspicious, and I think intentionally so,” he says of the design.

“This is simply taking a clock out of its case, and I think probably for provocative reasons, intentionally,” he said in his video. He did not elaborate further.

“When I saw this, I thought, ‘We’re getting duped here,’” Talbot told The Daily Beast, adding, “Anybody who knows electronics really well needs less than five seconds to know that was a clock taken out of the box.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/21/nerds-rage-over-ahmed-s-clock.html

[Blake]

https://etribuneblogs.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/29.jpg

http://www.martyduren.com/2015/09/19/that-ahmeds-clock-vs-suitcase-bomb-meme-its-more-fake-news/

Lol vy65

[Blake]

Why would he bring something to school that he already admittedly knew would be viewed as suspicious?

He wanted to show off the clock.

Why didn't the cops press charges if you think this issue is such a big deal?

[vy65]

http://www.martyduren.com/2015/09/19/that-ahmeds-clock-vs-suitcase-bomb-meme-its-more-fake-news/

Lol vy65

First comment.

Lazy, psuedo-intellectual missing the point again.

lol Blake.

Is this one better?

https://i.imgur.com/rfbikJz.jpg

[TheSanityAnnex]

He wanted to show off the clock.

Why didn't the cops press charges if you think this issue is such a big deal?

:lol thinking that was worthy of showing off. If you truly believe that this brilliant inventor kid found this slopped together taken apart clock lol invention I can see where you are coming from but I don't buy it for a minute. He didn't "invent" anything to show off IMO. He pulled a prank and brought something he admittedly knew was suspicious and could be viewed as a bomb. I don't think he expected the overreaction and the fame though, that was just a bonus for his family and him.

[Blake]

:lol thinking that was worthy of showing off. If you truly believe that this brilliant inventor kid found this slopped together taken apart clock lol invention I can see where you are coming from but I don't buy it for a minute. He didn't "invent" anything to show off IMO. He pulled a prank and brought something he admittedly knew was suspicious and could be viewed as a bomb. I don't think he expected the overreaction and the fame though, that was just a bonus for his family and him.

So now his clock was just slopped together. You guys need to make up your mind if he's a hack or an evil genius.

Again, if it's such an issue for you that he tried to make it "less suspicious" why were there no charges filed

[Blake]

First comment.

Lazy, psuedo-intellectual missing the point again.

Lol second post. Lazy, un-intellectual getting duped.

lol vy65

[Blake]

Is this one better?

https://i.imgur.com/rfbikJz.jpg

Lol, just as stupid, mcgyver

[TheSanityAnnex]

So now his clock was just slopped together. You guys need to make up your mind if he's a hack or an evil genius.

Again, if it's such an issue for you that he tried to make it "less suspicious" why were there no charges filedYes it was slopped together and nothing about it was brilliant. Do you think it could even be called an invention? It doesn't matter whether it was slopped together or meticulously crafted, his intent remains the same as he admitted he knew it would look suspicious.

Charging him with a hoax bomb would have been suicide for the district and the cops after the faggot brigade caused such an uproar on social media. Not that I think charges should have been filed anyways, I'm fine with how Ahmed was treated, I doubt he tries to pull anymore stunts like that at school.

My whole problem with the entire thing is he knew it was suspicious and brought it to school anyways, and then he repeatedly pulled it out to get a reaction after being told multiple times to put it away. If the SJW faggot brigade had stayed out of this Ahmed would have learned a lesson the hard way, instead the little fucker became famous playing the victim of :cry my brown skin :cry fuck that little faggot

[vy65]

Lol second post. Lazy, un-intellectual getting duped.

lol vy65

What, this comment:


Ok. I did.

What's your point?

It's answered literally immediately below. I don't know why this is that hard for you:


The point is obvious.
It's not unreasonable to consider Ahmed's "clock" to be a suspect hoax bomb, which explains why it was investigated.
People don't want to admit that their first instinct about this story was wrong. And the respond by playing dumb.

I get you wanna play your snarky psuedo-intellectual SJW role, but it really is obvious. The kid pulled the guts of a clock out and put it in a small brief case. There was no ingenuity or creativity involved in what the kid did. What he made looks like a bomb to most people. And he took it to school. If he were white, you'd call him an idiot. But because he's brown, you semen shield him.

[vy65]

Lol, just as stupid, mcgyver

Explain why it's stupid?

[mingus]

Cops need to be better than the general movie watching populace.

All cops responding to bomb calls.

Not better than "who"--better than "what".

What do they need to be better than?

[Blake]

What, this comment:



It's answered literally immediately below. I don't know why this is that hard for you:



I get you wanna play your snarky psuedo-intellectual SJW role, but it really is obvious. The kid pulled the guts of a clock out and put it in a small brief case. There was no ingenuity or creativity involved in what the kid did. What he made looks like a bomb to most people. And he took it to school. If he were white, you'd call him an idiot. But because he's brown, you semen shield him.

It's still a fraud meme.

[Blake]

Explain why it's stupid?

Because lots of things other than suitcase clocks can be bombs

[mingus]

I've to admit, Blake, I'm confused. At first you claimed that the reason Ahmed was arrested is because of his ethnicity/religion. You claimed, it looked like a bomb to authorities with Ahmed in the picture. Now tho you seem to be saying the authorities didn't know what a bomb looks like, notwithstanding Ahmed. Was it the ineptitude of authorities in terms of their bomb discernment capabilities, the prejudice of authorities, or both IYO?

I'm assumming it's the latter.

I agree that it could've been a prejudicial thing, but I don't think it is all its blown up (no pun intended) to be in that regard. I think, all things being equal, if it was non-Muslim kid, the same thing basically would've happened. ("basically" because I've little doubt his ethnicity was taken into consideredation at some point leading up to and after the arrest--and you'll probably disagree with me here, but I think it should have given both the pervasiveness of Muslim extremism & its relatively high acceptability among young Muslim kids & adolescents as compared to others). BUT, I don't think it was WHY he was arrested. He was arrested IMO because he brought to school what looks like a briefcase bomb prop--to you, to me, and to many others--and that warrants detainment and/or arrest (the latter being warranted only if the issue of time doesn't permit only a detainment, of course, since there was no probable cause) in and of itself. It may have been accidental resemblance or intentional that his device looked like one. I don't know what was going through his head. But you have to know when you bring in shit like that to school that it ain't gonna be taken lightly.

[ElNono]

But the "changing of the times" isn't a movement independent of individuals. It's the gestalt of our collective opinions and actions, and the more people who stand against the current movements, the more dirigible those movements become. That's how almost all social or cultural change happens, including this current PC movement. If we can get to a point where PC is the standard but people are fully aware of its limitations, then the fighting was worth it. It's in fact good for any movement for it to be opposed vehemently, so it can be honed and refined.

I never made the claim that's independent from individuals. How culture forms is a different story, and frankly, a can of worms in itself. There's constant fight for cultural change, some more strident than others. Some succeed, some don't. Even those that succeed, sometimes are just a fad. But taking culture as a whole, at any given point in time, what you have is a collection of fights that have been fought before and we largely found a consensus on, and some other that are ongoing. For the smoker or racist that didn't adapt to the current times, it just probably leads to a miserable and/or bitter life (right now). I'm not opposed to the racist or smoker to state their case, their opinions are as valid as anybody, but this leads to the other thing I was mentioning: it's very likely that there's little audience for them because we reached a certain consensus a while ago about those topics, and there hasn't been any meaningful new developments to deviate from that.


Eh, I disagree on that. I think when controlling for how accessible information is, we are as shut as we've ever been. This is what Obama was talking about not too long ago:

My counterargument to that is that it's one venue (the college campus). There's almost limitless venues nowadays to get exposure on what you want. If what you write is legitimately interesting, you'll have an audience and your opinion will be heard. There will always be people that don't want to hear the other side of a story, but you, as an individual, have more resources than perhaps ever to reach those opinions you might want to hear (or the criticism to those opinions). This isn't like older times when if Newspaper XXX didn't publish you or TV show XXX didn't do a segment on your stuff, your idea wouldn't get out there.


I think there has been a fundamental shift in the progressive movement over the past few years. Before, it was about expanding negative and basic positive rights for multiple classes. And that's still the case with LGBT people. But now that we've pretty much secured those rights for everyone, we are looking at limiting rights so that people aren't offended. This is a complete turn from the previous speech movements where it was expanding people's rights to be offensive.

It's like it's crossed some line and forced liberals and conservatives to swap roles. So it's trajectory is concerning, as it's now unpredictable. If progressives are going to be the ones limiting rights in order to protect sensitivities while conservatives don't really want to expand rights, when where is right's theory headed?

I don't even see this as a political issue as much as a logical one. There's likely nothing to lose from being PC, whereas there's potentially something to lose by taking some non-PC positions, at least in the current cultural context.

[Blake]

I've to admit, Blake, I'm confused. At first you claimed that the reason Ahmed was arrested is because of his ethnicity/religion. You claimed, it looked like a bomb to authorities with Ahmed in the picture. Now tho you seem to be saying the authorities didn't know what a bomb looks like, notwithstanding Ahmed. Was it the ineptitude of authorities in terms of their bomb discernment capabilities, the prejudice of authorities, or both IYO?

Seems like most all that, imo. A mix of incompetence and prejudice, imo.

If cops are gonna be responding to bomb threats and bomb hoaxes, they've got to be better than that.

[Blake]

Not better than "who"--better than "what".

What do they need to be better than?

Same thing, you're just changing the pronoun.

They can't be arresting people for carrying clocks that might pass as a bomb on an amateur movie. It's ridiculous.

[mingus]

Same thing, you're just changing the pronoun.

They can't be arresting people for carrying clocks that might pass as a bomb on an amateur movie. It's ridiculous.

It's not the same thing. I know who the "who" is. You've stated that. But I don't know "what" you want them to be better than, when you say they need to do better than that. Better than what? That's such a vague statement.

It's the difference between their supposed ineptitude in being able to recognize a bomb from a bomb prop, and how they handle the issue of a kid bringing in what looks like bomb prop, and is recognized as such, to school.

How long should've the investigation lasted? How would you have handled it? What specifically, did the cops need to be better at in this situation?

[Winehole23]

:lol I always do this or I cannot interpret that but you don't judge? Your ship is sinking, sir.What ship?

I'm very judgmental, but not quite so passionate as you flatter yourself to think.

[Winehole23]

You know who referred to that clock as "suspicious"? The "inventor" himself.Expecting LEOs to be no brighter than 14 year olds, then demanding we all bow to their judgment: so DarrinS.

[Winehole23]

IRL, Ahmed trolled em good

[Blake]

It's not the same thing. I know who the "who" is. You've stated that. But I don't know "what" you want them to be better than, when you say they need to do better than that. Better than what? That's such a vague statement.


The what is what the who are doing in your scenario: thinking that it might be a mcgyver bomb.

And I think the cops were better than that here, figuring out reasonably quick enough to realize it was just a simple clock.

[Blake]

It's the difference between their supposed ineptitude in being able to recognize a bomb from a bomb prop, and how they handle the issue of a kid bringing in what looks like bomb prop, and is recognized as such, to school.

How long should've the investigation lasted? How would you have handled it? What specifically, did the cops need to be better at in this situation?

The cops were better than the general populace that called the police about a possible bomb on the campus.
That's where the "better than that" stops for your original scenario, which really didn't set a very high bar "to be better than" in the first place.

Once they determined it wasn't a bomb, their next question was "is this a hoax bomb?"

The investigation should've lasted long enough to interview everyone involved in the situation. Without any evidence of Ahmed acting like it might be anything other than a clock, they shouldn't have arrested him. They've got to be better than that.

And if they ended up arresting him because they're Islamophobes, they've really got to be better than that.

[Chinook]

I don't think I could have asked the question any clearer. I even put the word "court" in quotes and avoided using a wall of text for you to lessen any risk of confusion.

Are you asking which courts have tried to prove discrimination? In a way, I'm clearly wrong, since courts don't prove anything. However, what I meant was that they don't seem to be shying away from making rulings on it, as all of these threads recently demonstrate. The court has been pretty keen on making hard lines against discrimination, so I don't buy that this is an issue the DOJ is struggling to resolve.

[Chinook]

Lol wut. Cite your reference, professor.

And your use of ad hominem here is textbook.

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


Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]


?Abusive ad hominem usually involves attacking the traits of an opponent as a means to invalidate their argument(s). Equating someone's character with the soundness of their argument is a logical fallacy.
Ad hominem abuse is not to be confused with slander or libel, which employ falsehoods and are not necessarily leveled to undermine otherwise sound stands with character attacks.


Ad hominem circumstantial points out that someone is in circumstances such that they are disposed to take a particular position. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).[7]


The circumstantial fallacy applies only where the source taking a position is only making a logical argument from premises that are generally accepted. Where the source seeks to convince an audience of the truth of a premise by a claim of authority or by personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero.[8]


So you need to brush up on your textbooks. I can call you names all day, but unless that's the reason I'm using to counter your arguments, they aren't ad homenims. Meanwhile, I can be as gentle as you like, but if I assert that you aren't in a position to make an argument, then it's an ad homenim.

[boutons_deux]

"desensitize" :lol

[Blake]

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







So you need to brush up on your textbooks. I can call you names all day, but unless that's the reason I'm using to counter your arguments, they aren't ad homenims. Meanwhile, I can be as gentle as you like, but if I assert that you aren't in a position to make an argument, then it's an ad homenim.

Yep, your use of "pseudo intellectual" here is text book ad hominem.

Nope, you still haven't backed up your claim that most ad hominems are true.

Try again, professor.

[Blake]

The court has been pretty keen on making hard lines against discrimination, so I don't buy that this is an issue the DOJ is struggling to resolve.

Nobody is arguing that they're struggling, strawman.

But they are investigating the school district for civil rights violation (s). That's a fact.

Now put up another wall of text of nonsense. Chip chop.

[Chinook]

Yep, your use of "pseudo intellectual" here is text book ad hominem.

Why do you think that? What points have you made (at all really, but) where that was my reason for disagreeing with you?


Nope, you still haven't backed up your claim that most ad hominems are true.

Then you didn't read the parts of the article I quoted.


Try again, professor.

Just admit you have no idea what proper argumentative structure is. Or in the very least, you have no respect for it. And that's fine; it's just completely pseudo-intellectual to try to claim any intellectual high road when you can't make it through a basic argument without breaking ranks and throwing shit against the way.

[mingus]

The cops were better than the general populace that called the police about a possible bomb on the campus.
That's where the "better than that" stops for your original scenario, which really didn't set a very high bar "to be better than" in the first place.

Once they determined it wasn't a bomb, their next question was "is this a hoax bomb?"

The investigation should've lasted long enough to interview everyone involved in the situation. Without any evidence of Ahmed acting like it might be anything other than a clock, they shouldn't have arrested him. They've got to be better than that.

And if they ended up arresting him because they're Islamophobes, they've really got to be better than that.

I posed the question because it's more than identifying whether it's an actual bomb or not. How the general populace perceives it is important. I wasn't using it as a measuring stick for cops--that was your doing. Maybe I misscommunicated what I was trying to say, I dunno I'm not gonna go back and read it. But whatever, I have a clearer picture of your reasoning. I know what I need to know about your POV here to move on from that.

As I pointed out before, an arrest can be made for a variety of different reasons. There doesn't have to be probable cause to arrest someone, and when there isn't probable cause it doesn't have to be an illegitimate arrest based on prejudice or incompetence. An arrest can be made if the investigation while the suspect is being detained takes longer than does the accepted time for a detainment--~20 mins--in which case the arrest is purely and merely a matter of procedure/formality. These aren't typical but they happen in certain scenarios, and I think this one may qualify. As you said, "the investigation should've lasted long enough to interview everyone involved in the situation." That's potentially a long time. He, his parents, friends, students, teachers could've/should've been interviewed to get to the bottom of it. He may have been arrested because time didn't permit just a detainment. If the arrest was made for any other reason, then I agree, they have to be better than that.

[Chinook]

But they are investigating the school district for civil rights violation (s). That's a fact.

You've yet to support that they are only concerned with the school's actions and not the circumstances around the incident. You also made the claim that it's hard to show discrimination in a legit court case. My counter to that was to say that courts are having an easy enough time siding with the accussors.

You don't know what a strawman is, either.

[Blake]

Why do you think that? What points have you made (at all really, but) where that was my reason for disagreeing with you?


Well if you're saying you called me a pseudo intellectual for no reason other than to be a dick, just come out and say so.



Then you didn't read the parts of the article I quoted.



Just admit you have no idea what proper argumentative structure is. Or in the very least, you have no respect for it. And that's fine; it's just completely pseudo-intellectual to try to claim any intellectual high road when you can't make it through a basic argument without breaking ranks and throwing shit against the way.

You threw up a dumpster full of words and you're telling me I should dig for it.

It's not in there. There's no source anywhere that says most ad hominems are true.

You talk out of your ass and you try to camouflage it by putting it in a mountain of drivel. Then when called out, you throw up another wall of text.

It's fascinating to watch, tbh.

[Blake]

You've yet to support that they are only concerned with the school's actions and not the circumstances around the incident. You also made the claim that it's hard to show discrimination in a legit court case. My counter to that was to say that courts are having an easy enough time siding with the accussors.

You don't know what a strawman is, either.


If there's enough evidence of discrimination in a case, of course a court will have an easy time in finding a defendant guilty.

Are you trying to say the court system is biased?

Give a case you're specifically referring to.

[DarrinS]

The kid pulled the guts of a clock out and put it in a small brief case. There was no ingenuity or creativity involved in what the kid did. What he made looks like a bomb to most people. And he took it to school. If he were white, you'd call him an idiot. But because he's brown, you semen shield him.


Yep

[Blake]

If he were white would he have gotten arrested

[DarrinS]

If he were white would he have gotten arrested


Schools are totally cool with toy guns and fake bombs (clocks) as long as you're white.

because det white privilege

:tu

[Blake]

Schools are totally cool with toy guns and fake bombs (clocks) as long as you're white.

because det white privilege

:tu

Well if he were to get arrested in exactly the same manner after showing off his clock to the teacher, then there's no discrimination, just more stupidity

[DarrinS]

Well if he were to get arrested in exactly the same manner after showing off his clock to the teacher, then there's no discrimination, just more stupidity

If he was white, they'd be talking about what a genius he is, offering him scholarships, inviting him on talk shows, inviting him to the White House.

Oh, wait.

[Blake]

If he was white, they'd be talking about what a genius he is, offering him scholarships, inviting him on talk shows, inviting him to the White House.

Oh, wait.

Minus the arrest

[russellgoat]

There's excesses on pretty much everything, PC is not an outlier on that, but our culture is what it is at any given time. You adapt to the times or the times leave you behind. There's plenty of examples about cultural shifts, from, say, smoking, to music, to clothing, to everything. We do live in a world now where you can find anything you want, pretty much, as far as opinion and information. It's up to you to be critical about how you inform yourself, and what you build your opinions on.

I just don't buy there's muzzling going on, when the exact opposite is probably true, there's more access to a gradient of opinions right now than ever before (and I'm not saying that's always great).

And overall, I don't think these cultural changes bring the "destruction" of our society or anything close to that, tbh. There might be pro and cons, but there's ample room to debate that.

If people just "adapted to the times" we wouldn't have any changes we have seen in the past decades.

[ElNono]

If people just "adapted to the times" we wouldn't have any changes we have seen in the past decades.

That makes no sense. People adapting and learning to live with the cultural rules du jour (even if they don't like or support some of them) happens all the time. Meanwhile, you have "cultural wars" being fought that will define what the "culture du jour" will look like later on in time. It's a constantly evolving process, but, you can stop at any point in time and more or less have a clear idea of what the main rules are at that point in time. And there's very few cases where the vast majority didn't adapt (off the top of my head, Prohibition comes to mind).

[russellgoat]

That makes no sense. People adapting and learning to live with the cultural rules du jour (even if they don't like or support some of them) happens all the time. Meanwhile, you have "cultural wars" being fought that will define what the "culture du jour" will look like later on in time. It's a constantly evolving process, but, you can stop at any point in time and more or less have a clear idea of what the main rules are at that point in time. And there's very few cases where the vast majority didn't adapt (off the top of my head, Prohibition comes to mind).

Yeah, I know most people adapt, but people also know that there are those who don't and sometimes succeed in changing the consensus. Being stubborn about your unpopular ideas is not always bad in the long run.

[ElNono]

Yeah, I know most people adapt, but people also know that there are those who don't and sometimes succeed in changing the consensus. Being stubborn about your unpopular ideas is not always bad in the long run.

Most of the time it is though, especially when your ideas are stuck in the past, and we did get new cultural developments that moved us to this stage.

I mean I have no problem with people that refuse to adapt, it's always their choice to live a miserable and bitter life (at least when it comes to the particular cultural phenomena), which is what mostly happens with people that don't move on.

But that's entirely their choice or problem, that's what I was pointing out a few posts back.

[spankadelphia]

The thing about the linear-progressive Whig view of history is that it's complete bullshit. Progress is not and never has been a one way street. Civilizations rise and fall. We're in the decline stage right now. Relativity and PC culture have effectively ended the advancement of knowledge of the human condition in the name of egalitarianism. "Gonna need mo money fo dem programs." "Das racist!" "Kill the farmer! Kill the Boer!"

The barbarians are at the gates.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What ship?

I'm very judgmental, but not quite so passionate as you flatter yourself to think.

I called you spiteful. I've even correlated several times now what topic makes you critical; factual arguments are as difficult as tao. I have no idea what your moment to moment state of mind is. I don't go much beyond to say that any time I talk of the god delusion you come at me waspish as you do here. You are quite the passive aggressive snit.

You are amusing when you go faux patrician btw. Telling me not to flatter myself as you proclaim yourself judge. Shall I take it as satire or were you trying to be serious?

[Chinook]

Well if you're saying you called me a pseudo intellectual for no reason other than to be a dick, just come out and say so.

I called you pseudo-intellectual because I think you are, or at least that you've presented yourself that way through our discourses. I've already explained exactly what I meant by that many times already. The point is that it's not an ad homenim, even if you find it insulting.

The point of ad homenims isn't to insult your opponent. It is to discredit them personally in hopes of discrediting their argument. When you make a false claim, especially one that's easy to see as false, you're making a bad ad homenim. Logical fallacies aren't supposed to be off-the-wall stupid. They're supposed to be close enough to good form that people who don't know the rules will take them as legitimate strategies.


You threw up a dumpster full of words and you're telling me I should dig for it.

I gave you three paragraphs (out of a much longer article) with bolded statements. It was a total of 60 words. WTF is wrong with you?


You talk out of your ass and you try to camouflage it by putting it in a mountain of drivel. Then when called out, you throw up another wall of text.

Lol, you haven't called anyone out. The closest you've come is talking about my spelling. The truth is that you want so badly to take intellectual high-road, calling out fallacies and logic and such, but you haven't done any work to get there. You can't talk about what "text book" examples of things are when three paragraphs and 60 bolded words constitute a wall of text. It's anti-intellectual and bad argumentative form. The same goes for your near-complete lack of a constructive and your unwillingness to appealing to the stone as a rebuttal.

[Chinook]

If there's enough evidence of discrimination in a case, of course a court will have an easy time in finding a defendant guilty.

Are you trying to say the court system is biased?

You make it sound like it's cut-and-dried. It's not. What passes the bar for sufficient evidence changes with the times. I think the courts are significantly more victim-friendly than they used to be. It's not really bias as much as it is that precedents have established new standards.

But this is getting away from your original point. So are convinced that there was discrimination while also believing the DOJ has yet to collect sufficient evidence to feel confident in taking this to court. Is that interpretation correct? If so, what do you think they're lacking, and why is that not important enough for you to wait before passing judgment?

[Blake]

Civilizations rise and fall. We're in the decline stage right now.

When was our civilization's peak, iyo? Approximate year or decade

[Blake]

I called you pseudo-intellectual because I think you are, or at least that you've presented yourself that way through our discourses. I've already explained exactly what I meant by that many times already. The point is that it's not an ad homenim, even if you find it insulting.

The point of ad homenims isn't to insult your opponent. It is to discredit them personally in hopes of discrediting their argument. When you make a false claim, especially one that's easy to see as false, you're making a bad ad homenim. Logical fallacies aren't supposed to be off-the-wall stupid. They're supposed to be close enough to good form that people who don't know the rules will take them as legitimate strategies.



I gave you three paragraphs (out of a much longer article) with bolded statements. It was a total of 60 words. WTF is wrong with you?



Lol, you haven't called anyone out. The closest you've come is talking about my spelling. The truth is that you want so badly to take intellectual high-road, calling out fallacies and logic and such, but you haven't done any work to get there. You can't talk about what "text book" examples of things are when three paragraphs and 60 bolded words constitute a wall of text. It's anti-intellectual and bad argumentative form. The same goes for your near-complete lack of a constructive and your unwillingness to appealing to the stone as a rebuttal.

A wall of text?

No way...

[Chinook]

A wall of text?

No way...

Appealing to the stone?

No way...

[Blake]

You make it sound like it's cut-and-dried. It's not. What passes the bar for sufficient evidence changes with the times. I think the courts are significantly more victim-friendly than they used to be. It's not really bias as much as it is that precedents have established new standards.

But this is getting away from your original point. So are convinced that there was discrimination while also believing the DOJ has yet to collect sufficient evidence to feel confident in taking this to court. Is that interpretation correct? If so, what do you think they're lacking, and why is that not important enough for you to wait before passing judgment?

They're lacking hard evidence. Or they're still collecting it. How long do you think it's supposed to take?

I think it's all circumstantial and they won't have enough of anything prosecute. But we'll see.

[Blake]

Appealing to the stone?

No way...

Mistaking tldr for a fallacy?

Par.

[Chinook]

They're lacking hard evidence. Or they're still collecting it. How long do you think it's supposed to take?

I honestly don't think something like this should take long. We're not assuming there was anything continuous going on, so it's not like there's some systematic issue they're trying to take down. Either they can show it's discrimination or they can't. I don't think it's unrealistic to expect them to either shit or get off the pot after six months.


I think it's all circumstantial and they won't have enough of anything prosecute. But we'll see.

Probably. And we will see. But what I think we won't see is if they do find mitigating circumstances. I think it'll either go to court (settlement) against the school/police or it won't. Even if Ahmed was exacerbating the situation, I don't think we'll ever know.

[Chinook]

Mistaking tldr for a fallacy?

Par.

Lol, you don't even know what a fallacy is. tl;dr has ALWAYS been fallacious.

[Blake]

Lol, you don't even know what a fallacy is. tl;dr has ALWAYS been fallacious.

Srs? You think tldr is a fallacy?

Lololol.

[Chinook]

Srs? You think tldr is a fallacy?

Lololol.

Yes. It's obvious at this point that "fallacy" is something you think you're just supposed to say to sound smart.

[Blake]

I honestly don't think something like this should take long. We're not assuming there was anything continuous going on, so it's not like there's some systematic issue they're trying to take down. Either they can show it's discrimination or they can't. I don't think it's unrealistic to expect them to either shit or get off the pot after six months.

".....shouldn’t expect the Justice Department’s*investigation to be quick. Typical civil rights investigations conducted by the department have taken between 12 and 18 months, The Post found. The Justice Department*has about 15 attorneys assigned to the investigations, each handling several cases at once."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/12/08/the-department-of-justice-is-investigating-police-misconduct-in-chicago-now-what/

[Blake]

Yes. It's obvious at this point that "fallacy" is something you think you're just supposed to say to sound smart.

The irony is too thick.

[Chinook]

".....shouldn’t expect the Justice Department’s*investigation to be quick. Typical civil rights investigations conducted by the department have taken between 12 and 18 months, The Post found. The Justice Department*has about 15 attorneys assigned to the investigations, each handling several cases at once."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/12/08/the-department-of-justice-is-investigating-police-misconduct-in-chicago-now-what/

True in the sense that the DOJ tends to be slow as hell. But as I mentioned before, I can't see the rationale over what we're all considering an isolated incident. The article you posted was about multiple incidents and apparently going high up the chain. I'm not saying that this Irving school doesn't have multiple incidents, but I just don't know what would warrant this amount of investigation.

[Blake]

I honestly don't think something like this should take long... I don't think it's unrealistic to expect them to either shit or get off the pot after six months.


True in the sense that the DOJ tends to be slow as hell.


It's only been 5 months so far

[MultiTroll]

Are you comfortable attending an NBA game with Al-Farouq Aminu on the roster?
http://bmoregossip.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/al-farouq-aminu.jpg

http://espn.go.com/nba/player/_/id/4248/al-farouq-aminu

[Blake]

Are you comfortable attending an NBA game with Al-Farouq Aminu on the roster?
http://bmoregossip.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/al-farouq-aminu.jpg

http://espn.go.com/nba/player/_/id/4248/al-farouq-aminu

You're not. You're ready to water board him.

[MultiTroll]

You're not. You're ready to water board him.
pppsssh that is so 2003.
I have far more advanced methods of saving thousands of innocent lives.

[Chinook]

It's only been 5 months so far

Seven months actually. It happened on 9/14, according to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Mohamed_clock_incident

[Blake]

Seven months actually. It happened on 9/14, according to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Mohamed_clock_incident

Your reading comp skills really blow.

It's no wonder you're struggling with recognizing fallacies.

And even if it was 7 months, big deal. Who are you to say how long an investigation should take. As long as they get it right, that's all that should matter.

[Chinook]

Your reading comp skills really blow.

It's no wonder you're struggling with recognizing fallacies.

And even if it was 7 months, big deal. Who are you to say how long an investigation should take.

:rolleyes

[Blake]

:rolleyes

You think the DOJ investigation started the day he brought the clock to school. Official announcement was made ~ Dec 4, but at earliest, the investigation started early November.

Do you understand?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Lol, you don't even know what a fallacy is. tl;dr has ALWAYS been fallacious.

No, it just means you're obtuse to where you are. When you start writing 8 sentence paragraphs nobody reads that shit.

[mingus]

No, it just means you're obtuse to where you are. When you start writing 8 sentence paragraphs nobody reads that shit.

Speak for yourself.

Don't project your shitty, bitchy attitude on me.

[mingus]

lol spelling corrections.

And ya wanna talk about being "obtuse to where you are"?

GMAGDB.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol mini-meltdown.

I'm not talking grammar. I'm talking about basic communication skills.

I'll help. We're on an online forum. When you write in large paragraphs of 6 or more sentences, most people don't read it.

[mingus]

:lol mini-meltdown.

I'm not talking grammar. I'm talking about basic communication skills.

I'll help. We're on an online forum. When you write in large paragraphs of 6 or more sentences, most people don't read it.

You've waived every flag there is to wave on message board that I know of that indicates your argumentation just ain't workin'.

From spell correcting to tl;dr to now accusing me of having a meltdown to the lol emojg when there's really nothing THAT funny.

What other flags are there?

[MultiTroll]

You're not. You're ready to water board him.
http://bmoregossip.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/al-farouq-aminu.jpg
See his right middle finger, how it is pressed down about an inch while the other fingers are all even.
That was a signal to his operatives to blow up the stadium. We obtained that information by methods which included probing them with large objects. They sang like birds. 14,432 lives were saved that night.

He is now under our hypnosis and is being allowed to continue in the NBA while we gather information from him.
His would be murdercide cohorts have been disposed of. You and FromWayDowntown have no way of bringing them back to do carnage.

[Blake]

http://bmoregossip.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/al-farouq-aminu.jpg
See his right middle finger, how it is pressed down about an inch while the other fingers are all even.
That was a signal to his operatives to blow up the stadium. We obtained that information by methods which included probing them with large objects. They sang like birds. 14,432 lives were saved that night.

He is now under our hypnosis and is being allowed to continue in the NBA while we gather information from him.
His would be murdercide cohorts have been disposed of. You and FromWayDowntown have no way of bringing them back to do carnage.

1/10

[Chinook]

You think the DOJ investigation started the day he brought the clock to school. Official announcement was made ~ Dec 4, but at earliest, the investigation started early November.

Do you understand?

That just underscores the point. It shouldn't take two months to decide that you're going to start investigating this. I mean, we were all over it by then. The kid was already in Qatar. Way, way too slowly.

[Blake]

That just underscores the point. It shouldn't take two months to decide that you're going to start investigating this. I mean, we were all over it by then. The kid was already in Qatar. Way, way too slowly.

Lol "we were all over it by then".

The formal complaint to the DOJ wasn't made until late October.

You really have no idea how enforcement agencies like the DOJ work, do you.

It's really okay to admit you don't know. It's better than talking out of your ass.

[russellgoat]

Most of the time it is though, especially when your ideas are stuck in the past, and we did get new cultural developments that moved us to this stage.

I mean I have no problem with people that refuse to adapt, it's always their choice to live a miserable and bitter life (at least when it comes to the particular cultural phenomena), which is what mostly happens with people that don't move on.

But that's entirely their choice or problem, that's what I was pointing out a few posts back.

If you are an open minded person that adapts to everything please stop pretending the modern version of Manu doesn't suck.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You've waived every flag there is to wave on message board that I know of that indicates your argumentation just ain't workin'.

From spell correcting to tl;dr to now accusing me of having a meltdown to the lol emojg when there's really nothing THAT funny.

What other flags are there?

Did you every wonder why newspapers write in small 2 or 3 sentence paragraphs? Because nobody wants to read that shit. The intellectual laziness around this place is particularly notable.

You were multiposting spamwise. That is what people do when they get upset. Going on multiple accounts to try and make a point is just rich. Megalomania from those hiding behind trolls is sweet delusion. You are nothing if not typical to your type.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Did you every wonder why newspapers write in small 2 or 3 sentence paragraphs? Because nobody wants to read that shit. The intellectual laziness around this place is particularly notable.

You were multiposting spamwise. That is what people do when they get upset. Going on multiple accounts to try and make a point is just rich. Megalomania from those hiding behind trolls is sweet delusion. You are nothing if not typical to your type.
Yet another Fuzzy alt claim swing and a miss. :lol

[Big Dog]

Did you every wonder why newspapers write in small 2 or 3 sentence paragraphs? Because nobody wants to read that shit. The intellectual laziness around this place is particularly notable.

You were multiposting spamwise. That is what people do when they get upset. Going on multiple accounts to try and make a point is just rich. Megalomania from those hiding behind trolls is sweet delusion. You are nothing if not typical to your type.
That's telling him

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yet another Fuzzy alt claim swing and a miss. :lol

How would you know?

He changed handles mid convo and continued along the same line of thought. It is what it is.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That's telling him

:lol You like making me angry huh?

[TheSanityAnnex]

How would you know?

He changed handles mid convo and continued along the same line of thought. It is what it is.
no it is not "it is what it is". mingus was not posting under an alt. Please share what alt you think he was posting under, it's very easy to verify.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

no it is not "it is what it is". mingus was not posting under an alt. Please share what alt you think he was posting under, it's very easy to verify.

If you cannot tell from the flow of the conversation then you are as stupid as I think you are. My days of explaining things to you so you have get attention ended quite some time ago. I'm not hitting view post next time so have fun.

[TheSanityAnnex]

If you cannot tell from the flow of the conversation then you are as stupid as I think you are. My days of explaining things to you so you have get attention ended quite some time ago. I'm not hitting view post next time so have fun.
You look extremely cowardly and foolish going this route.
A. You won't answer a simple question of who you think mingus' alt is
B. Everyone knows you'll read my response as you've shown no restraint in ignoring me
C. You've never called out an alt correctly.

Don't be a coward, share your thoughts.

[CosmicCowboy]

LOL illiterate fuzzy complaining about big words and long paragraphs. Newspapers don't use small words and short paragraphs because its better english. They do it to dumb it down for those like Fuzzy.

[mingus]

no it is not "it is what it is". mingus was not posting under an alt. Please share what alt you think he was posting under, it's very easy to verify.

ROFL @ this guy thinking I'm using an alt. Why the fuk would I even use an alt?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL illiterate fuzzy complaining about big words and long paragraphs. Newspapers don't use small words and short paragraphs because its better english. They do it to dumb it down for those like Fuzzy.

Your deduction skills still suck. I said it was because no one wants to read that shit ie the masses. If you are going to accuse me of being dumb then don't completely misrepresent my argument like you cannot read.

Better english? What a maroon.

[TheSanityAnnex]

ROFL @ this guy thinking I'm using an alt. Why the fuk would I even use an alt?
:lol he thinks your alt is Chinook

[mingus]

:lol he thinks your alt is Chinook

Maybe I am. It's called username-fluidity. I can be whomever I want to be.

[TheSanityAnnex]

:lol

[Big Dog]

Goddamn FuzzyLumpkins is such a shill faggot :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Ahh the Nihilist Dimwits are circle jerking.

:lol should I be angry?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Ahh the Nihilist Dimwits are circle jerking.

:lol should I be angry?
Angry, no. Stupid, yes.
Alt dimwit strikes out again

[ElNono]

If you are an open minded person that adapts to everything please stop pretending the modern version of Manu doesn't suck.

:lol I stopped pretending that a while ago. But there's some nostalgia there along with the fact it's the only NBA player I actually get to talk to every season, so egoistically, I want him to keep on going.

[HI-FI]

If you are an open minded person that adapts to everything please stop pretending the modern version of Manu doesn't suck.
:lol
damn

[boutons_deux]

Man Rips Off Woman’s Hijab During Flight, Yells ‘This Is America’

Last December, Gil Parker Payne spotted a Muslim woman wearing a hijab on a Southwest Airlines flight from Chicago to Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Payne, who was seated several rows behind the woman, walked up the aisle towards her while the plane was still in flight, stopped next to her seat, and said, “Take it off! This is America!” When she didn’t follow his orders, he proceeded to pull her hijab all the way off, leaving the woman’s head exposed.

On Friday, the 37-year-old man from Gastonia, North Carolina, plead guilty (https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/north-carolina-man-pleads-guilty-using-force-against-muslim-woman-obstruct-her-free-exercise) in the District of New Mexico one count of “using force or threat of force to intentionally obstruct a Muslim woman … in the free exercise of her religious beliefs.”

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/05/14/3778447/man-rips-off-hijab-on-airplane/

:lol and you rightwingnuts are so sensitive to, offended by left-wing "violence" :lol

[TheGreatYacht]

The :cry Stop being so PC :cry crowd afraid of being called racists, so they sugar coat their racism with an "Anti-PC" agenda lmao

:lol That's so PC, neck beards

[Spurtacular]

I'll criticize all religions when their followers do and say horrible things.

OP and most other Islamophobes tend to put blinders on when it comes to Christianity in America from pieces I've seen that are similar to the op. Desensitization will do that.

If there were just more cucks, there wouldn't be so many islamophobes. :lmao

[Sir Johnny]

According to the Quran.....

Give them a chance to see the light, if they don't then kill them.