PC and Muslim Agenda

[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?

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 su ious" why were there no charges filed

Yes 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 su ious.

Charging him with a hoax bomb would have been suicide for the district and the cops after the got 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 su ious 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 got brigade had stayed out of this Ahmed would have learned a lesson the hard way, instead the little er became famous playing the victim of my brown skin that little got

[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 inep ude 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 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 inep ude 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 inep ude 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]

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 "su ious"? 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 inep ude 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 cir stantial points out that someone is in cir stances such that they are disposed to take a particular position. Ad hominem cir stantial cons utes 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 cir stantial 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 cir stances 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"

[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 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.