Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Ferguson

1106107108109111

Posts

  • VanguardVanguard A wretched country of duskRegistered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Jubal77 wrote: »
    Vanguard wrote: »
    Jubal77 wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Jubal77 wrote: »
    Saying "the events they get ticketed for are avoidable" is missing the forest for the trees.

    Getting a ticket for a busted taillight is avoidable, yes. It's also reasonable that someone could be completely unaware that their taillight was burned out. That's why most of the time a cop will be willing to give the driver a warning, or you can present a receipt for a taillight replacement in court and get the ticket dismissed.

    That doesn't happen in St Louis county because there are so many piddly little towns all operating under the model of "ticket everybody (but mostly black people) for everything" so every busted taillight isn't one ticket, it's five tickets, nobody gives a damn about the driver because they need those sweet sweet ticket revenues. Every additional ticket makes it that much more likely that someone would miss a court date due to scheduling conflicts, inability to take off work, or just plain forgetfulness (since some of these towns only hold traffic court twice a year).

    The towns have no incentive to let people off with a warning, and every incentive to fuck them without lube, and do it harder and harder every year for more and more petty offenses because that ticket money is the only thing propping up their little fiefdoms. Lots of these towns are explicitly breaking state law by deriving too much of their budget from fines, lying about it to the state, and nobody does a damn thing. The cops don't care, hell you're apparently allowed to shoot a guy to death and nobody even makes you fill out a report.

    It's a collective action problem on the part of local governments, so telling people "just don't do those things and you won't get tickets" is shifting the blame from the oppressors to the oppressed.

    That doesn't negate the fact that the behavior has to exist for the oppressive situation to exist and that behavior is nationally unlawful. All I stated is that the vast majority of the tickets being handed out, traffic violations, are avoidable. This is base fact. I specifically stated the scale was high for a purpose. This department was issuing tickets at too high a rate. But the system present here is everywhere. Leniency from ticketing is a thing and I did not say it wasn't. I do know that anywhere in the US if you do not pay your ticket you will get a warrant put out for you. If you get stopped and when the cop runs your plates you will get arrested. That part of the oppression is present but like I said avoidable. And forgive me if this sounds cold, it is meant matter of fact, but isn't the population in this area disproportionately one sided in the minority area? So if there was a unit that existed that ticketed all instances of individuals breaking the law, no matter how small, it would of course be of course against mostly minority?

    They're not always avoidable if you're in poverty, because fixing those issue often costs money and time.

    Need a new driver's license? That will be 20 dollars and a trip across town to the only DMV. Oh, you still need to drive to work and your minimum wage job doesn't let you take it off? Here is a ticket.

    Need a new tail light? Hope you can afford it and the tickets you'll be handed until you can.

    Those move towards other problems in our society. And again draw away from distinct, matter of fact, statement I made. I never said poverty isn't a thing. It most definitely makes the "system" that much harder to manage. The presence of that issue is a big contributor to the result. But I am discussing the cause.
    V1m wrote: »
    Jubal77 wrote: »
    Saying "the events they get ticketed for are avoidable" is missing the forest for the trees.

    Getting a ticket for a busted taillight is avoidable, yes. It's also reasonable that someone could be completely unaware that their taillight was burned out. That's why most of the time a cop will be willing to give the driver a warning, or you can present a receipt for a taillight replacement in court and get the ticket dismissed.

    That doesn't happen in St Louis county because there are so many piddly little towns all operating under the model of "ticket everybody (but mostly black people) for everything" so every busted taillight isn't one ticket, it's five tickets, nobody gives a damn about the driver because they need those sweet sweet ticket revenues. Every additional ticket makes it that much more likely that someone would miss a court date due to scheduling conflicts, inability to take off work, or just plain forgetfulness (since some of these towns only hold traffic court twice a year).

    The towns have no incentive to let people off with a warning, and every incentive to fuck them without lube, and do it harder and harder every year for more and more petty offenses because that ticket money is the only thing propping up their little fiefdoms. Lots of these towns are explicitly breaking state law by deriving too much of their budget from fines, lying about it to the state, and nobody does a damn thing. The cops don't care, hell you're apparently allowed to shoot a guy to death and nobody even makes you fill out a report.

    It's a collective action problem on the part of local governments, so telling people "just don't do those things and you won't get tickets" is shifting the blame from the oppressors to the oppressed.

    That doesn't negate the fact that the behavior has to exist for the oppressive situation to exist and that behavior is nationally unlawful. All I stated is that the vast majority of the tickets being handed out, traffic violations, are avoidable. This is base fact. I specifically stated the scale was high for a purpose. This department was issuing tickets at too high a rate. But the system present here is everywhere. Leniency from ticketing is a thing and I did not say it wasn't. I do know that anywhere in the US if you do not pay your ticket you will get a warrant put out for you. If you get stopped and when the cop runs your plates you will get arrested. That part of the oppression is present but like I said avoidable. And forgive me if this sounds cold, it is meant matter of fact, but isn't the population in this area disproportionately one sided in the minority area? So if there was a unit that existed that ticketed all instances of individuals breaking the law, no matter how small, it would of course be of course against mostly minority?

    "If they'd just pick enough cotton they wouldnt go in the hole and then their children wouldn't be sold so really who's the villain here?"

    This is uncalled for putting words into my mouth. Absolutely horrible out of context and I dislike that you would imply that I am being racist here.
    Vanguard wrote: »
    Jubal77 wrote: »
    Vanguard wrote: »
    Jubal77 wrote: »
    Saying "the events they get ticketed for are avoidable" is missing the forest for the trees.

    Getting a ticket for a busted taillight is avoidable, yes. It's also reasonable that someone could be completely unaware that their taillight was burned out. That's why most of the time a cop will be willing to give the driver a warning, or you can present a receipt for a taillight replacement in court and get the ticket dismissed.

    That doesn't happen in St Louis county because there are so many piddly little towns all operating under the model of "ticket everybody (but mostly black people) for everything" so every busted taillight isn't one ticket, it's five tickets, nobody gives a damn about the driver because they need those sweet sweet ticket revenues. Every additional ticket makes it that much more likely that someone would miss a court date due to scheduling conflicts, inability to take off work, or just plain forgetfulness (since some of these towns only hold traffic court twice a year).

    The towns have no incentive to let people off with a warning, and every incentive to fuck them without lube, and do it harder and harder every year for more and more petty offenses because that ticket money is the only thing propping up their little fiefdoms. Lots of these towns are explicitly breaking state law by deriving too much of their budget from fines, lying about it to the state, and nobody does a damn thing. The cops don't care, hell you're apparently allowed to shoot a guy to death and nobody even makes you fill out a report.

    It's a collective action problem on the part of local governments, so telling people "just don't do those things and you won't get tickets" is shifting the blame from the oppressors to the oppressed.

    That doesn't negate the fact that the behavior has to exist for the oppressive situation to exist. All I stated is that the vast majority of the tickets being handed out, traffic violations, are avoidable. This is base fact. I specifically stated the scale was high for a purpose. This department was issuing tickets at too high a rate. But the system present here is everywhere. Leniency from ticketing is a thing and I did not say it wasn't. I do know that anywhere in the US if you do not pay your ticket you will get a warrant put out for you. If you get stopped and when the cop runs your plates you will get arrested. That part of the oppression is present but like I said avoidable. And forgive me if this sounds cold, it is meant matter of fact, but isn't the population in this area disproportionately in the minority area? So if there was a unit that existed that ticketed all instances of individuals breaking the law, no matter how small, it would of course be of course against mostly minority?

    Except you're ignoring that very certain sections of the population in Ferguson are stopped far more frequently than others. . .

    It's almost like it's avoidable for some people, and hard to avoid for others. . .

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/18/ferguson-black-arrest-rates/19043207/

    Use the link to do a search on Ferguson.

    "This department was issuing tickets at too high a rate."

    Um... no I am not.

    Yes, you are. Your claim that is avoidable is flat out fucking wrong. Avoidable for who? Because the members of one very specific population are getting a disproportionately high amount of tickets compared to another. Even if they reduced the overall number of tickets, without fixing who they are targeting those same ratios will exist. For that certain population, these tickets are not avoidable.

    They are fundamentally avoidable. Procedure tickets require the procedure to be present. Pretty simple.

    Okay, so as long as the black residents don't leave their house for any reason they can avoid it. Got it.

    Comon man. I know this is an emotionally charged discussion and all but by avoidable it should be pretty obvious of my intent. There is manufactured charges being thrown around here. Is there really sufficient evidence that this is a major cause of the tickets? Or rather said individuals were caught speeding and instead of given a warning they were given a ticket? I would be more inclined to believe the latter.

    Others have covered it, but the specific racial demographics of Ferguson cut something like 30% white and 60% black with smaller hispanic and asian populations making up the majority of the remaining chunk. If you look at crime stats, blacks are stopped something like 10x more times on average than whites. It's extremely difficult to explain that with anything other than a racial bias on the part of the police department (which, for the record, is 80% white). In a vacuum, divorced from reality, you are correct. These charges are avoidable. In the actual world in which these people live these charges fall under the extremely common crime of driving/walking while being black.

  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    80% white? I thought all but like, two of the officers in Ferguson were white.

    dt3GeqU.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • VanguardVanguard A wretched country of duskRegistered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    80% white? I thought all but like, two of the officers in Ferguson were white.

    I'm pretty sure that is the racial demo of the pd

    but i am happy to be corrected since i wrote that post off memory

  • ShadowenShadowen Snores in the morning Registered User regular
    After reading Taramoor's post I could think of nothing other than "This sounds like apartheid South Africa."

    MrVyngaardL Ron HowardMan in the Mists
  • LucidLucid Registered User regular
    edited November 2014
    I would appreciate any arguments for why it is understandable for someone who is, for example, systematically bullied by his peers for decades, to shove a random man in front of the subway, killing him. It is the conversion of outrage and hurt into an attack on an unrelated innocent. Would anyone say that we should have any reaction other than "he should have controlled himself, as people are expected to in ordered to live in society?"

    The reaction as you've framed it isn't really compelling. When something like that happens, it's not really a concern to state a should as much as it is to ask the question 'why did this man do this and what can we learn?', or something to that effect. Yes, he should have, but he didn't (or perhaps couldn't due to some psychological malfunction), so what does declaring shoulds accomplish other than to assert a moral stance? If we could determine that systematic bullying increases the likelihood that a person will lash out, then focus on the bullying.

    Lucid on
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Lucid wrote: »
    I would appreciate any arguments for why it is understandable for someone who is, for example, systematically bullied by his peers for decades, to shove a random man in front of the subway, killing him. It is the conversion of outrage and hurt into an attack on an unrelated innocent. Would anyone say that we should have any reaction other than "he should have controlled himself, as people are expected to in ordered to live in society?"

    The reaction as you've framed it isn't really compelling. When something like that happens, it's not really a concern to state a should as much as it is to ask the question 'why did this man do this and what can we learn about it?', or something to that effect. Yes, he should have, but he didn't (or perhaps couldn't due to some psychological malfunction), so what does declaring shoulds accomplish other than to assert a moral stance? If we could determine that systematic bullying increases the likelihood that a person will lash out, then focus on the bullying.
    1. People have control over their actions, and can choose what actions to take and what actions to abstain from. There are no circumstances where someone literally cannot control themself, short of muscle spasms or seizures.

    Or focus on the lashing out.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    A lot has happened since I last posted. I am growing concerned that people are still conflating rioting with attacking the police. These are two very different things. To be clear, I have never claimed that I cannot understand the desire of the oppressed to attack the oppressors. My "if you come at the king, you'd best not miss" idea is that, while understandable, it is a really bad idea to try and overthrow a government that you have no chance against, no matter how corrupt it is. But I can understand why someone would do it based on emotion.

    Rioting is wholly separate. It is random, chaotic violence against people (and their property) who have no direct connection to the grievances motivating the actions. I have used variations on the example of the individual taking out his anger over an issue by attacking random people and no one has really addressed it. I would appreciate any arguments for why it is understandable for someone who is, for example, systematically bullied by his peers for decades, to shove a random man in front of the subway, killing him. It is the conversion of outrage and hurt into an attack on an unrelated innocent. Would anyone say that we should have any reaction other than "he should have controlled himself, as people are expected to in ordered to live in society?"

    If anyone sees a difference between a riot and this example, I would be interested to hear it, because in my mind, being in a group does not change anything about this calculus. An unacceptable antisocial impulse is not more acceptable when followed by a multitude instead of one man.

    The bolded is simply untrue, because as the size of the multitude increases, the impulse becomes less "antisocial" and more "prosocial" in the direction of change. If one guy shoots the President because he doesn't like that alcohol is illegal, that's an antisocial impulse; if 20 million people riot because they don't like that alcohol is illegal, that's a movement and society will change to suit their desires. One person fighting the system is an anarchist; many people fighting the system is a revolution. Revolutions are more acceptable.

    Hence the difference between the bullied man and the rioters. Does the bullied man have no recourse and no options? Will committing murder bring positive attention to his cause? These aren't hypotheticals--did Columbine stop high school bullying? Loners with extreme views who take extreme actions are dismissed as nuts by the media and the public. Large-scale movements, like riots, get serious attention, even if there are those, like you, who will dismiss them as irrational.

    "You should control yourselves" is a poor instruction to give to a people who feel oppressed, constrained, and robbed by their government. "Yes, we should," is precisely their point, and taking control of their own lives is precisely their reason for rioting.

    I just really fundamentally disagree. Large scale protest? Sure. That's a fine thing to do. But having other like minded people does not justify committing random acts of violence. Rioting is not taking control over their lives. It is being immature and selfish and showing a lack of restraint that is, and should be, completely unacceptable.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • VanguardVanguard A wretched country of duskRegistered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    A lot has happened since I last posted. I am growing concerned that people are still conflating rioting with attacking the police. These are two very different things. To be clear, I have never claimed that I cannot understand the desire of the oppressed to attack the oppressors. My "if you come at the king, you'd best not miss" idea is that, while understandable, it is a really bad idea to try and overthrow a government that you have no chance against, no matter how corrupt it is. But I can understand why someone would do it based on emotion.

    Rioting is wholly separate. It is random, chaotic violence against people (and their property) who have no direct connection to the grievances motivating the actions. I have used variations on the example of the individual taking out his anger over an issue by attacking random people and no one has really addressed it. I would appreciate any arguments for why it is understandable for someone who is, for example, systematically bullied by his peers for decades, to shove a random man in front of the subway, killing him. It is the conversion of outrage and hurt into an attack on an unrelated innocent. Would anyone say that we should have any reaction other than "he should have controlled himself, as people are expected to in ordered to live in society?"

    If anyone sees a difference between a riot and this example, I would be interested to hear it, because in my mind, being in a group does not change anything about this calculus. An unacceptable antisocial impulse is not more acceptable when followed by a multitude instead of one man.

    The bolded is simply untrue, because as the size of the multitude increases, the impulse becomes less "antisocial" and more "prosocial" in the direction of change. If one guy shoots the President because he doesn't like that alcohol is illegal, that's an antisocial impulse; if 20 million people riot because they don't like that alcohol is illegal, that's a movement and society will change to suit their desires. One person fighting the system is an anarchist; many people fighting the system is a revolution. Revolutions are more acceptable.

    Hence the difference between the bullied man and the rioters. Does the bullied man have no recourse and no options? Will committing murder bring positive attention to his cause? These aren't hypotheticals--did Columbine stop high school bullying? Loners with extreme views who take extreme actions are dismissed as nuts by the media and the public. Large-scale movements, like riots, get serious attention, even if there are those, like you, who will dismiss them as irrational.

    "You should control yourselves" is a poor instruction to give to a people who feel oppressed, constrained, and robbed by their government. "Yes, we should," is precisely their point, and taking control of their own lives is precisely their reason for rioting.

    I just really fundamentally disagree. Large scale protest? Sure. That's a fine thing to do. But having other like minded people does not justify committing random acts of violence. Rioting is not taking control over their lives. It is being immature and selfish and showing a lack of restraint that is, and should be, completely unacceptable.

    Space, I feel like we've been kicking this horse carcass long enough. You've made your argument about it (despite offering weirdly contradictory views on the american revolution's use of destruction of property) and we're obviously not going to convince you otherwise. I would ask for you to consider what alternative recourse they have given that there is no legitimate option for them to work within the system. Before you reply that you think they do have legitimate recourse within the system, I would recommend you spend some time looking at the larger issue of state sanctioned violence against minorities, from the arm of law enforcement to the prison system. Look at how many incidents in which police shoot and kill a minority and how often they get charged.

  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited November 2014
    Vanguard wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    80% white? I thought all but like, two of the officers in Ferguson were white.

    I'm pretty sure that is the racial demo of the pd

    but i am happy to be corrected since i wrote that post off memory

    I am maybe remembering that only two of the officers are black. There could certainly be some Asian or Latino police officers who wouldn't show up in the statistics as white. Let's roll with that assumption.

    DarkPrimus on
    dt3GeqU.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    I think there should be some pithy quote, perhaps from an 18th century Frenchman, about this.

    'Being rational and judgemental about your own problems is the mark of a good man. Being rational and judgemental about the problems of others is the mark of a bad one.'

    Show.

    Some.

    Empathy.

    I figure I could take a bear.
    IncenjucarForarMuddypawsAngelHedgiefugacity
  • OptyOpty Registered User regular
    edited November 2014
    The disconnect is that SKFM is okay with violence as long as it's planned and directed where riots generally fail both of those. So if a group of people were planning on attacking as many police as possible before they die or get arrested in response then he'd find that more acceptable than a group of protesters switching into riot mode and lashing out at whatever's nearest.

    Opty on
    spacekungfumanHarry Dresden
  • LucidLucid Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    Lucid wrote: »
    I would appreciate any arguments for why it is understandable for someone who is, for example, systematically bullied by his peers for decades, to shove a random man in front of the subway, killing him. It is the conversion of outrage and hurt into an attack on an unrelated innocent. Would anyone say that we should have any reaction other than "he should have controlled himself, as people are expected to in ordered to live in society?"

    The reaction as you've framed it isn't really compelling. When something like that happens, it's not really a concern to state a should as much as it is to ask the question 'why did this man do this and what can we learn about it?', or something to that effect. Yes, he should have, but he didn't (or perhaps couldn't due to some psychological malfunction), so what does declaring shoulds accomplish other than to assert a moral stance? If we could determine that systematic bullying increases the likelihood that a person will lash out, then focus on the bullying.
    1. People have control over their actions, and can choose what actions to take and what actions to abstain from. There are no circumstances where someone literally cannot control themself, short of muscle spasms or seizures.

    Or focus on the lashing out.

    Focus on it in what way? I'm just not sure what can be done about the lashing out after the fact, other than to say 'this is wrong, you shouldn't do this'. Which isn't really doing anything.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2014
    Lucid wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Lucid wrote: »
    I would appreciate any arguments for why it is understandable for someone who is, for example, systematically bullied by his peers for decades, to shove a random man in front of the subway, killing him. It is the conversion of outrage and hurt into an attack on an unrelated innocent. Would anyone say that we should have any reaction other than "he should have controlled himself, as people are expected to in ordered to live in society?"

    The reaction as you've framed it isn't really compelling. When something like that happens, it's not really a concern to state a should as much as it is to ask the question 'why did this man do this and what can we learn about it?', or something to that effect. Yes, he should have, but he didn't (or perhaps couldn't due to some psychological malfunction), so what does declaring shoulds accomplish other than to assert a moral stance? If we could determine that systematic bullying increases the likelihood that a person will lash out, then focus on the bullying.
    1. People have control over their actions, and can choose what actions to take and what actions to abstain from. There are no circumstances where someone literally cannot control themself, short of muscle spasms or seizures.

    Or focus on the lashing out.

    Focus on it in what way? I'm just not sure what can be done about the lashing out after the fact, other than to say 'this is wrong, you shouldn't do this'. Which isn't really doing anything.

    In your earlier post you wrote:
    "If we could determine that systematic bullying increases the likelihood that a person will lash out, then focus on the bullying."

    I suggested that we replace "focus on the bullying" with "focus on the lashing out".

    I'm not sure why "focus on it in what way?" is your reply. I presumed we would focus on the lashing out as we focused on the bullying.

    Edit: "say 'this is wrong, you shouldn't do this'. Which isn't really doing anything." would seem to be what we would do if we follow your earlier direction to focus on the bullying. Is "focus on the X" doing something or not? You seem to be contradicting yourself.

    _J_ on
  • LucidLucid Registered User regular
    edited November 2014
    _J_ wrote: »
    Lucid wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Lucid wrote: »
    I would appreciate any arguments for why it is understandable for someone who is, for example, systematically bullied by his peers for decades, to shove a random man in front of the subway, killing him. It is the conversion of outrage and hurt into an attack on an unrelated innocent. Would anyone say that we should have any reaction other than "he should have controlled himself, as people are expected to in ordered to live in society?"

    The reaction as you've framed it isn't really compelling. When something like that happens, it's not really a concern to state a should as much as it is to ask the question 'why did this man do this and what can we learn about it?', or something to that effect. Yes, he should have, but he didn't (or perhaps couldn't due to some psychological malfunction), so what does declaring shoulds accomplish other than to assert a moral stance? If we could determine that systematic bullying increases the likelihood that a person will lash out, then focus on the bullying.
    1. People have control over their actions, and can choose what actions to take and what actions to abstain from. There are no circumstances where someone literally cannot control themself, short of muscle spasms or seizures.

    Or focus on the lashing out.

    Focus on it in what way? I'm just not sure what can be done about the lashing out after the fact, other than to say 'this is wrong, you shouldn't do this'. Which isn't really doing anything.

    In your earlier post you wrote:
    "If we could determine that systematic bullying increases the likelihood that a person will lash out, then focus on the bullying."

    I suggested that we replace "focus on the bullying" with "focus on the lashing out".

    I'm not sure why "focus on it in what way?" is your reply. I presumed we would focus on the lashing out as we focused on the bullying.

    I'm suggesting focus the discourse around the bullying and how it affected the person who lashed out. The lead up to the event, rather than the event itself. This seems possibly more productive than focusing on the event itself, as I'm not sure if there's much to say beyond description or the assertion of the shoulds under discussion.

    When I ask 'focus on it in what way?', I am curious as to what one would discuss beyond the should.

    Lucid on
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Lucid wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Lucid wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Lucid wrote: »
    I would appreciate any arguments for why it is understandable for someone who is, for example, systematically bullied by his peers for decades, to shove a random man in front of the subway, killing him. It is the conversion of outrage and hurt into an attack on an unrelated innocent. Would anyone say that we should have any reaction other than "he should have controlled himself, as people are expected to in ordered to live in society?"

    The reaction as you've framed it isn't really compelling. When something like that happens, it's not really a concern to state a should as much as it is to ask the question 'why did this man do this and what can we learn about it?', or something to that effect. Yes, he should have, but he didn't (or perhaps couldn't due to some psychological malfunction), so what does declaring shoulds accomplish other than to assert a moral stance? If we could determine that systematic bullying increases the likelihood that a person will lash out, then focus on the bullying.
    1. People have control over their actions, and can choose what actions to take and what actions to abstain from. There are no circumstances where someone literally cannot control themself, short of muscle spasms or seizures.

    Or focus on the lashing out.

    Focus on it in what way? I'm just not sure what can be done about the lashing out after the fact, other than to say 'this is wrong, you shouldn't do this'. Which isn't really doing anything.

    In your earlier post you wrote:
    "If we could determine that systematic bullying increases the likelihood that a person will lash out, then focus on the bullying."

    I suggested that we replace "focus on the bullying" with "focus on the lashing out".

    I'm not sure why "focus on it in what way?" is your reply. I presumed we would focus on the lashing out as we focused on the bullying.

    I'm suggesting focus the discourse around the bullying and how it affected the person who lashed out. The lead up to the event, rather than the event itself. This seems possibly more productive than focusing on the event itself, as I'm not sure if there's much to say beyond description or the assertion of the shoulds under discussion.

    When I ask 'focus on it in what way?', I am curious as to what one would discuss beyond the should.

    One could discuss how the lashing out affected the persons doing the bullying, and the uninvolved third parties who did not bully, but were affected by the lashing out. The consequence of the event.

    Group A did some stuff.
    Group B did some stuff.

    One can discuss the actions of Group A just as one discusses the actions of Group B. We can toss out shoulds, we can describe, etc.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited November 2014
    A lot has happened since I last posted. I am growing concerned that people are still conflating rioting with attacking the police. These are two very different things. To be clear, I have never claimed that I cannot understand the desire of the oppressed to attack the oppressors. My "if you come at the king, you'd best not miss" idea is that, while understandable, it is a really bad idea to try and overthrow a government that you have no chance against, no matter how corrupt it is. But I can understand why someone would do it based on emotion.

    You're the only person who bought up the example of attacking police, which isn't a good example to compare to a riot - attacking police is a controlled action, it's not chaotic violence. Riots are not about the individual, it's about a group escalating into chaotic fury - lashing out as a means of telling the nation something is deeply wrong in their community the government has turned their back on, then of course are the other kind of riots by violent thugs exploiting the situation to commit random crimes. Which has occurred in Ferguson before, these were committed by outsiders. It'd be a smoke signal to the entire country that Ferguson needs to serious attention to be fixed, like the LA Riots were.
    Rioting is wholly separate. It is random, chaotic violence against people (and their property) who have no direct connection to the grievances motivating the actions. I have used variations on the example of the individual taking out his anger over an issue by attacking random people and no one has really addressed it. I would appreciate any arguments for why it is understandable for someone who is, for example, systematically bullied by his peers for decades, to shove a random man in front of the subway, killing him. It is the conversion of outrage and hurt into an attack on an unrelated innocent. Would anyone say that we should have any reaction other than "he should have controlled himself, as people are expected to in ordered to live in society?"

    Which is based on showing the world how utterly inhuman their conditions are that the country sees what caused the riots to begin with and think to themselves - maybe we should fix that.

    This is also a subject which has been explained to you repeatedly. Which has included various examples of causing social change, like the Stonewall Riots.
    If anyone sees a difference between a riot and this example, I would be interested to hear it, because in my mind, being in a group does not change anything about this calculus. An unacceptable antisocial impulse is not more acceptable when followed by a multitude instead of one man.

    No one is suggesting rioting is acceptable, merely understandable. It's a tragedy, not a coordinated terrorist attack.

    Harry Dresden on
  • LucidLucid Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    Lucid wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Lucid wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Lucid wrote: »
    I would appreciate any arguments for why it is understandable for someone who is, for example, systematically bullied by his peers for decades, to shove a random man in front of the subway, killing him. It is the conversion of outrage and hurt into an attack on an unrelated innocent. Would anyone say that we should have any reaction other than "he should have controlled himself, as people are expected to in ordered to live in society?"

    The reaction as you've framed it isn't really compelling. When something like that happens, it's not really a concern to state a should as much as it is to ask the question 'why did this man do this and what can we learn about it?', or something to that effect. Yes, he should have, but he didn't (or perhaps couldn't due to some psychological malfunction), so what does declaring shoulds accomplish other than to assert a moral stance? If we could determine that systematic bullying increases the likelihood that a person will lash out, then focus on the bullying.
    1. People have control over their actions, and can choose what actions to take and what actions to abstain from. There are no circumstances where someone literally cannot control themself, short of muscle spasms or seizures.

    Or focus on the lashing out.

    Focus on it in what way? I'm just not sure what can be done about the lashing out after the fact, other than to say 'this is wrong, you shouldn't do this'. Which isn't really doing anything.

    In your earlier post you wrote:
    "If we could determine that systematic bullying increases the likelihood that a person will lash out, then focus on the bullying."

    I suggested that we replace "focus on the bullying" with "focus on the lashing out".

    I'm not sure why "focus on it in what way?" is your reply. I presumed we would focus on the lashing out as we focused on the bullying.

    I'm suggesting focus the discourse around the bullying and how it affected the person who lashed out. The lead up to the event, rather than the event itself. This seems possibly more productive than focusing on the event itself, as I'm not sure if there's much to say beyond description or the assertion of the shoulds under discussion.

    When I ask 'focus on it in what way?', I am curious as to what one would discuss beyond the should.

    One could discuss how the lashing out affected the persons doing the bullying, and the uninvolved third parties who did not bully, but were affected by the lashing out. The consequence of the event.

    Group A did some stuff.
    Group B did some stuff.

    One can discuss the actions of Group A just as one discusses the actions of Group B. We can toss out shoulds, we can describe, etc.

    If the discussion goes to the bullies affect or the third parties, isn't this then moving the focus to post-event, or after the lashing out?

    I suppose I would agree that shoulds are of potential interest, just that the should skfm is pursuing doesn't seem contested(if that should is 'don't break stuff, and so on), and is then not productive. It is perhaps one of those shoulds that we can assume most, if not all, involved in the discourse are in agreement about, like 'one should not murder' or 'ape shall not kill ape'. If one were to find that there was someone advocating these acts, then sure, that would be pretty weird and would probably call for investigation.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    I just really fundamentally disagree. Large scale protest? Sure. That's a fine thing to do. But having other like minded people does not justify committing random acts of violence. Rioting is not taking control over their lives. It is being immature and selfish and showing a lack of restraint that is, and should be, completely unacceptable.

    Large scale protests have produced precisely zero. Well, other then make them targets for a militarized police force who think they're doing a re-enactment of the Gulf War and they're pretending to be American soldiers. Oh, and intimidating, threatening, and arresting journalists who had the audacity to report what's going on there.

    No one in this thread is justifying anything, understanding doesn't always mean condoning immortal acts. Understanding and sympathizing is a key method in defusing and preventing dangerous situations and making enemies or potential enemies into allies. It's also good for how authorities can take apart criminal and terrorist organizations to get into their mindset, analyzing how their organization/movement functions and finding weaknesses to tear them down. That's why experts are employed in governments and the news to teach the audience why people do horrible acts to each others.

    Rioting is unacceptable, but so are many things in the world. It's unacceptable for Ferguson's conditions have been pushed this far but i'm not blaming the oppressed for this, i'm blaming the people responsible for making this happen: the local government, the police force and the governor himself.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2014
    Lucid wrote: »
    I suppose I would agree that shoulds are of potential interest, just that the should skfm is pursuing doesn't seem contested(if that should is 'don't break stuff, and so on), and is then not productive. It is perhaps one of those shoulds that we can assume most, if not all, involved in the discourse are in agreement about, like 'one should not murder' or 'ape shall not kill ape'. If one were to find that there was someone advocating these acts, then sure, that would be pretty weird and would probably call for investigation.

    There is not an agreement about the shoulds.
    No one is suggesting rioting is acceptable, merely understandable.
    I know that. People are saying it is understandable as a reaction. I am arguing that it is not.

    Group A: They should not riot, but...
    Group B: They should not riot.

    Group A grants a degree of permissibility and sympathy that Group B does not grant. That is disagreement.

    Edit:
    Rioting is unacceptable, but

    Like I said.

    _J_ on
    spacekungfuman
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    @Jubal77

    I want to say while we have disagreed on a lot of subjects I've enjoyed discussing this with you in this thread.

    Jubal77
  • LucidLucid Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    Lucid wrote: »
    I suppose I would agree that shoulds are of potential interest, just that the should skfm is pursuing doesn't seem contested(if that should is 'don't break stuff, and so on), and is then not productive. It is perhaps one of those shoulds that we can assume most, if not all, involved in the discourse are in agreement about, like 'one should not murder' or 'ape shall not kill ape'. If one were to find that there was someone advocating these acts, then sure, that would be pretty weird and would probably call for investigation.

    There is not an agreement about the shoulds.
    No one is suggesting rioting is acceptable, merely understandable.
    I know that. People are saying it is understandable as a reaction. I am arguing that it is not.

    Group A: They should not riot, but...
    Group B: They should not riot.

    Group A grants a degree of permissibility and sympathy that Group B does not grant. That is disagreement.

    I think the understandable skfm is using might be different than what others are using. Others appear to be using understandable in the sense of understanding how a riot involves certain circumstances leading to anger and resentment which compel irrational behaviour. skfm's version of understandable seems to flow into his usage of justifiable and acceptable. I guess I'm not sure. @spacekungfuman‌ perhaps you could clarify?

    Harry Dresden
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    Edit:
    Rioting is unacceptable, but

    Like I said.

    That "but" is being sympathetic, it's not a thumbs up for rioting.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    Edit:
    Rioting is unacceptable, but

    Like I said.

    That "but" is being sympathetic, it's not a thumbs up for rioting.

    Perhaps I relate "sympathy" and "approval" more closely than you do.

    spacekungfuman
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Edit:
    Rioting is unacceptable, but

    Like I said.

    That "but" is being sympathetic, it's not a thumbs up for rioting.

    Perhaps I relate "sympathy" and "approval" more closely than you do.

    Perhaps you're wrong.

    Harry DresdenfoursquaremanShadowenHacksawQuidiTunesIsEvilCogForarMuddypawsBullheadRetabaZomrofugacity
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Edit:
    Rioting is unacceptable, but

    Like I said.

    That "but" is being sympathetic, it's not a thumbs up for rioting.

    Perhaps I relate "sympathy" and "approval" more closely than you do.

    Perhaps you're wrong.

    Perhaps Hume.
    The sympathy-generated pleasure, then, is the moral approbation we feel toward these traits of character. We find the character traits — the causes — agreeable because they are the means to ends we find agreeable as a result of sympathy.

    spacekungfuman
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Lucid wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Lucid wrote: »
    I suppose I would agree that shoulds are of potential interest, just that the should skfm is pursuing doesn't seem contested(if that should is 'don't break stuff, and so on), and is then not productive. It is perhaps one of those shoulds that we can assume most, if not all, involved in the discourse are in agreement about, like 'one should not murder' or 'ape shall not kill ape'. If one were to find that there was someone advocating these acts, then sure, that would be pretty weird and would probably call for investigation.

    There is not an agreement about the shoulds.
    No one is suggesting rioting is acceptable, merely understandable.
    I know that. People are saying it is understandable as a reaction. I am arguing that it is not.

    Group A: They should not riot, but...
    Group B: They should not riot.

    Group A grants a degree of permissibility and sympathy that Group B does not grant. That is disagreement.

    I think the understandable skfm is using might be different than what others are using. Others appear to be using understandable in the sense of understanding how a riot involves certain circumstances leading to anger and resentment which compel irrational behaviour. skfm's version of understandable seems to flow into his usage of justifiable and acceptable. I guess I'm not sure. @spacekungfuman‌ perhaps you could clarify?

    I think its about blame worthiness. Based on statements by several posters, it seems like "I understand why they would riot" is equivalent to "I can't really blame them for rioting, given the circumstances." My view is that the circumstances in no way obviate the blame worthiness of rioting, because no amount of oppression against person A by person B justifies violence by A against C.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
    _J_
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited November 2014
    _J_ wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Edit:
    Rioting is unacceptable, but

    Like I said.

    That "but" is being sympathetic, it's not a thumbs up for rioting.

    Perhaps I relate "sympathy" and "approval" more closely than you do.

    I can sympathize with many individuals who I don't endorse their actions for. This isn't an unusual phenomenon and it's vital for authorities to do the same to prevent activities like this from occurring. Understanding isn't bad to do, quite the opposite. It's how we learn from making mistakes and preventing bad future outcomes.

    edit: The authorities in Ferguson aren't doing this, and that's made them blind into what they became.

    Harry Dresden on
    IncenjucarHacksawArdolQuidiTunesIsEvil
  • qwer12qwer12 Registered User regular
    @_J_ and @spacekungfuman‌

    everybody in the thread has already clarified that when they mean that they understand and sympathize with the people in Ferguson if they riot, they do not approve or condone the act. You guys are the only ones conflating approval and sympathy. Those two things aren't the same.

    steam_sig.png

    PSN: jrrl_absent
    Harry DresdenknitdanDarkPrimusIncenjucarHacksawArdolQuidiTunesIsEvilRetabaCommander ZoomZomrofugacity
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited November 2014
    Lucid wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Lucid wrote: »
    I suppose I would agree that shoulds are of potential interest, just that the should skfm is pursuing doesn't seem contested(if that should is 'don't break stuff, and so on), and is then not productive. It is perhaps one of those shoulds that we can assume most, if not all, involved in the discourse are in agreement about, like 'one should not murder' or 'ape shall not kill ape'. If one were to find that there was someone advocating these acts, then sure, that would be pretty weird and would probably call for investigation.

    There is not an agreement about the shoulds.
    No one is suggesting rioting is acceptable, merely understandable.
    I know that. People are saying it is understandable as a reaction. I am arguing that it is not.

    Group A: They should not riot, but...
    Group B: They should not riot.

    Group A grants a degree of permissibility and sympathy that Group B does not grant. That is disagreement.

    I think the understandable skfm is using might be different than what others are using. Others appear to be using understandable in the sense of understanding how a riot involves certain circumstances leading to anger and resentment which compel irrational behaviour. skfm's version of understandable seems to flow into his usage of justifiable and acceptable. I guess I'm not sure. @spacekungfuman‌ perhaps you could clarify?

    I think its about blame worthiness. Based on statements by several posters, it seems like "I understand why they would riot" is equivalent to "I can't really blame them for rioting, given the circumstances." My view is that the circumstances in no way obviate the blame worthiness of rioting, because no amount of oppression against person A by person B justifies violence by A against C.

    Sure you can blame rioters for rioting, that makes sense. Rioting is bad, no complaints from me. However, in this situation they are the lesser evil and thus aren't worth your full scorn - that's on Ferguson authorities and the governor, who are responsible for making this whole crisis into what it is. You're focusing on the victims when you should be focusing on the real bad guys. That's why it's important to think of the big picture. Riots don't happen in a vacuum.

    Harry Dresden on
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    qwer12 wrote: »
    everybody in the thread has already clarified that when they mean that they understand and sympathize with the people in Ferguson if they riot, they do not approve or condone the act. You guys are the only ones conflating approval and sympathy. Those two things aren't the same.
    sym•pa•thy (ˈsɪm pə θi)
    n., pl. -thies,
    adj. n.
    1. harmony of or agreement in feeling, as between persons or on the part of one person with respect to another.
    2. the harmony of feeling existing between persons of like tastes or opinion or of congenial dispositions.
    3. the ability to share the feelings of another, esp. in sorrow or trouble; compassion; commiseration.
    4. sympathies, feelings or impulses of compassion or support.
    5. favorable or approving accord; favor or approval.
    6. agreement, consonance, or accord.
    7. Physiol. the relation between parts or organs whereby a condition or disorder of one part induces some effect in another.

    Yup. Just SKFM, _J_, and the Dictionary.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    qwer12 wrote: »
    everybody in the thread has already clarified that when they mean that they understand and sympathize with the people in Ferguson if they riot, they do not approve or condone the act. You guys are the only ones conflating approval and sympathy. Those two things aren't the same.
    sym•pa•thy (ˈsɪm pə θi)
    n., pl. -thies,
    adj. n.
    1. harmony of or agreement in feeling, as between persons or on the part of one person with respect to another.
    2. the harmony of feeling existing between persons of like tastes or opinion or of congenial dispositions.
    3. the ability to share the feelings of another, esp. in sorrow or trouble; compassion; commiseration.
    4. sympathies, feelings or impulses of compassion or support.
    5. favorable or approving accord; favor or approval.
    6. agreement, consonance, or accord.
    7. Physiol. the relation between parts or organs whereby a condition or disorder of one part induces some effect in another.

    Yup. Just SKFM, _J_, and the Dictionary.

    Merely one reason among many, which we're confirmed multiple times isn't why we're finding rioting sympathetic.
    3. the ability to share the feelings of another, esp. in sorrow or trouble; compassion; commiseration.

    Words can have various meanings, that's why it's important you know the right context.

    Incenjucarqwer12ArdolWraith260L Ron Howardfugacity
  • qwer12qwer12 Registered User regular
    @_J_: Not really.
    sym•pa•thy (ˈsɪm pə θi)
    n., pl. -thies,
    adj. n.
    1. harmony of or agreement in feeling, as between persons or on the part of one person with respect to another.
    2. the harmony of feeling existing between persons of like tastes or opinion or of congenial dispositions.
    3. the ability to share the feelings of another, esp. in sorrow or trouble; compassion; commiseration.
    4. sympathies, feelings or impulses of compassion or support.
    5. favorable or approving accord; favor or approval.
    6. agreement, consonance, or accord.
    7. Physiol. the relation between parts or organs whereby a condition or disorder of one part induces some effect in another.

    Yup. Just SKFM, _J_, and the Dictionary

    I mean, even in that thing you posted, there are other definitions besides the one you highlighted. Or do you not realize that words can mean different things? That's the whole reason they list more than one in the dictionary.

    Do you really not understand that it's possible to have sympathy for something while not approving it?

    steam_sig.png

    PSN: jrrl_absent
    Harry Dresden
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    qwer12 wrote: »
    everybody in the thread has already clarified that when they mean that they understand and sympathize with the people in Ferguson if they riot, they do not approve or condone the act. You guys are the only ones conflating approval and sympathy. Those two things aren't the same.
    sym•pa•thy (ˈsɪm pə θi)
    n., pl. -thies,
    adj. n.
    1. harmony of or agreement in feeling, as between persons or on the part of one person with respect to another.
    2. the harmony of feeling existing between persons of like tastes or opinion or of congenial dispositions.
    3. the ability to share the feelings of another, esp. in sorrow or trouble; compassion; commiseration.
    4. sympathies, feelings or impulses of compassion or support.
    5. favorable or approving accord; favor or approval.
    6. agreement, consonance, or accord.
    7. Physiol. the relation between parts or organs whereby a condition or disorder of one part induces some effect in another.

    Yup. Just SKFM, _J_, and the Dictionary.

    We are clearly talking about the relation between parts or organs.

    Because dictionary.

    Phoenix-DQuidCogBullheadWraith260L Ron HowardCommander ZoomfugacityKaboodles_The_Assassin
  • qwer12qwer12 Registered User regular
    And it's not like people here haven't clarified their positions. They already have, several times. It seems like you guys just can't wrap your head around sympathy and approval being different things. And that's not really our problem.

    steam_sig.png

    PSN: jrrl_absent
    Hacksawjoshofalltrades
  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    I'm going to fix your statement, _J_
    _J_ wrote: »
    Group A: They should not riot, but...
    Group B: They should not riot.

    Group A grants a degree of inevitability and sympathy that Group B does not grant. That is disagreement.

    We sympathize, we understand the emotion behind the act, and we largely assume that it's a foregone conclusion. That doesn't mean it's a "good thing".

    Perhaps they wouldn't feel the need to riot if they were afforded simple human dignity? Hrm.

    qwer12Wraith260
  • CaedwyrCaedwyr Registered User regular
    For the continuing discussion, has anyone here ever played the Civilization games or Alpha Centauri? If you have, think about what causes riots/drone riots in those games and how you go about solving those problems. It doesn't help you prevent/stop riots by telling the rioters they are following the wrong approach, rather you need to make some sort of societal change to reduce whatever is causing the unhappiness effect or build/make available to the rioters some sort of + happiness building to make them happier. Or you just genocide/nerve staple the group of citizens. Surprisingly, on the broad scale of things the riot as a response to unhappiness and the various remedies are decent approximations of human behaviour and the ways of stopping/preventing such behaviour in stressful circumstances.

    qwer12MrVyngaardfugacity
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    If everyone in this thread is prepared to agree with the following statement, then I will agree that there is no substantive debate:

    Rioting is bad and it is bad for the people of Ferguson to riot. There is no circumstance where they should riot and if they do riot then each rioter is completely blameworthy for any crimes they commit during the riot in the same way that they would be if they committed those crimes without a crowd backing them. If the rioters break laws then they deserve to be arrested and charged to the fullest extent under the law. The fact that they have a legitimate grievance in no way mitigates their personal responsibility for their actions and it is not a mitigating factor that should be considered in prosecution or sentencing.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
    MrVyngaard_J_
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Caedwyr wrote: »
    For the continuing discussion, has anyone here ever played the Civilization games or Alpha Centauri? If you have, think about what causes riots/drone riots in those games and how you go about solving those problems. It doesn't help you prevent/stop riots by telling the rioters they are following the wrong approach, rather you need to make some sort of societal change to reduce whatever is causing the unhappiness effect or build/make available to the rioters some sort of + happiness building to make them happier. Or you just genocide/nerve staple the group of citizens. Surprisingly, on the broad scale of things the riot as a response to unhappiness and the various remedies are decent approximations of human behaviour and the ways of stopping/preventing such behaviour in stressful circumstances.

    So we should build a coliseum in Ferguson? I accept this solution.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    qwer12 wrote: »
    everybody in the thread has already clarified that when they mean that they understand and sympathize with the people in Ferguson if they riot, they do not approve or condone the act. You guys are the only ones conflating approval and sympathy. Those two things aren't the same.
    sym•pa•thy (ˈsɪm pə θi)
    n., pl. -thies,
    adj. n.
    1. harmony of or agreement in feeling, as between persons or on the part of one person with respect to another.
    2. the harmony of feeling existing between persons of like tastes or opinion or of congenial dispositions.
    3. the ability to share the feelings of another, esp. in sorrow or trouble; compassion; commiseration.
    4. sympathies, feelings or impulses of compassion or support.
    5. favorable or approving accord; favor or approval.
    6. agreement, consonance, or accord.
    7. Physiol. the relation between parts or organs whereby a condition or disorder of one part induces some effect in another.

    Yup. Just SKFM, _J_, and the Dictionary.

    Oh good, you've resorted to dictionary quibbling.

    Perhaps you'd like to argue the point on its merits instead of attacking this poor fellow:

    The_Wizard_of_Oz_Ray_Bolger_1939.jpg

  • VeeveeVeevee WisconsinRegistered User regular
    edited November 2014
    I just have to say, your (skfm) third and fourth sentences are why Ferguson is the way it is. It's from prosecuting the underclass to the fullest extent the law possibly can to get as much money as they can that these riots may happen. If the law showed compassion and empathy for their plight and found a way to work with them, which the law is more than happy to do for white defendants, they could have a chance to actually get out of the cycle of poverty.

    So yes, arrest everyone who breaks the law. But instead of a lengthy prison sentence and a fine they could never repay, use compassion and empathy to give them probation and community service and let them fix what they broke.

    Veevee on
    Incenjucar
This discussion has been closed.