Something might have happened

Registered users do not see ads, it's free and easy. Register Here

P_X

Elite Member
Posts
1,535
Reaction score
2,772
I'll make one more comment on this ancient interpretation of illusionary absolute truths. I've encountered a lot of racists who learned that as long as they don't make explicit statements and keep things subtle, they will not be called out. And some even push it so the target can read it but cannot do much about it because if they call it out in anger, the person who feels victimized looks "soft-mindend" and is easier to discredit and dehumanize.

Certain people will take a cops' account in the absence of hard evidence as truth, but a victim's account requires holographic evidence and scientific rigor, even if the person is at least as trustworthy as a cop. They also have difficulty distinguishing criminal law, from evaluating institutional medical errors.

At the end of the day the best outcome we can have is a statistical approximation of a reproducible truth. Something that is worthy of discussion, interpretation and identification of things we can improve upon to create a society that fits our values (here, the Constitution). Yet, some are really motivated to nit-pick and block the flow of the discussion, just to prove a point that adds very little to the discussion. Patterns clearly show that it is the goal.

Lastly, I prefer to use Hanlon's razor when it comes to racism (i.e. don't attribute to malice that can be explained by ignorance), yet again, we need to understand the effects of actions, perceptions, and ways to make us less ignorant and thus improve our society.
 
Last edited:
Registered users do not see ads, it's free and easy. Register Here

Gutwrench

Site Champ
Posts
449
Reaction score
608
Certain people will take a cops' account in the absence of hard evidence as truth, but a victim's account requires holographic evidence and scientific rigor, even if the person is at least as trustworthy as a cop. They also have difficulty distinguishing criminal law, from evaluating institutional medical errors.

The government must prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. The defense can impeach the testimony of any witness and present counter evidence. A jury is the trier of fact and in almost every state a conviction must be unanimous. The best system in the world.

The last sentence makes no sense.
 

P_X

Elite Member
Posts
1,535
Reaction score
2,772
The government must prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. The defense can impeach the testimony of any witness and present counter evidence. A jury is the trier of fact and in almost every state a conviction must be unanimous. The best system in the world.

The last sentence makes no sense.
Your confusion stems from the assumption that an internet forum is some sort of a formal part of the judiciary system. It's a platform to aggregate and process information to fight ignorance. Less ignorance, better juries in general. Not that difficult, unless you want it to be.
 

Gutwrench

Site Champ
Posts
449
Reaction score
608
Your confusion stems from the assumption that an internet forum is some sort of a formal part of the judiciary system. It's a platform to aggregate and process information to fight ignorance. Less ignorance, better juries in general. Not that difficult, unless you want it to be.

Hence post 2 questioning what made the op convinced something happened that was clearly due to the color of someone’s skin. All we had is a one sided claim.

The tough minded examines facts before reaching conclusions in short they postjudge.

The soft minded reaches conclusions before examining the facts. In short they prejudge.

Btw, standard of proof is different in criminal and civil matters.
 

P_X

Elite Member
Posts
1,535
Reaction score
2,772
Hence post 2 questioning what made the op convinced something happened that was clearly due to the color of someone’s skin. All we had is a one sided claim.

The tough minded examines facts before reaching conclusions in short they postjudge.

The soft minded reaches conclusions before examining the facts. In short they prejudge.
You've already made this statement. You haven't looked into Bayes...just because from that angle this tough-soft dichotomy is very soft.
 

Gutwrench

Site Champ
Posts
449
Reaction score
608
You've already made this statement.

Yet I have to keep reminding the thread that prejudging matters is wrong. A claim is not a statement of fact. Yet its being treated as one. Without facts, inflammatory statements, disseminating distortions and half truths sows abnormal fears and confusion.
 

P_X

Elite Member
Posts
1,535
Reaction score
2,772
Yet I have to keep reminding the thread that prejudging matters is wrong. A claim is not a statement of fact. Yet its being treated as one. Without facts, inflammatory statements, disseminating distortions and half truths sows abnormal fears and confusion.
Apparently I have to break it down for you:
We "pre-judge", we review data, we "post-judge", then comes a new scenario and we use our previous "post-judgement" as a "pre-judgement" and the process continues. This is just how intelligence works, biological and artificial alike. What you're trying to create is an experimental (imaginary) environment that assumes no input to work the algorithms that generate the output. According to Bayesian logic, an absolute truth can never be learned just approximated with a statistical certainty utilizing previously available information modulated by current information. Like a statistical machine. Dichotomies like soft vs. tough mind, where of course tough means good and the person proposing them is of course "tough" encode a lot of self-irony. To say the least.

Now your style that I'm growing tired of is when you disagree with others is to apply a single line passive aggressive question, instead of approaching it like:
Hey @SuperMatt, i think you have drawn a premature conclusion here, this is a sad situation (acknowledge the emotional aspect of the untimely demise of a human being), but here and here are the uncertainties and this is why we don't know enough to make a satisfying conclusion (express opinion respectfully). Then he will respond to that either by acknowledging or providing more information, then you respond to that and voila, a discussion emerges through which human minds process information and hopefully reach a conclusion that could be helpful in future scenarios (something this forum is generally very very good at). Simple as that.

Now you either have a difficulty processing the emotional component of these discussions, or you do this on purpose so your net gain is others' irritation. Since you polished this to a level that requires the least amount of time and effort, I suspect it's on purpose.
It's just sad because I used to be curious about your opinion and viewpoint, but this style that to date hasn't been balanced out with some uncanny brilliance, makes me not want to talk to you about anything beyond booze.
 

Gutwrench

Site Champ
Posts
449
Reaction score
608
Apparently I have to break it down for you ....

Prejudging is unacceptable even when convenient. Prejudice is the basic cause of racism and a host of other problems. It’s time we become tough minded and be astute, objective, judge critically and be discerning to break loose from the shackles of ignorance.
 

P_X

Elite Member
Posts
1,535
Reaction score
2,772
Prejudging is unacceptable even when convenient.
Lol! You've just ""prejudged"" my post, which explained my interpretation of this concept.
The extra irony is that I used quotation marks to avoid literal interpretation.:D

I'll save time for you:
1. quote 1 arbitrarily selected sentence (fuck gestalt!!!)
2. lament on a singular concept you disagree with
3. ignore everything else
4. use short clichés ad nauseam
5. rinse & repeat.

At the end of the day you again added NOTHING.
 
Last edited:

P_X

Elite Member
Posts
1,535
Reaction score
2,772
That's not a real thing, is it?

Recipe:
Egg Nog

  1. Whisk egg yolks and sugar until light and creamy
  2. Combine cream, milk, all spice, and salt over medium-high heat until simmering
  3. Add a large spoonful of the hot milk to the egg mixture and whisk vigorously
  4. Repeat until most of the milk has been added
  5. Pour the egg mixture back into the pan and whisk constantly for a 3 minutes until nog slightly thickens
  6. Remove from heat and stir in vanilla
  7. Let cool in refrigerator for several hours
  8. Add half and half and mix to vigorously to thin the nog to desired consistency
  9. Stir in cognac to each serving

New England Clam Chowder

  1. Cook onions in melted butter over medium-high heat until softened
  2. Stir in flour to coat evenly
  3. Add stock, clam juice, cream, and potatoes
  4. Bring to a simmer, stirring occasionally then reduce heat to medium-low and cook for 20 minutes, stirring often
  5. Add clams and cook until clams are just firm, approximately 2 minutes

New England Clam Nog
  1. 2 Parts Egg Nog
  2. 1 Part New England Clam Chowder
Although I think the Clam Nog contributed to this thread no less than some, but I think such delicacy deserves it's own separate thread.
 

Thomas Veil

Elite Member
Staff member
Posts
1,360
Reaction score
2,791
I'll be darned. You learn something new every day. Between the meme-ish text with thick outlines and the Campbell's Chunky designation (which here is applied only to soup), I thought it was a put-on. You know, like Tomacco, the tobacco-laced tomatoes. 😏

 
Registered users do not see ads, it's free and easy. Register Here
Top Bottom