A truck drove into a line of ICE protesters outside a detention facility in Rhode Island

[fast]

Part of my reasoning (just part of it, mind you) stem from past instances. Intimidation is apart of past instances even if doesn’t play apart of the current narrative. I have held back bias going into this before even the facts of this particular instance is found being representative of past instances.

Each occurance is individualistic in nature—unique or have some differences despite similarities. I know the differences matter, but the similarities poison the well, so my suspicions are not going to be equally spread among all possibilities. When I see a video of black delinquents being wrestled to the ground screaming they didn’t do anything, I’m open-minded enough to give them the benefit of the doubt and keep a watchful eye as new evidence surfaces, but that doesn’t mean my instincts have been neutralized.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It was political self-indulgence attempting to appear neutral.

"However, from a general tendency for liberal-minded people to be hyperbolic, sensationalize, and make mountains out of mole hills" is a strange way to attempt to appear neutral. What was it in fast's post that you interpret as an attempt to conceal his conservative viewpoint?

With practically no information on a given issue, beforehand knowledge on a related topic but unrelated to a specific incident (like prevalence) should carry more weight in swaying one’s initial thoughts. The problem comes in when we solidify our positions with such rigidity that new countervening information won’t budge our perspectives.

You are right, I misread their initial intentions in the post. I mistook it for trying to be intellectual and all they were doing was paving the road to create a premise that allows them to go binary with opinions of liberals.

 

[fast]

The article isn’t some word problem where arriving at the likelyhood of what happened is confined to information in the article. We can look to past incidents for determining the chances. I’m not trying to say similar past incidents means we somehow know what the drivers intent was in this particular incident.

If I see a cat lying dead on the side of a busy roadway and you say it could have been hit by a passing motorist, I agree.
If I see a cat lying dead on the side of a busy roadway and she says it could have fallen from a parachute mishap, I agree.
In both instances, and without knowing or even caring about what happened, I agree.

If I see a cat lying dead on the side of a busy roadway and you say it’s plausible that it fell from a parachute mishap, I DO NOT agree. Possible yes; plausible no.

The degree of plausibility isn’t a function of the circumstances specific to this one incident. When we look at previous cases of motorists running over protesters blocking traffic, we don’t find domestic terrorism as the common link. Road rage or some adaptation has a much better fit.

I know. I know. You keep saying we still don’t know, but I acknowledge that, and when you say there are other possibilities, I agree with that too, but when you say domestic terrorism is just as plausible as road rage, no friggin’ way. That wouldn’t be the case even if this particular incident turned out to be just that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The article isn’t some word problem where arriving at the likelyhood of what happened is confined to information in the article. We can look to past incidents for determining the chances. I’m not trying to say similar past incidents means we somehow know what the drivers intent was in this particular incident.

Like Charlottesville?

*snip dead cat*

There is no cat, so that isn't relevant.

The degree of plausibility isn’t a function of the circumstances specific to this one incident. When we look at previous cases of motorists running over protesters blocking traffic, we don’t find domestic terrorism as the common link. Road rage or some adaptation has a much better fit.

I know. I know. You keep saying we still don’t know, but I acknowledge that, and when you say there are other possibilities, I agree with that too, but when you say domestic terrorism is just as plausible as road rage, no friggin’ way.

Who said "just as plausible"? You are stretching yourself into a pretzel to make it appear you have a differing opinion from liberals.

 

[Gun Nut]

It was political self-indulgence attempting to appear neutral.

"However, from a general tendency for liberal-minded people to be hyperbolic, sensationalize, and make mountains out of mole hills" is a strange way to attempt to appear neutral. What was it in fast's post that you interpret as an attempt to conceal his conservative viewpoint? All his polysyllabic words and all his connected series of statements intended to establish propositions? Are conservatives supposed to limit themselves to "U.S.A! U.S.A! Beer!"?

Are you always this naive?

Apparently yes. I typically wait until there is enough information before concluding a motive. I guess this is called being naive.

Well said.

Well said, yes, but not well practiced, not at all.

It's important to have an open mind, but with the historical information available to us (including the video footage of the incident), it would just be foolish to entertain "maybe it was aliens" over "probably it was political differences")

The degree of certainty you imply is needed to draw a reasonable, probable conclusion sounds as though it may prevent you from being able to cross the street at all. Are you CERTAIN that you didn;t see a car coming? You can;t be 100% positive, so yo must look again... and again... and theoretically, maybe you just missed that mac truck eight times looking it its direction. It's POSSIBLE, right? better stay put until you get written testimony from all drivers in the US that they are not presently crossing your path... but that is just attestation, so prolly not good enough for certainty.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

"However, from a general tendency for liberal-minded people to be hyperbolic, sensationalize, and make mountains out of mole hills" is a strange way to attempt to appear neutral. What was it in fast's post that you interpret as an attempt to conceal his conservative viewpoint? All his polysyllabic words and all his connected series of statements intended to establish propositions? Are conservatives supposed to limit themselves to "U.S.A! U.S.A! Beer!"?

Are you always this naive?

Apparently yes. I typically wait until there is enough information before concluding a motive. I guess this is called being naive.

Well said.

Well said, yes, but not well practiced, not at all.

It's important to have an open mind, but with the historical information available to us (including the video footage of the incident), it would just be foolish to entertain "maybe it was aliens" over "probably it was political differences")

The degree of certainty you imply is needed to draw a reasonable, probable conclusion sounds as though it may prevent you from being able to cross the street at all.

There seems little doubt it was a criminal act. Whether it was political or the guy was just pissed off and feeling entitled is uncertain. There has been very little reporting on him since the attack.

Are you CERTAIN that you didn;t see a car coming? You can;t be 100% positive, so yo must look again... and again... and theoretically, maybe you just missed that mac truck eight times looking it its direction. It's POSSIBLE, right? better stay put until you get written testimony from all drivers in the US that they are not presently crossing your path... but that is just attestation, so prolly not good enough for certainty.

That has absolutely nothing to do with this as no one, not even Loren Pechtel, is arguing that the accelerator accidentally got stuck.

 

[Gun Nut]

"However, from a general tendency for liberal-minded people to be hyperbolic, sensationalize, and make mountains out of mole hills" is a strange way to attempt to appear neutral. What was it in fast's post that you interpret as an attempt to conceal his conservative viewpoint? All his polysyllabic words and all his connected series of statements intended to establish propositions? Are conservatives supposed to limit themselves to "U.S.A! U.S.A! Beer!"?

Apparently yes. I typically wait until there is enough information before concluding a motive. I guess this is called being naive.

Well said.

Well said, yes, but not well practiced, not at all.

It's important to have an open mind, but with the historical information available to us (including the video footage of the incident), it would just be foolish to entertain "maybe it was aliens" over "probably it was political differences")

The degree of certainty you imply is needed to draw a reasonable, probable conclusion sounds as though it may prevent you from being able to cross the street at all.

There seems little doubt it was a criminal act. Whether it was political or the guy was just pissed off and feeling entitled is uncertain. There has been very little reporting on him since the attack.

Are you CERTAIN that you didn;t see a car coming? You can;t be 100% positive, so yo must look again... and again... and theoretically, maybe you just missed that mac truck eight times looking it its direction. It's POSSIBLE, right? better stay put until you get written testimony from all drivers in the US that they are not presently crossing your path... but that is just attestation, so prolly not good enough for certainty.

That has absolutely nothing to do with this as no one, not even Loren Pechtel, is arguing that the accelerator accidentally got stuck.

Yes, that was my point. That aliens could have telekinetically pushed on the accelerator is not worth considering or discussing. That this may have been an accident, or someone just having a bad day because the dog shit on the kitchen floor, or that it was staged... also not worth discussion as so unlikely as to be nothing more than a derailing distraction to the real motive... which we don't actually know for sure, granted.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There is no cat, so that isn't relevant.

Wall street begs to differ!

Ever hear of a dead cat bounce?

And a parachute mishap is a lot more likely than a traffic mishap as a cause of one--cars won't send it high enough!

 

[repoman]

The car was moving at a speed (very slowly) so that a healthy, young person not in a crowd could get out of the way.

But there was a crowd and old people. So....

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The car was moving at a speed (very slowly) so that a healthy, young person not in a crowd could get out of the way.

But there was a crowd and old people. So....

Yeah, I'm sure he expected them to jump aside. That's not feasible in a crowd and not everyone can jump anyway.