• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

In the Wee Hours of the Morning, (AKA The First Death of Innocence)

Pure speculation. .....
Without perfect information, any conclusion is speculation. No one is demanding you accept reasonable conclusions based on the relevant but imperfect information. You want perfect information to make a decision, then you go ahead and look for it. I look forward to your insistence on perfect information in all cases in the future.
 
Pure speculation. .....
Without perfect information, any conclusion is speculation. No one is demanding you accept reasonable conclusions based on the relevant but imperfect information.

Some conclusions are based on facts specific to the situation, which this conclusion of your lacks entirely.

You want perfect information to make a decision, then you go ahead and look for it. I look forward to your insistence on perfect information in all cases in the future.

I didn't say perfect information is required (nice try). But I do require more information, about this particular event that leans towards the conclusion you leap to. Even a tiny bit would be nice. You have nothing whatsoever here aside from white killed black therefore racism. The questions I posed are not at all unreasonable. Your insistence on avoiding them is.
 
It's a reasonable assumption that a cop at that time in Georgia was very racist. Even without the murder. The prior probability is quite high, so it is a reasonable inference.
 
Some conclusions are based on facts specific to the situation, which this conclusion of your lacks entirely.
Blatantly false.
I didn't say perfect information is required (nice try).
You did not use those words, but yeah.
But I do require more information, about this particular event that leans towards the conclusion you leap to. Even a tiny bit would be nice. You have nothing whatsoever here aside from white killed black therefore racism.
Nope- as has been pointed out by numerous posters in t his thread.
The questions I posed are not at all unreasonable.
No, they are mostly irrelevant.

It is your privilege to continue your virtue signalling and avoid drawing a conclusion, and to falsely accuse other posters of slander or drawing conclusions without any facts specific to the situation.
In fact, it would be an example of the triumph of hope over experience to expect anything else.
 
Pure speculation. .....
Without perfect information, any conclusion is speculation. No one is demanding you accept reasonable conclusions based on the relevant but imperfect information. You want perfect information to make a decision, then you go ahead and look for it. I look forward to your insistence on perfect information in all cases in the future.

Exactly. I believe JP forgets that this (TFT) is not a court of criminal law, and so holds others' opinions to that standard. In fact this is a venue for the exchange of opinions, where preponderance of evidence is more than enough for people to form a "valid" conclusion.
 
Its simple prejudice. This individual is from this time period / is this race, therefore he is guilty of X. How is this logic so different from the racial profiling of a black guy driving a nice car and getting pulled over, suspected of stealing it? Or when Oprah was told by that shop keeper that one time "Miss, you can't afford that"?
 
Loren, how was my Uncle threatening anyone walking to his house with his back to the car from which the shot came? Threats have to be immediate in order to be considered as a reason for self defense.

I didn't say the shooting was valid. I said that threatening a cop with a gun is likely to provoke retaliation of some type. What he did was dangerous no matter what his skin color so we can't assume racism.

The stupidity precludes me from posting.

What I'm saying is that racism isn't proven, not that we can be sure it wasn't racism. Cops are prone to retaliate against those who threaten them even without racism driving it.
 
The stupidity precludes me from posting.

What I'm saying is that racism isn't proven, not that we can be sure it wasn't racism. Cops are prone to retaliate against those who threaten them even without racism driving it.
Police are prone to retaliate against those who threaten them by driving behind them at night and shooting them in the back while people watched?
 
The stupidity precludes me from posting.

What I'm saying is that racism isn't proven, not that we can be sure it wasn't racism. Cops are prone to retaliate against those who threaten them even without racism driving it.
Police are prone to retaliate against those who threaten them by driving behind them at night and shooting them in the back while people watched?

I doubt he knew there were witnesses.
 
The stupidity precludes me from posting.

What I'm saying is that racism isn't proven, not that we can be sure it wasn't racism.

Why should we imagine that our certainty about racism as a factor matters at all here? It's Athena's recounting, Athena relating her experience, her feelings and her thoughts. If you believe she is being dishonest then challenge her for lying, fomenting hatred or whatever you project her motives to be. If you are simply stating that you doubt that racism was involved, you should couch your doubts in those terms. Let readers determine whose experience is most likely to reflect reality. (That should be a no-brainer)
 
Police are prone to retaliate against those who threaten them by driving behind them at night and shooting them in the back while people watched?

I doubt he knew there were witnesses.
He drove up behind 3 people who were walking and killed his target. I realize anyone can concoct a story to explain their belief, but I find it unlikely that he did not see the witnesses.

Moreover, you are arguing that the police tend to be retaliatory when threatened. That makes sense when the threat is immediate and the retaliation is instantaneous, neither of which was the case in this tragedy. So, in order for your argument to be valid, you are implicitly arguing that police also tend to be vicious murderous killers who serve their retaliation cold.
 
Jolly, have you ever lived in the United States? In this and other threads you have conveyed that you do not have any understanding of race relations here. Which is lovely, I'm glad you have apparently never experienced the deep-seated fear and hatred that American White society has directed at American Black society. But the lovely fact that your world has not been marred by this evil does not mean that it doesn't exist.

This article talks about it a bit. It is a good read.


https://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/a26037551/covington-catholic-kentucky-racism/

“When I see hundreds of people wonder aloud about clear acts of intimidation, I think of how much of my writing is haunted by self-doubt. My entire life I have been asked to consider if I might be imagining prejudice I perceive, until any decision I come to becomes shaky.”

“I have been writing about Kentucky my entire life. About being racially ambiguous, so that I get to hear the secret black jokes I was never meant to hear, because my boss at White Castle thinks I am Mexican, not black. About riding the bus to my high school, Dixie Heights, which is a 10-minute drive down the same road as the Covington Boys' school, Cov Cath. They were our rivals, and share our mascot: both our teams were the Colonels. I spent every ride with my face pressed against the glass as the kids on the bus called me "dirty Mexican," and asked why my skin was so dirty. One bus carried middle school and high school students together. The age difference made no difference: the middle school children were more than comfortable staring me in the face. Smirking. I spent three years enduring over an hour of questions each day—questions to which no answer mattered. Nobody ever stopped them, not the bus driver or any other student. There were cameras. There often are. But there is no way to convince an audience dead set on the innocence of their children that a smirk can hold weight. Not with the testimony of those affected, not when it is filmed, not when a crowd of teenagers mock a native elder with a dance that reduces his entire culture to a mascot. And if you can convince someone to listen, pray that you have lived the life of a saint, that nothing you’ve said can be accused of inconsistency or emotion. The barest hint of trouble from a man like Phillips, or a brown teenager sitting on a bus, is seen as justification for retaliation.”



As an American of a certain age, I have seen white people do things that you have so far claimed you don't think is common, or easy to discern or reliable to witness.

And I'm not even the best witness, I'm one of the worst - a white person who grew up in a white town, who had no day-to-day interactions with people of color until I was an adult. And even *I* can see, as I travel around my country, when white people are exhibiting discriminatory behavior (that they would probably deny was so).

I feel like from your comments you frequently dismiss the REAL landscape on race in America. It is not the same as Canada. You don't get it and this makes you conclude it's not there.
You are wrong.
You have wrongly concluded about something that is outside of your experience. And you do it a lot in these discussions, this denial that the lived experiences of Americans has information that you do not possess, a lived experience that you write off as probably not accurate - to you.
 
The stupidity precludes me from posting.

What I'm saying is that racism isn't proven, not that we can be sure it wasn't racism.

Why should we imagine that our certainty about racism as a factor matters at all here? It's Athena's recounting, Athena relating her experience, her feelings and her thoughts. If you believe she is being dishonest then challenge her for lying, fomenting hatred or whatever you project her motives to be. If you are simply stating that you doubt that racism was involved, you should couch your doubts in those terms. Let readers determine whose experience is most likely to reflect reality. (That should be a no-brainer)

She asserted racism, I was pointing out that since we have another clear motive we don't know. The status is unproven.
 
Why should we imagine that our certainty about racism as a factor matters at all here? It's Athena's recounting, Athena relating her experience, her feelings and her thoughts. If you believe she is being dishonest then challenge her for lying, fomenting hatred or whatever you project her motives to be. If you are simply stating that you doubt that racism was involved, you should couch your doubts in those terms. Let readers determine whose experience is most likely to reflect reality. (That should be a no-brainer)

She asserted racism, I was pointing out that since we have another clear motive we don't know. The status is unproven.

I agree with Loren. In the deep south of the USA in the fifties/sixties, county sheriff's murdered white people in front of white witnesses all the time.
 
Why should we imagine that our certainty about racism as a factor matters at all here? It's Athena's recounting, Athena relating her experience, her feelings and her thoughts. If you believe she is being dishonest then challenge her for lying, fomenting hatred or whatever you project her motives to be. If you are simply stating that you doubt that racism was involved, you should couch your doubts in those terms. Let readers determine whose experience is most likely to reflect reality. (That should be a no-brainer)

She asserted racism, I was pointing out that since we have another clear motive we don't know. The status is unproven.
No one has to prove anything. Either you agree with the conclusion or not. Unless there is a clear utterance by the perpetrator, there is no way to "prove" intent. There is always some possible alternative motive, no matter how improbable that motive is.

What is interesting is that LP and other are willing to concoct such alternative motivations for police and for alleged racist acts, but are completely unwilling to entertain such alternative motives for victims of the police.
 
Why should we imagine that our certainty about racism as a factor matters at all here? It's Athena's recounting, Athena relating her experience, her feelings and her thoughts. If you believe she is being dishonest then challenge her for lying, fomenting hatred or whatever you project her motives to be. If you are simply stating that you doubt that racism was involved, you should couch your doubts in those terms. Let readers determine whose experience is most likely to reflect reality. (That should be a no-brainer)

She asserted racism, I was pointing out that since we have another clear motive we don't know. The status is unproven.
No one has to prove anything. Either you agree with the conclusion or not. Unless there is a clear utterance by the perpetrator, there is no way to "prove" intent. There is always some possible alternative motive, no matter how improbable that motive is.

What is interesting is that LP and other are willing to concoct such alternative motivations for police and for alleged racist acts, but are completely unwilling to entertain such alternative motives for victims of the police.

I'm not the one making the positive assertion. We have a scenario with two possible explanations, it's your side that has taken it as a given that it's one of the two. I'm saying we don't have enough evidence.
 
No one has to prove anything. Either you agree with the conclusion or not. Unless there is a clear utterance by the perpetrator, there is no way to "prove" intent. There is always some possible alternative motive, no matter how improbable that motive is.

What is interesting is that LP and other are willing to concoct such alternative motivations for police and for alleged racist acts, but are completely unwilling to entertain such alternative motives for victims of the police.

I'm not the one making the positive assertion. We have a scenario with two possible explanations, it's your side that has taken it as a given that it's one of the two. I'm saying we don't have enough evidence.
Naturally, because there is never enough evidence for you. You'd rather believe a white sheriff drove up behind 3 black men and killed his target while not noticing the other two men. I think most people familiar with that region during that time period find that explanation magnitudes less plausible than the idea that the white sheriff didn't care because of his confidence that his fellow white citizens would not convict him of any crime due to the color of his skin and that of his victim and witnesses against him.
 
Why should we imagine that our certainty about racism as a factor matters at all here? It's Athena's recounting, Athena relating her experience, her feelings and her thoughts. If you believe she is being dishonest then challenge her for lying, fomenting hatred or whatever you project her motives to be. If you are simply stating that you doubt that racism was involved, you should couch your doubts in those terms. Let readers determine whose experience is most likely to reflect reality. (That should be a no-brainer)

She asserted racism, I was pointing out that since we have another clear motive we don't know. The status is unproven.

Athena experienced racism. You experienced nothing whatsoever having to do with the situation described.
Either Athena is making stuff up (please do let us know what your theory of her motives would be) or she is telling the truth as she knows it.
I conclude that she is telling the truth as she knows it. And I further conclude that she knows more about it than I do or you do, or either of us ever will.

It's not like this is a court of law, where there could be repercussions for anyone on this forum (where the story was told) should a consensus be reached that this was a racist murder or that it was ... not (somehow). So - what's your hesitance to:
* accept that Athena has related the story accurately to the best of her ability, or
* provide a plausible motive that would explain why she "made it up" or mistook an innocent act for a racist murder?

Your unwillingness to assign any credence or value to her experience or to offer any surmise about why she would be making it all up, paints an unflattering picture of your own motives.
 
No one has to prove anything. Either you agree with the conclusion or not. Unless there is a clear utterance by the perpetrator, there is no way to "prove" intent. There is always some possible alternative motive, no matter how improbable that motive is.

What is interesting is that LP and other are willing to concoct such alternative motivations for police and for alleged racist acts, but are completely unwilling to entertain such alternative motives for victims of the police.

I'm not the one making the positive assertion. We have a scenario with two possible explanations, it's your side that has taken it as a given that it's one of the two. I'm saying we don't have enough evidence.
Naturally, because there is never enough evidence for you. You'd rather believe a white sheriff drove up behind 3 black men and killed his target while not noticing the other two men. I think most people familiar with that region during that time period find that explanation magnitudes less plausible than the idea that the white sheriff didn't care because of his confidence that his fellow white citizens would not convict him of any crime due to the color of his skin and that of his victim and witnesses against him.

The sheriff drove up behind 3 men and killed the one that had challenged him with a gun.
 
Back
Top Bottom