Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2857
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 29 Sep 2017, 4:36 pm

JC, he's an eyewitness. Unless you have a basis to question his veracity...I think I would ease up a bit

I sure as heck would not feel the need to justify what I saw with my own two eyes....you don't have to accept it as gospel, but someone says they were actually there I think you got to back off a bit.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10796
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 30 Sep 2017, 8:05 am

freeman3
JC, he's an eyewitness. Unless you have a basis to question his veracity...I think I would ease up a bit
I sure as heck would not feel the need to justify what I saw with my own two eyes....you don't have to accept it as gospel, but someone says they were actually there I think you got to back off a bit.


I asked him for corroborating evidence to back up his eyewitness accounts...
He hasn't delivered any. All he did was get cute...
Eye Witness accounts are unreliable.
For instance:
Some 75% of the wrongful convictions for rape and murder, including a number that led to people being scheduled for execution, were based on eyewitness testimony.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/ ... ists-weigh

and there's eye witness testimony like this:
“Hey, I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering. D.J.Trump”


All Dag has to do is back up his eye witness testimony with something that corroborates him.... Thats not a insult. Its a statement of doubt..

BLM aren't a pure and disciplined protest movement... Its not a regimented and trained group. The rage and anger that precipitates the protests are often going to boil over.
I don't doubt that.
However I think that when critics decide that when protesters go over the line that it invalidates their purpose. Invalidates their complaint and their goals.
In fact, that seems to be the purpose of the criticism. To distract from the issue and the content of the protest. (See Trump and kneeling.)
If they can't organize their protests in a way that inconveniences no one, that "respects" every institution, then their cause isn't worth examining...
The Freedom riders disrupted transportation. Kings marches disrupted traffic. Viet Nam War protesters occasionally transgressed and some of them became violent... At the time those who opposed them had the same kinds of righteous criticisms. With the same intent.
But the Freedom riders, King and the Viet Nam protesters still managed to over come the criticism of their efforts. Both the legitimate, the hyperbolic and the straight out lies...
Because eventually the media and people focused on the issue.
I think that is harder today with the media silos created since the 80's... But still possible.
And part of that comes with expressing healthy skepticism about unsupported ad uncorroborated claims.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20737
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 30 Sep 2017, 8:28 am

rickyp wrote:All Dag has to do is back up his eye witness testimony with something that corroborates him.... Thats not a insult. Its a statement of doubt...


Yes it is an insult. It's also not how our system works.

Unless you have some way of impeaching his testimony, it stands.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10796
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 01 Oct 2017, 9:58 am

Fate
Unless you have some way of impeaching his testimony, it stands.


As uncorroborated testimony.

You understand the difference ? Psychologists have questioned the reliability of eye witness testimony for over a hundred years..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_testimony

Its not an insult. Its an expression of skepticism.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20737
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 01 Oct 2017, 11:19 am

rickyp wrote:Fate
Unless you have some way of impeaching his testimony, it stands.


As uncorroborated testimony.

You understand the difference ? Psychologists have questioned the reliability of eye witness testimony for over a hundred years..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_testimony

Its not an insult. Its an expression of skepticism.


It's rubbish.

Eyewitness testimony may be inaccurate in details, but probably not in the overall picture. One may not remember clearly who hit whom first, but one generally remembers there was a fight.

So, for you to question his overall impression is in fact an insult.

Further, it's pretty dopey. Make a counter-claim. Go ahead.

Your "I doubt it" is absolute garbage.

Dag: "I've seen the violence of BLM with my own eyes in Ferguson, in Clayton and the Delmar Loop."

rickyp: "Eyewitness testimony is faulty."

To what end? What are you trying to establish? And, if you're not trying to establish anything, then stop wasting anyone's time.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10796
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 02 Oct 2017, 9:32 am

fate
What are you trying to establish?

Whether or not he has corroborating evidence to back up his claims.
Period.

Whats so hard about that?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20737
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 02 Oct 2017, 9:46 am

rickyp wrote:fate
What are you trying to establish?

Whether or not he has corroborating evidence to back up his claims.
Period.

Whats so hard about that?


Right. So, you are offering nothing, questioning everything, and just generally being a jerk.

Got it.

You are comparing the illegal riots of BLM with MLK's marches.

You disregard eyewitness testimony for no reason whatsoever, other than you don't like it.

Can you prove there was no violence from BLM in Ferguson, in Clayton and the Delmar Loop?

Nope. You're just being a jerk.

Just look at the pictures. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30190224

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crim ... e9f4a.html
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1501
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 02 Oct 2017, 10:16 am

Here's another one for you Rickyp.

A friend, Shannon, was a major community organizer in Ferguson for years and years. She and her husband lived in the old district in a beautiful home.

I'll share that the riots absolutely broke her heart. But more than that, she eventually moved to St. Charles because she feared for her life and the life of her husband, another friend of mine.

Shannon has shared numerous stories about the Black Lives Matters protesters inciting, encouraging and participating in violence.

One such incident that came to mind recently, involved 50 or so protesters walking through her neighborhood at 3 a.m. in the morning chanting, "no justice, no sleep."

That went on for quite some time. To your earlier point, something like that disrupts the status quo in order to draw attention to a cause and is seemingly harmless but in this case, the protesters shot at the houses.

Now Shannon doesn't live at that house anymore. As I said, she moved. But if you like, I can ask her if she has photos of the holes in her siding? Knowing her husband, he may still have the casings. I recall them taking photos for the insurance company.

But if I go through all that trouble, I guess there's no way for you to tell if the photos are legit. Whose to say I didn't find casings or take a photo of a random St. Louis house with bullet holes in it.

Of course I won't waste my time in order to prove anything for you. I know such a report doesn't fit nicely into your all knowing synopsis of the Black Lives Matter Movement, but it is what it is.

By the way, there were far worse things that happened to innocent people in Ferguson after the riots that never made the news. These include damage to parked cars, car windows shot out, cars set on fire, verbal threats to passerbys, businesses vandalized etc. by people (both black and white) marching and chanting Black Lives Matters slogans, wearing Black Lives Matters t-shirts etc.

What's more, we still have 30 plus idiots "protesting" each night in Clayton and the Delmar Loop. Still vandalizing businesses. Still doing stupid things in order to win everyone over to their cause.

No intelligence, no organization, no clear messaging, no clear objectives, know nothings.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10796
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 02 Oct 2017, 12:11 pm

fate
You are comparing the illegal riots of BLM with MLK's marches.


You do know that many of MLK's marches broke laws? That some became violent .That he was arrested and thrown in jail for breaking them? That he was criticized heavily by many white clergy men for leading illegal marches...
Whilst in Birmingham he wrote them this response ....

6 April 1963

My Dear Fellow Clergymen:

While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present activities "unwise and untimely." Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to answer all the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would have little time for anything other than such correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work. But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statement in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms…
There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws.
One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."
Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.
Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I it" relationship for an "I thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things.
Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.
Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal.
Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?
Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.
I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.
We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws…
There was a time when the church was very powerful--in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being "disturbers of the peace" and "outside agitators."' But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were "a colony of heaven," called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be "astronomically intimidated." By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests. Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's silent--and often even vocal--sanction of things as they are.
But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust…
If I have said anything in this letter that overstates the truth and indicates an unreasonable impatience, I beg you to forgive me. If I have said anything that understates the truth and indicates my having a patience that allows me to settle for anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me.
I hope this letter finds you strong in the faith. I also hope that circumstances will soon make it possible for me to meet each of you, not as an integrationist or a civil-rights leader but as a fellow clergyman and a Christian brother. Let us all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear drenched communities, and in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty.
Yours for the cause of Peace and Brotherhood,
Martin Luther King, Jr.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10796
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 02 Oct 2017, 12:45 pm

dag
What's more, we still have 30 plus idiots "protesting" each night in Clayton and the Delmar Loop. Still vandalizing businesses. Still doing stupid things in order to win everyone over to their cause
.

Do you think these 30 represent BLM as a movement?
Do you think these acts of violence mean that the fundamental cause that BLM was formed to protest is invalid?

What do you think MLK would do today to protest the unequal enforcement of law, and the justice system?

BTW, what I asked you and Fate for, was something beside "eyewitness testimony".
I offered a study by the anti-defamation league. An academic study that objectively analyzed the issue of violent racist behaviour...
You are still basing your perceptions that BLM is violent based on a handful of incidents...
But consider these questions....
How many BLM protests have there been in North America? How often does violence erupt at any of them?
How many BLM protestors have been charged with violent crimes?
I know that on the first night of Ferguson protests there were some 50 sympathetic protests held in major urban centres across the US and several in Canada. There was no reported violence.
BLM is not a regional protest group. and although media makes a demonstration in one place seem huge ....the mere fact that dozens of similar protests happen without violence discount debunks your claim that BLM is a violent movement.
It has some violent incidents associated with some of its demonstrations.

You are engaging in the same kind of judgement in which some more radical members of BLM engage . Some police forces openly discriminate against young black men - so all do.
Some members of the police force are racists, so the whole force is...
You know of violence in several places.... so the whole movement is violent.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2857
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 02 Oct 2017, 1:01 pm

Why didn't you make these legitimate points before, Ricky? You could reasonably argue that Dag's anecdotal observations were not enough to show that BLM is a violent entity. Or they would were not representative of BLM as a whole. Or regardless of BLM as a distinct entity they did not accurately reflect the protest movement having to deal with shootings of black men as a whole. I'm certainly very sensitive to arguments that there is too much focusing on isolated incidents and/or exaggeration in order to silence the movement which is dealing with a very troubling issue about police violence in our society and what to do about it.

But you started with the conclusion that BLM did not commit any violent acts, therefore Dag's eyewitness accounts could not be accurate, and then demanded that he corroborate his eyewitness accounts.

Come on, man...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20737
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 02 Oct 2017, 1:39 pm

rickyp wrote:fate
You are comparing the illegal riots of BLM with MLK's marches.


You do know that many of MLK's marches broke laws? That some became violent .That he was arrested and thrown in jail for breaking them? That he was criticized heavily by many white clergy men for leading illegal marches...


Yes, yes, do tell.

Now, was MLK intentionally violent? Was that what he advocated?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2857
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 02 Oct 2017, 2:12 pm

There are major differences between the Civil Rights movement in the 60s and the current BLM. Blacks were being denied the right to vote, they had to use separate restrooms and drinking fountains, they had to go to separate schools. With his soaring rhetoric MLK highlighted the unfairness of this glaring, unjustified inequality. His intelligence and articulateless was an exemplar of the absurdity of blacks being denied equal treatment. The peaceful marches vs violent reaction by White policeman exposed the ugliness of the reality of Jim Crow laws. And enough White Americans realized that the system was unjust and had to be taken down

The current problems are more complex, biases hidden, facts in dispute, the good and bad guys not so clear-cut, no articulate leader to lay out a convincing case. Ambiguity and complexity does not lend itself to real reform. The evidence needs to be clear-cut for Joe American to demand real change. You're not going to force change through violence but through the rightness of the cause.

The way to get that is to show systemic, unequal violence used by police against black Americans. And that is going to take painstaking examination of many thousands of cases. I do believe that black Americans are being treated unequally in the justice system and there is a good deal of evidence to support for that belief. But there needs to be a black leader who can articulate what is happening, lay out the case in black and white terms, and specify what needs to be done.

And so far that has not happened.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1501
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 02 Oct 2017, 6:57 pm

Rickyp,

Most, not all, of your move the goalpost questions have already been addressed in what has turned out to be, a very interesting thread.

But do yourself a favor. Go back to the beginning of the thread and read it from start to finish. There is good back and forth from all who contributed. Check the links that were posted while you're at it.

As for this nonsense..

and although media makes a demonstration in one place seem huge ....the mere fact that dozens of similar protests happen without violence discount debunks your claim that BLM is a violent movement.


I think I''ll take a page out of Fate's playbook on this one. Prove it.

I've already shared a story about a couple I know who moved out of Ferguson due to fear of violence (they were among many who did so btw). No matter how many times neighbors reported violence from protesters, the St. Louis and national media ignored it. That kind of reporting wasn't and isn't en vogue.

So when you say, "dozens of similar protests happen without violence" the burden of proof is on you, not me.

Spare yourself the back pain caused from your self-inflicted congratulatory pats by checking the police reports in those various cities where complaints were in fact made. Like here, I doubt such reports ever saw the light of media day. But I am willing to wager the pattern experienced here played itself out elsewhere.

Finally, one question worth addressing:

What do you think MLK would do today to protest the unequal enforcement of law, and the justice system?


Of course I don't know. But I can say that based on his prior trajectory, whatever actions he decided to take would include the following:

1. Intelligence
2. Organization
3. Clear objectives
4. Clear leadership
5. NON VIOLENCE
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20737
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 02 Oct 2017, 7:12 pm

It’s really easy: Google “number of BLM protests that turn violent.”

Unsurprisingly, the answer is not “zero.”

In fact, you learn about violence in San Diego, Minnesota, and Indiana, and many more.

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/black-l ... ns-violent

Las Vegas. Durant, Oklahoma. Oakland.

And, I finally stopped looking.

Rickyp, with all due respect, you don’t know what you’re blabbering about.