Lurker > _RETS_

Why is this a bad rollback?

College, like jobs, should be based on merit. Not diversity quotas and political agendas.

If a white dude is less qualified than a black dude, he can work harder or fuck off.

eston posted...

_RETS_ posted...

You're correct. My point was that his testimony was accounted for in the decision to deliver a not guilty verdict. That was his testimony. So his testimony was accepted by a jury of his peers. I'm speaking not in terms of an indictment of TM but an exoneration of GZ

Testimony is not something that a jury chooses to accept or not accept. The presumption is that all testimony is supposed to be true. That's the point of being under oath. The jury's purpose is to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that there is no definitive proof as to who initiated the altercation means there was reasonable doubt, and they could not convict.

Fair enough

COVxy posted...

_RETS_ posted...

It is easy to misinterpret what he is saying if you don't have the patience to follow what he is saying.

So much so that he misunderstands his own chapter and talks literally about it, despite it all being metaphorical:

_RETS_ posted...

COVxy posted...

_RETS_ posted...

The stand up straight point is the same as the pet the cat point.

It isn't necessarily literal. It just means have a certain level of readiness to engage with life and its hardships. Don't have a defeatist attitude

Except in the video I posted he confirms that it was literal.

I know. He is using a literal action to illustrate a larger point. It is about adopting a posture of readiness. Physically, sure, but more importantly in attitude and worldview.

Even taking it literally, standing with a posture of attentiveness and confidence alters the way the world perceives and responds to you. It increases your baseline of respect for a person of they seem more confident in their demeanor and convictions.

Also, that last part isn't empirically supported, so again the claim is inappropriate.

I said it isn't necessarily literal, when I should have said it isn't exclusively literal. It is using a literal action to illustrate an overall non-literal point.

And it is supported by the mere fact that if you are walking down the street, you will have a much less favorable view of some dude walking with his eyes on the ground, hunched over, looking weak than one standing upright ready to engage with the world around him. You will instinctively have higher regard of the one not walking around like a limp dong.

The opposite of that isn't empirically supported either, unless you can provide that evidence. So we then go back to man nature and what most people will admit in how they perceive others based only on posture and confidence.

Dragonblade01 posted...

Here's the biggest issue when it comes to criticizing Jordan Peterson (and I would say it's more something to levy against his fans, although I'm sure he himself has no issue with this as well).

His fans want his critics to address Jordan Peterson's arguments themselves. This is, of course, totally fair and what should obviously be the idea. What isn't fair, however, is that when criticism is brought up, a different version of the argument from somewhere else in his prolific history is brought up to change the argument being criticized. "He said this, but he actually meant that." "Oh, he said that, but he actually meant this."

His arguments can't be criticized if all criticism is just given the run around. That's why it's always on the person giving their argument to be clear. Each and every time. Everyone makes mistakes, sure. And some degree of correcting and verifying what you've said is expected. But with Jordan Peterson and his fans, it seems more like a defense mechanism. It's like a means to combat criticism by making the arguments just malleable enough that different versions can be propped up as necessary to circumvent critique.

And that's why the standard is there. It's on the speaker to be clear and precise, not on the audience to hunt for the best version of an argument the person across them is making.

This is true, but he also answers questions and explores points in a very layered way, for better or worse. It is easy to misinterpret what he is saying if you don't have the patience to follow what he is saying. He is long winded to a fault, but that's just how he articulates his points. A lot of his points are Cathy Newman'd. Majority Report's recent attempted "take down" of his view on homosexuals raising kids falls into this trap. Now I am inclined to believe they are purposely misrepresenting him to discredit him and his fan base, but a lot of his critics don't do it intentionally. Rather they don't have the patience or desire (note I'm not saying they lack the intellect) to follow along with what he is saying.

Regarding the homosexuality video, he made a very well-reasoned argument that was in no way against homosexuals, but MR got hung up on him beginning his answer by talking about single parenthood as a basis for where his answer would go. But Majority Report kept falsely claiming he was equating homosexual couples raising kids with single parent households and he wasn't at all.

COVxy posted...

_RETS_ posted...

The stand up straight point is the same as the pet the cat point.

It isn't necessarily literal. It just means have a certain level of readiness to engage with life and its hardships. Don't have a defeatist attitude

Except in the video I posted he confirms that it was literal.

I know. He is using a literal action to illustrate a larger point. It is about adopting a posture of readiness. Physically, sure, but more importantly in attitude and worldview.

Even taking it literally, standing with a posture of attentiveness and confidence alters the way the world perceives and responds to you. It increases your baseline of respect for a person of they seem more confident in their demeanor and convictions.

eston posted...

_RETS_ posted...

eston posted...

_RETS_ posted...

The jury agreed TM went back to confront a retreating Zimmerman, attacked him, and told him he was going to die. Zimmerman seems to be a huge piece of shit, but he didn't murder him.

No they didn't, because that isn't how trials work

If there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict based on Zimmerman' s account of what happened, how was it not how it worked? He isn't "innocent", he just isn't guilty of murder.

You're correct that the jury agreed there was not sufficient evidence to convict Zimmerman. The part that did not happen was the jury agreeing that "TM went back to confront a retreating Zimmerman, attacked him, and told him he was going to die." Since Trayvon was not on trial, there is no reason the jury would establish such a belief.

You're correct. My point was that his testimony was accounted for in the decision to deliver a not guilty verdict. That was his testimony. So his testimony was accepted by a jury of his peers. I'm speaking not in terms of an indictment of TM but an exoneration of GZ

The stand up straight point is the same as the pet the cat point.

It isn't necessarily literal. It just means have a certain level of readiness to engage with life and its hardships. Don't have a defeatist attitude

eston posted...

_RETS_ posted...

The jury agreed TM went back to confront a retreating Zimmerman, attacked him, and told him he was going to die. Zimmerman seems to be a huge piece of shit, but he didn't murder him.

No they didn't, because that isn't how trials work

If there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict based on Zimmerman' s account of what happened, how was it not how it worked? He isn't "innocent", he just isn't guilty of murder.

mistalightbulb posted...

not self defense when you initiate the fight

The jury agreed TM went back to confront a retreating Zimmerman, attacked him, and told him he was going to die. Zimmerman seems to be a huge piece of shit, but he didn't murder him.

lilORANG posted...

is he going to talk about how free speech is being eroded because he can't be mean to trans people while simultaneously and obliviously saying people should be nicer to the alt-right?

He has never advocated being mean to trans people. He is not anti-trans. Trans people were just the specific topic of the bill he took issue with. He has said time and time again be objects to discrimination of trans people and will/has addressed individual students of his the way they requested to be addressed.

His issue is being compelled to do it by law, or to have any speech legislated for or against. The trans component was beside the issue.

You, like many, may of his critics, especially here, either wildly misunderstood his viewpoint or were misled by someone else's mischaracterization of his view points.

If he was as objectionable as everyone seems to think, people wouldn't have to straw man and Cathy Newman his arguments all the time, but they do anyway.

Romes187 posted...

met him last Thursday! Here's a pic with my wife and Jordan

https://imgur.com/a/PoaIQsg

Nice guy from the few seconds I had to shake his hand and talk

Same, met him a few hours before his lecture in Austin. Very cordial guy. Like him better with the beard

is this an ironic topic nickelbro?

The movie was unbearable. Worst movie I have seen in a long time and the worst of the year along with JL probably.

Change the people to birds and call it "*ard and Feathered"

I consider the guy a terrorist based on broader definitions.

I do think Chief Manley, having already stated there was no evidence from the confession tape of terrorist motives, caved to public outcry about the guy not being labeled a terrorist.

But officially designating someone as a terrorist can have different consequences in the way of how the crimes are prosecuted, how people connected to the killer get involved, etc. That's why an official definition with a narrow scope should be used when officially assigning someone a category.

From that perspective, really the only thing distinguishing this dude from a regular serial killer (or serial attacker since he had fewer than 3 victims) was his choice of weapon, which isn't a variable that's considered in the designation.

The political beliefs of someone on their own don't matter as much as whether or not those beliefs motivated the crime. Everyone who has ever killed someone has political/ideological ideas one way or another, but their crimes can have nothing to do with them.

So while I think personally, based on broad definitions, that he was a terrorist and I'm glad he is dead and I can walk around my city now without worrying about it, I also acknowledge that unless the APD/FBI found political/ideological motivation, the chief is calling him one for optics sake. Which is fine, it just sets a bad precedent.

Certain segments, right and left, are too eager to cry terrorism in order to advance narratives though, and that is a problem.

What is it you do and does the value you bring to the position justify a raise?

hockeybub89 posted...

_RETS_ posted...

This is actually great news.

Provided of course you are a fan of higher suicide rates in young women, more dangerous illegal procedures, and worst of all, societal and economic damage.

Yeah, but we'd teach those darn sluts responsibility, and is there really any greater gift?

Responsibility is one possible R word that comes from it. Resentment is another that springs to mind.

This is actually great news.

Provided of course you are a fan of higher suicide rates in young women, more dangerous illegal procedures, and worst of all, societal and economic damage.

Anteaterking posted...

Holy_Cloud105 posted...

That's one of the main reasons mass murderers do this. They want to make a name for themselves, and this is definitely giving fuel to the next person. They'll see this dude getting tons of mail from girls and think they can be swimming in p**** if they do the next one.

I think that's putting the cart before the horse. It's not as if they say "What's the easiest way to be famous?" and the answer is "Shoot up my school".

It's people who are already considering drastic action who then psyche themselves up with these other occurrences.

I don't think anyone is proposing that perpetual anonymity for the killers is THE solution to curbing gun violence and rampage killings. But it would absolutely help the effort.

This may seem radical, but there really isn't a solution to the Middle East problem.

US and its allies need to completely pull out of the region, divest entirely in trade, humanitarian efforts, all of it.

Completely shut it off from the world and pretend it isn't even there and let this generation and the next either kill themselves or figure their own shit out and then welcome them back to civilized society on the world stage.

If kids aren't dying in drone strikes, they are dying in market place bombings. Nothing helps. Time for everyone to wash their hands of the whole unsalvageable mess.

Taharqa_ posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Taharqa_ posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Taharqa_ posted...

http://www.kmov.com/story/37770714/man-broke-officers-nose-during-arrest-in-st-charles-co-police-say

Guy gets into a lengthy fight with the police, breaks the nose of one officer, had a knife on him when searched. Not one bullet fired.

This really doesn't prove any kind of point. For one, unless it's the same officers as this story, it is entirely irrelevant. Two, apprehensions of armed of rowdy suspects happen all the time, white, black, or otherwise. You just don't hear about them because it isn't news.

Some people should not be LEOs if they're that afraid of a guy shuffling forward unarmed with his pants down.

Extra-judicial killings of unarmed people should be disturbing.

None of what you just said makes your initial post relevant.

I've not defending these cops anyway. Just asked for more context on whether or not the guy reached around his back when approaching the cop as if going for a gun. If not, I don't see any way to spin this as justified and think he should have been non-lethally subdued. If he did reach around his back, the case is less cut and dry.

I don't think unarmed people should get shot and killed if there isn't a justifiable explanation for why it happened even though I also don't feel remorse when criminals bring these situations on themselves. It doesn't make the cops right in every case though

Like I said, some people just shouldn't be cops, ie this Houston cop. The cops in my initial post would have been justified in using more force since the guy was really fist fighting with them breaking one of the cop's nose. They showed way more restraint than the one in Houston.

We are mostly on the same page, I'm just sick and tired of reading about unarmed citizens getting shot by police, that should not be the first option.

We are. I think the cop had time to put him down non-lethally before any point where the guy could have reached around his back. Again, I don't know if the guy did anything to prompt the shooting (i.e. reaching behind his back) because all the angles are obstructed, but if he did this is less cut and dry. If he didn't, the cop seems to be fully in the wrong.

Taharqa_ posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Taharqa_ posted...

http://www.kmov.com/story/37770714/man-broke-officers-nose-during-arrest-in-st-charles-co-police-say

Guy gets into a lengthy fight with the police, breaks the nose of one officer, had a knife on him when searched. Not one bullet fired.

This really doesn't prove any kind of point. For one, unless it's the same officers as this story, it is entirely irrelevant. Two, apprehensions of armed of rowdy suspects happen all the time, white, black, or otherwise. You just don't hear about them because it isn't news.

Some people should not be LEOs if they're that afraid of a guy shuffling forward unarmed with his pants down.

Extra-judicial killings of unarmed people should be disturbing.

None of what you just said makes your initial post relevant.

I've not defending these cops anyway. Just asked for more context on whether or not the guy reached around his back when approaching the cop as if going for a gun. If not, I don't see any way to spin this as justified and think he should have been non-lethally subdued. If he did reach around his back, the case is less cut and dry.

I don't think unarmed people should get shot and killed if there isn't a justifiable explanation for why it happened even though I also don't feel remorse when criminals bring these situations on themselves. It doesn't make the cops right in every case though

Taharqa_ posted...

http://www.kmov.com/story/37770714/man-broke-officers-nose-during-arrest-in-st-charles-co-police-say

Guy gets into a lengthy fight with the police, breaks the nose of one officer, had a knife on him when searched. Not one bullet fired.

This really doesn't prove any kind of point. For one, unless it's the same officers as this story, it is entirely irrelevant. Two, apprehensions of armed of rowdy suspects happen all the time, white, black, or otherwise. You just don't hear about them because it isn't news.

Cops shooting unarmed civilians unjustifiably is not okay and you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks it is. The media's misrepresentation of high-profile cases that make it seem like police murder is a huge issue is responsible for you being manipulated by a false narrative.

The few cases where the outrage is justified are egregious miscarriages of justice and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Also, if economically feasible UHC would be great and free market healthcare could still exist by way of more premium upgrades

fuzzylittlbunny posted...

_RETS_ posted...

cjsdowg posted...

The Admiral posted...

He was walking in the middle of the street and hitting cars.

Hitting a car is not Capital Crime in America. Yeah that makes things so much better down.

Is there body cam footage that you've seen? Was there a suicide-by-cop reach behind his back move? None of this is obvious in the dash cam, unfortunately. If he didn't, I'm inclined to agree this is a bad shoot.

Theres cell phone footage that shows a bit more. It shows the cop backpedaling while the guy continues to follow him before the shot. Just Google the dudes name and its on HuffPost

Damn, that one doesn't really show anything useful either. The moment of the shooting is completely obstructed.

cjsdowg posted...

The Admiral posted...

He was walking in the middle of the street and hitting cars.

Hitting a car is not Capital Crime in America. Yeah that makes things so much better down.

Is there body cam footage that you've seen? Was there a suicide-by-cop reach behind his back move? None of this is obvious in the dash cam, unfortunately. If he didn't, I'm inclined to agree this is a bad shoot.

DezDroppedFreak posted...

_RETS_ posted...

pauIie posted...

GetStumped posted...

can we stop with these meme about being offended at the police doing their job

doing their job

shooting innocent people that are on their phone in their back yards

This is not what happened.

Dude was going around smashing car windows and when confronted by police ran through yards, hopped fences, etc.

It was dark, and instead of complying with police he tried to get into the backdoor of his house and when they saw an object in his hand fired, reasonably thinking it was a weapon.

Would you be able to positively identify a dark object in the hand of a fleeing criminal at night who has turned to face you? Especially when, if it is a gun, you or your partner are likely shot or dead? The answer is no.

This was an unfortunate outcome to a situation brought onto the guy entirely by his own doing.

Can you source that

Swear to god I've heard like five different accounts on what happened

Here is the heli footage

pauIie posted...

GetStumped posted...

can we stop with these meme about being offended at the police doing their job

doing their job

shooting innocent people that are on their phone in their back yards

This is not what happened.

Dude was going around smashing car windows and when confronted by police ran through yards, hopped fences, etc.

It was dark, and instead of complying with police he tried to get into the backdoor of his house and when they saw an object in his hand fired, reasonably thinking it was a weapon.

Would you be able to positively identify a dark object in the hand of a fleeing criminal at night who has turned to face you? Especially when, if it is a gun, you or your partner are likely shot or dead? The answer is no.

This was an unfortunate outcome to a situation brought onto the guy entirely by his own doing.

thronedfire2 posted...

Caution999 posted...

This is why the media shouldn't be throwing his name out there. It's the underrated situation in all of this.

These murderers are being glorified by the media. We need to take away their names and give them numbers after something like this. Media doesn't acknowledge their real name.

Didn't the VA Tech shooter want to be remembered like Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold? Copy Cat shooters will want to copy this and become infamous. STOP GIVING THEM WHAT THEY WANT.

So you wanna censor the media but not control guns?

Those things don't have to be mutually exclusive. But if the media wants to do their part, they will keep killers anonymous. Reporting their face and name and details of their life constantly after a tragedy has no potential for good and only potential for harm.

Obviously you can't legislate it, but they should all agree to it amongst themselves.

cjsdowg posted...

These are the same police force who called for football player morally corrupt a allegedly pushing pass people to get to location.

What are you referring to?

This is one of the downsides of plastering mass killers' names and faces all over the god damn place following a tragedy. That shit really needs to stop. It is pretty much a certainty that keeping the killers anonymous will make a dent in mass killings.

Is there any body cam footage? Did the guy reach for anything behind his back in a suicide-by-cop attempt?

Murdering a child rapist isn't worse than raping a child.

Especially not if the "murder" is justified like in this case

Not really that I can remember, but I do know Manny is the absolute worst character on the show

marc55 posted...

Juanita Broaddrick accuses Clinton of raping her in 1978

marc55 posted...

MattSFfrd posted...

_OujiDoza_ posted...

MattSFfrd posted...

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

Juanita Broaddrick accuses Clinton of raping her in 1978; Kathleen Willey accuses Clinton of groping her without consent in 1993; and Paula Jones accuses Clinton of exposing himself to her in 1991 and sexually harassing her

literally a two second google search

Neither of those is rape....derp.

holy shit

but ...it isnt rape
is a crime but not rape

Are you guys missing something or am I?

Mr_Biscuit posted...

Remaining guns would work for self defense just like existing ones do. But then for a while you have a scenario in which criminals who do have access to the 90% are better armed than law-abiding citizens who only have the remaining 10%. That is a problem.

And "these rampages" make up such a minute percentage of gun deaths that it's pretty obvious the arguments are almost entirely emotional. So if the real issue is "gun deaths" why focus on something that is so marginally responsible? So then the focus shifts to the remaining 10%, which are responsible for the vast majority of gun deaths. So it is less slippery slope and more the realistic progression of things

Mr_Biscuit posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Mr_Biscuit posted...

C7D posted...

Mr_Biscuit posted...

The Admiral posted...

Remember how libs mocked conservatives for the past 8 years with stuff like they think were secretly coming for their guns!!

Turns out those conservatives were pretty spot on.

And yet, not a single person in this topic has argued for a gun ban.

Hint: people mock you with theyre comin for muh gunz!!! because you read any sentence that includes the word gun that way regardless of what the sentence actually says.

That didnt stop the District of Columbia or the city of Chicago from trying to ban them. Both of these laws were challenged in the Supreme Court in the last ten years. Both laws were struck down as unconstitutional. Factually, you would be unable to own a gun in the District of Columbia or the city of Chicago if the 2nd amendment were repealed. Im certain other places have considered similar laws but did not enact them because they knew they were unconstitutional.

Thats fine and a reasonable jumping off point for a debate. Im just pointing out that LIBERALS WANT TO BAN ALL GUNS is a willfully ignorant statement.

The current assault weapons ban making its way through Congress - co-sponsored by over 150 Dems - would effectively ban 90 percent of all firearms in the US.

Educate me would the remaining 10% truly be insufficient for home defense? Genuinely dont know and would like to hear why not.

The problem is that rifles are used in a vast minority of shootings. The cry to ban them is purely emotional. So once liberals realize that mass shootings can still happen with as much damage and efficiency with the remaining 10%, what happens then?

She is most likely telling the truth about the relationship/affair in general and embellishing other details for attention and money.

Thing is though, unless Trump did send someone to threaten her or use campaign finance money to pay her off, this doesn't really matter. Everyone knows Trump is a sleazy shit bag. This literally wouldn't change anything.

I don't even care about Clinton getting his fuck on, but he was in a position of elected power when he did it.

Mr_Biscuit posted...

ALIEN_WORK2HOP posted...

people in the USA really do live in some dream world if you think owning a gun needs to be a right and society can't manage without it.

Itd really be funny if it werent so scary and sad. The gun culture here is just insane.

Them being legal isnt enough, it has to be a GOD GIVEN RIGHT on the level of free speech that anyone can get an AR-15 if they feel like it, or else the U.S. government will suddenly become a dictatorship or something. Its absurd.

The right to adequate self-defense is a God given right on the level of free speech.

I am all for pro-choice, but liberals seem to be actually celebrating abortions and being proud to have had them more and more lately. That's disgusting and will mislead girls into thinking it isn't a huge emotionally and psychologically impactful decision that will likely weigh on them for the rest of their lives.

Get one if you need one. But give the decision the god damn respect it deserves and don't act like it's some kind of fucking merit badge.

Antifar posted...

_RETS_ posted...

And just the fact that so many citizens are armed is in itself a deterrent from the government ever becoming tyrannical.

The U.S. government has been tyrannical. Slavery was tyranny. Jim Crow was tyranny. The internment camps were tyranny.

Yes, and gun control was implemented heavily against those subject to that tyranny.

Antifar posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Antifar posted...

American history suggests that tyranny from our government will not be equally applied, and that those who talk up the necessity of the second amendment for fighting it are just as likely to cheer it on instead.

So then it's better if the people who the tyranny does apply to are unarmed? What point are you trying to make?

It doesn't matter if they're armed or not; there's no support for them fighting back.

My view on the gun control is separate from the question on hypothetical armed revolution: I think guns are a public health hazard that have resulted in far too many early deaths in this country, homicidal, suicidal, and accidental. They should be treated as such. It's a daily problem that I don't think is justified by the small chance of maybe helping resist tyranny one day down the line.

And how about the matter of having sufficient means to defend yourself/your home/your family if the need arises?

And just the fact that so many citizens are armed is in itself a deterrent from the government ever becoming tyrannical. So if the government never does go tyrannical, the 2A has served its purpose.