Ahmaud Arbery; racist killing and attempted cover up.

[Cow Poke]

Yea, and it’s gotta be “it” that three armed whites who chase and kill a loitering black man, ending their attack by calling him the n-word, are the good guys here.

A) I never said or implied any such thing
2) I have never tried to justify the actions of the killers
C) I have very CLEARLY declared that Aubery did not deserve to die - EVEN IF he has prior run-ins with the local police, which he did.
4) I, personally, can't conceive of even the remote chance that I would use the "N-word", even when angry, and that somebody who uses that word, probably has used it before?

Next?

[shunyadragon]

Ya noticed, did ya?

Hard not to notice an incoherent response avoiding the subject

[Cow Poke]

Hard not to notice an incoherent response avoiding the subject

But easy for your ilk to focus on something stupid like that, and ignore where I DID respond. What's that word you like? "Duffus"? :win:

[MaxVel]

You’re definitely part of the problem if you take trespassing so seriously that you think it may justify the vigilante killing of a human being.

Learn to read.

[Cow Poke]

You’re definitely part of the problem if you take trespassing so seriously that you think it may justify the vigilante killing of a human being.

I think you're usually more reasonable than this, Whag. At least, that's been my experience with you in the past.

Perhaps you could re-read what Max wrote, because there's not even a hint of justifying the killing.

[MaxVel]

I'm not speaking for oxmixmudd, but I'd like to chime in.

IF there's an attempt to hush up the facts as you've listed them, it might be because the list is incomplete. For example, we also know there's video footage of multiple people - not just Arbery - on the property without the owner's permission. Also, it appears no attempt was made to perform a citizen's arrest on these other people, who were mostly white (as far as they appear on the night vision cameras).

(1) I'm not claiming to make a complete presentation of the relevant facts.

(2) Were the 'white people' trespassing at night, and not in the day? Did a local resident see them go in and come out? If so, then that might be significant. If not, then the circumstances are different - maybe nobody stopped the 'white people' because nobody knew they were there until after they had gone.

So - again I'm only speaking for myself - I have no problem with the presentation of facts, so long as the presentation is complete.

Then you agree with me. But it seems others here think that presenting facts supports racism.

ps. and in general, I'd have no problem with the same presentation of all of the facts made the shooting victim look like a dangerous criminal. Facts are facts, and they all deserve to be enumerated in the prosecution of a potential murder.

Agreed.

[Cow Poke]

ps. and in general, I'd have no problem with the same presentation of all of the facts made the shooting victim look like a dangerous criminal. Facts are facts, and they all deserve to be enumerated in the prosecution of a potential murder.

EGGzackly -- because, IF this goes to trial, the facts will be on display and, what often happens, is those who have already made up their minds based on CONTROLLED information suddenly find their position challenged and are either stunned and take a fresh look --- or, what happens more often, they can't admit they were wrong and double down HARD.

"Eyes Wide Open" -- look at ALL the facts, and see where they lead.

[MaxVel]

Really, there's only one difference between people on the opposite sides of any argument: which facts they see as the most significant.

Put an atheist and a Christian in the same room - both honest and sincere people - and both will point to different things as being persuasive evidence for/against the existence of god(s). The same is true of whether to support the current president, whether or not Arbery was the victim of a racist murder, whether global warming is a real phenomenon, etc.

It's maddening, because if a person really wants to see one piece of evidence as more persuasive than another, there's not much anyone can do to change that.

Sorry for the soapbox.

For myself, I have a very expansive view of what "evidence" is, and this is why I try to avoid saying "there's no evidence for X" or "that's not evidence for X". I agree that SOME of the people arguing against racism as the main "cause"of Arbery's murder are doing exactly what you said: regurgitating facts which are no longer relevant, or at least not as relevant as they once were. They're gonna be dogmatic about it, too, because their position on racism (ie. an over-played card) is part of their identity & worldview. You can no-more convince them they're focusing on the wrong details of the case than you can convince them that their worldview is wrong.

Can I add that different people are going to find different elements of an incident more or less relevant. That's kind of human nature, just like people find different arguments for or against God more of less persuasive.

Going around claiming people are racist, or are supporting racism, when they are discussing the facts around an incident is NOT going to be persuasive to them. If your (general) goal is to actually change people's thinking, then the kind of attacks oxmixmudd (and others ) make are counterproductive, and are just as much a part of the problem as incipient racism is.

[Cow Poke]

Can I add that different people are going to find different elements of an incident more or less relevant. That's kind of human nature, just like people find different arguments for or against God more of less persuasive.

Going around claiming people are racist, or are supporting racism, when they are discussing the facts around an incident is NOT going to be persuasive to them. If your (general) goal is to actually change people's thinking, then the kind of attacks oxmixmudd (and others ) make are counterproductive, and are just as much a part of the problem as incipient racism is.

So, the ADULT thing to do is.... "OK, I'm aware that my perspective is X, so I need to be careful to avoid confirmation bias, and be open to ALL the facts".

I'm still amazed that otherwise intelligent people can slam their eyes shut and pitch little fits about NOT ALLOWING all of the facts to be laid on the table.

I know that I have a "pro-Police" bias. BIG time. So I have to work at seeing the failures, problems, challenges --- like not coming up with a SINGLE THING to minimize what Chauvin did.

[Charles]

[...]Going around claiming people are racist, or are supporting racism, when they are discussing the facts around an incident is NOT going to be persuasive to them. If your (general) goal is to actually change people's thinking, then the kind of attacks oxmixmudd (and others ) make are counterproductive, and are just as much a part of the problem as incipient racism is.

While that is mostly true what needs to be adressed is, of course, when people are only pointing to certain facts, only interested in what puts an already dead person in a worse light, while being very reluctant when it comes to concluding anything about the persons who are the reason this person is now dead. It needs to be called out, and to think it is conterproductive is rather naive. The whole web of bad excuses is exactly a part of the problem. Of course it needs to be adressed, of course it shows bias, of course this plays into a structure that you seemingly, at best, do not really understand. In such cases it needs to be exposed for what it is. The fact that those supporting it, whose main focus are on any possible wrongdoings of the victims are not persuated by it, is no reason to allow them to confuse others to think along the lines of selective reading of "facts".

[MaxVel]

While that is mostly true what needs to be adressed is, of course, when people are only pointing to certain facts, only interested in what puts an already dead person in a worse light, while being very reluctant when it comes to concluding anything about the persons who are the reason this person is now dead.

Please cite specific examples, also please indicate just how you know the underlined is true of your examples.

It needs to be called out, and to think it is conterproductive is rather naive.

So if I say that "you're just another bleeding heart liberal with a guilty conscience because you don't actually do anything of real value for black people except post your 'support' for them on the Net as you drive to your white community in your car that none of them can afford, and that's why you adopt the positions you do, to make yourself feel better without actually having to do any real work", you would respond positively to that? Really?

The whole web of bad excuses is exactly a part of the problem. Of course it needs to be adressed, of course it shows bias, of course this plays into a structure that you seemingly, at best, do not really understand. In such cases it needs to be exposed for what it is. The fact that those supporting it, whose main focus are on any possible wrongdoings of the victims are not persuated by it, is no reason to allow them to confuse others to think along the lines of selective reading of "facts".

Can't see any meaningful point in there except a lot of assumptions about other people's supposed wrongthink, and a desire to bully people into shutting up, rather than reasoning them into changing their minds.

[oxmixmudd]

So, the ADULT thing to do is.... "OK, I'm aware that my perspective is X, so I need to be careful to avoid confirmation bias, and be open to ALL the facts".

I'm still amazed that otherwise intelligent people can slam their eyes shut and pitch little fits about NOT ALLOWING all of the facts to be laid on the table.

I know that I have a "pro-Police" bias. BIG time. So I have to work at seeing the failures, problems, challenges --- like not coming up with a SINGLE THING to minimize what Chauvin did.

That isnt what the complaint is CP. What is happening is that 'all the facts' is being used to justify a very biased and filtered focus on just those facts that denigrate the victims. When some of us see this absurd focus on facts already shown to be irrelavent and the complete lack of interest in facts about the killers, we point out that absurd bias.

Absurd because first, if there was a true interest in all the facts, then we would be actually seeing all the facts, not just a filtered subset of the facts. Second because the facts being emphasized are primarily those which denigrate the victims and partially excuse the killers.

So you are just simply wrong to say the pushback is based on trying to silence certain facts. The pushback is against a very biased presentation of the facts where the emphasis is on only those facts that denigrate the victims.

[Cow Poke]

That isnt what the complaint is CP. What is happening is that 'all the facts' is being used to justify a very biased and filtered focus on just those facts that denigrate the victims.....

You can keep repeating that false accusation as many times as you want - it doesn't make it truerererer. That is NOT what I am doing at all.

[Charles]

Please cite specific examples, also please indicate just how you know the underlined is true of your examples.

I have done so numerous times in this very thread. It is already there if you wish to read it. Here are some examples:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post737694

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post737710

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post738781

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post738829

Here is a rather interesting one where it is shown that MM contradicted himself (again):

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post738878

An example from JimL:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post738202

An example form Ox:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post738686

There are many more, but you need to actually read the posts in thread if you want it all.

So if I say that "you're just another bleeding heart liberal with a guilty conscience because you don't actually do anything of real value for black people except post your 'support' for them on the Net as you drive to your white community in your car that none of them can afford, and that's why you adopt the positions you do, to make yourself feel better without actually having to do any real work", you would respond positively to that? Really?

Straw man. Please try to adress the real point which concerns pointing out the actuals. The above examples are quite good at showing how bias is pointed out without resorting to what you describe in your straw man presentation.

Can't see any meaningful point in there except a lot of assumptions about other people's supposed wrongthink, and a desire to bully people into shutting up, rather than reasoning them into changing their minds.

Straw man again. I will happily quote it again:

The whole web of bad excuses is exactly a part of the problem. Of course it needs to be adressed, of course it shows bias, of course this plays into a structure that you seemingly, at best, do not really understand. In such cases it needs to be exposed for what it is. The fact that those supporting it, whose main focus are on any possible wrongdoings of the victims are not persuated by it, is no reason to allow them to confuse others to think along the lines of selective reading of "facts".

You have a problem with pointing out bias, bad excuses and the like? My point is that I will point that out no matter if the poster is persuaded or not. Hopefully it will stop others in thinking along those erroneus lines. Again, you have many good examples of how it is done above and even more in this thread.

And what happened to the idea that attacks were counterproductive? Are your own posts written along the respectful lines of understanding, openess, honesty and the wish to reason other poeple into agreeing with you? You might read it again and see if you think your own posts might be counterproductive.

[Charles]

You can keep repeating that false accusation as many times as you want - it doesn't make it truerererer. That is NOT what I am doing at all.

Just a short time ago you talked about being open minded, and a short while after you cut out Ox's reasoning in your reply to him. It deserves to be quoted in full. I have not understood it as his claim that this is what you are doing.

That isnt what the complaint is CP. What is happening is that 'all the facts' is being used to justify a very biased and filtered focus on just those facts that denigrate the victims. When some of us see this absurd focus on facts already shown to be irrelavent and the complete lack of interest in facts about the killers, we point out that absurd bias.

Absurd because first, if there was a true interest in all the facts, then we would be actually seeing all the facts, not just a filtered subset of the facts. Second because the facts being emphasized are primarily those which denigrate the victims and partially excuse the killers.

So you are just simply wrong to say the pushback is based on trying to silence certain facts. The pushback is against a very biased presentation of the facts where the emphasis is on only those facts that denigrate the victims.