The Ferguson thread

[Trigger Time]

PC? Though the meaning is well known, I use "Persona Credibility" (ie, the persona I reflect, whether on-line, or not, is actually me). Most people that rail against PC, only disregard it in the company of friend or with the anonymousness of being on-line. However, they will become just as PC as anyone while in the company of strangers, or when face to face with people that don't share their views. Half the stuff I've read on INGO, I have never heard outside of the net. Why is that? ...Because people know when they should STFU. I'm tactful in what I say, because if I have a disagreement on-line with somebody, I want to be consistent in my stance and not get punched in the nose, rather than be a hypocrite and shirk.

Well let's meet up because I'll gladly tell you without editing what I really think. I will say that not every person of a group can be held responsible for the actions of even a majority but the actions of a perceived majority or large part definitely help profile and dictate if I want to be associated with anyone of that party.
the whole reason some people can't fully express their true feelings on particular issues is to stay within the forum rules and respect them. It's not that they care what you really think of them. Nor that they are trying to hide anything.
but yeah some people are fake about their true beliefs. That's on them

 

[Kutnupe14]

Uh, that's the whole point for referring to people with such terms. They're behaving in ways that dehumanize themselves by their own actions. There is nothing inherently wrong with describing people who engage in extreme, dehumanizing behaviors using terms that explicitly reflect that. In fact, it's concise, correct, and communicates the message far more effectively than purposely rephrasing for the sole reason of avoiding potentially offending people who choose to project their own subtext.

Human history, over and over, contradicts this belief. Does it not? Are the actions of the immoral actors in Ferguson somehow unique to human behavior in any way? From my knowledge, such is quite human indeed.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Well let's meet up because I'll gladly tell you without editing what I really think. I will say that not every person of a group can be held responsible for the actions of even a majority but the actions of a perceived majority or large part definitely help profile and dictate if I want to be associated with anyone of that party.

It's not me, that you'd have wary of your choice of words.

 

[churchmouse]

Yes, humans are animals. 100% animals. So begs the question, are you speaking positively of "animals," of which you are one of also, or negatively of them? Would you be ok, if you (who as far as I have known is a good person) were referred to as an animal? If you are ok with it, then what's the point of referring to the bad people in Ferguson as being from the same group as you? If you are not ok with it, are you disregarding the fact that you are an animal yourself? If you have an issue with those person's morals, then call them immoral persons, not an animal. By referring to people as animals, you are allowing them a pass, as if they don't know better. By making them retain their humanity, you are acknowledging their culpability in the crime they committed... crimes which they should be held accountable for.
If an animal mauls a man in the forest to protect its territory, it's hard to place blame on it, because it is an animal. But if man purposefully injures another without just cause they are 100% to blame..... because humans should know better.

If you see the actions that are unfolding before our eyes "Human" then we should sit down and discuss this over a cheese burger and your favorite cheese burger beverage. My treat.

This crap is not humane. It is base back to the cave animal activity. It is not different than scavengers.

Yes, I am an animal. I "Choose" to remain on the moral side of that behavior.

 

[Trigger Time]

It's not me, that you'd have wary of your choice of words.

No I don't worry. I won't use a word or words here that aren't allowed.
Thats what I'm saying. If you wanna know my true unedited feelings then ask me in person and I'll tell you. I don't care what group you belong to. It doesn't mean I'm gonna lump you in with the worst of that group.
Lets say for example: dirty cops. I know not all cops are dirty, but as a whole until I know them I'm gonna be watching them.
theres one time that I didn't tell an ingo member my true beliefs because I was concerned about offending them. I regret it to this day (lying to them). I won't let it happen again.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Yes, humans are animals. 100% animals. So begs the question, are you speaking positively of "animals," of which you are one of also, or negatively of them?

I am speaking 100% matter-of-factly. Nothing more. Nothing less. The fact is, when we have animals, whether wild or ostensibly domesticated, marauding and threatening property, not to mention life and limb, we have no problem going to guns to end the marauding behaviour. An animal tear-assing around a neighborhood merely acting in a threatening manner, not even necessarily actually attacking anyone or destroying any property, routinely catches a bullet, whether from a homeowner in the neighborhood, a dedicated animal control officer, or a beat cop who happens to catch the duty assignment. If that animal did not want to catch that bullet or five, it could have chosen to cease acting in that marauding fashion and take on a more moral mode of behaviour… if it were human.

 

[Kutnupe14]

If you see the actions that are unfolding before our eyes "Human" then we should sit down and discuss this over a cheese burger and your favorite cheese burger beverage. My treat.

This crap is not humane. It is base back to the cave animal activity. It is not different than scavengers.

Yes, I am an animal. I "Choose" to remain on the moral side of that behavior.

I see the actions as very human. Animals have no sense of morality, one way or the other. Humans, as you pointed out, can "choose." A person that chooses the irrational over the rational, or the immoral over the moral only makes them uncivilized, but certainly doesn't exclude them from being human.

 

[Trigger Time]

I wish I could comment directly to the liars that are mike browns parents. I believe THEY are very responsible for the mans LEGAL death (yes he was a man and not a child like the media wants to belch). Also the parents are fueling the lies and violence. Just like the pos president is.

i believe they are scum bags and of coarse are reading off talking points fed to them by their handlers. In normal life I doubt they could remain sober or educated enough to utter a complete English sentence.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I am speaking 100% matter-of-factly. Nothing more. Nothing less. The fact is, when we have animals, whether wild or ostensibly domesticated, marauding and threatening property, not to mention life and limb, we have no problem going to guns to end the marauding behaviour. An animal tear-assing around a neighborhood merely acting in a threatening manner, not even necessarily actually attacking anyone or destroying any property, routinely catches a bullet, whether from a homeowner in the neighborhood, a dedicated animal control officer, or a beat cop who happens to catch the duty assignment. If that animal did not want to catch that bullet or five, it could have chosen to cease acting in that marauding fashion and take on a more moral mode of behaviour… if it were human.

In your opinion, do these animal know better? Are they aware that what they are doing is wrong. Do they have the spark of like that IMO separates man from beast?

 

[Trigger Time]

I see the actions as very human. Animals have no sense of morality, one way or the other. Humans, as you pointed out, can "choose." A person that chooses the irrational over the rational, or the immoral over the moral only makes them uncivilized, but certainly doesn't exclude them from being human.

I don't believe they have any sense if morality. Imorality is always the option to them.

 

[churchmouse]

I see the actions as very human. Animals have no sense of morality, one way or the other. Humans, as you pointed out, can "choose." A person that chooses the irrational over the rational, or the immoral over the moral only makes them uncivilized, but certainly doesn't exclude them from being human.

I can not argue there state of condition/existence. In that you are correct.
I refer to their actions. By choice. I take issue there.

 

[CathyInBlue]

In your opinion, do these animal know better? Are they aware that what they are doing is wrong. Do they have the spark of like that IMO separates man from beast?

That is neither here nor there, certainly for the non-human animals gone marauder, and in my opinion, it should be so for the marauding human animals as well. Whether it is or not is not a point I have chosen to address.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I don't believe they have any sense if morality. Imorality is always the option to them.

Well, if that is your belief, they you would be justified in calling them animals. I will say that I believe that your opinion is in the minority.

 

[Kutnupe14]

That is neither here nor there, certainly for the non-human animals gone marauder, and in my opinion, it should be so for the marauding human animals as well. Whether it is or not is not a point I have chosen to address.

Sorry, I'm not following the ".....it should be so part." What should be so?

 

[CathyInBlue]

Sorry, I'm not following the ".....it should be so part." What should be so?

It shouldn't matter whether the marauding animal, human or non-human, knows "better" or knows that what it's doing is morally wrong". If an animal has been trained not to attack people and has simply chosen to act contrary to its training, or the animal has been trained to deliberately attack people, is a question that is neither here nor there in the moment of dealing with the marauding behaviour.

I give you four scenarioes. You tell me in which one the answer to the question, "Is he aware that what he is doing is wrong." matters one whit.

1) A well socialized and treated pitbull is running pell mell, growling and snarling, down the street after a child that's running away in terror.
2) A pitbul that has been trained to fight and has been tortured is running pell mell, growing and snarling, down the street after a child that's running away in terror.
3) A man that's well dressed and groomed is running pell mell, wielding a knife in the downward slashing manner, down the street after a child that's running away in terror.
4) A man that's dressed slovenly and shouting hateful and threatening epithets is running pell mell, wielding a knife in the downward slashing manner, down the street after a child that's running away in terror.

Please answer 1, 2, 3, or 4, as to which one would not warrant the use of lethal force once it became apparent that the animal, human or non-human, was imminently going to close with the child, and then explain your reasoning for why lethal force would not be warranted and how the answer to the question, "Is he aware that what he is doing is wrong?" affects that calculus.

 

[churchmouse]

Fox news showed the "Oath Keepers posted up on the roof tops watching. Heavily armed and watching.

 

[Trigger Time]

Fox news showed the "Oath Keepers posted up on the roof tops watching. Heavily armed and watching.

That's great!
get some!

 

[churchmouse]

More of that may keep this at bay seeing as the authority's are doing such a poor job.

 

[printcraft]

Printcraft I have to say I'm disappointed. I thought you were one of the people who knew well that if I'm going to make a decision to remove something, I make that decision in my own mind. Most of my friends, and most of the posting members, for that matter, know that you might point me to a thread, and you might tell me how awful you think something is, but the decision comes from between my ears, not based on something someone else thought or felt.
Blessings,
Bill

Oh oh yes I know that full well. Again that is why I said it for the benefit of someone else. Since I have no clue who sent you the message I could only surmise it was one who has posted in this thread and had their view of what happened shattered by the facts of the case that have came to light. I don't for a moment believe that every instance of the word animals being posted here automatically means that the person posting it is a racist.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I dislike the use of the word "animal," because it's dehumanizing. Whether you like it or not, when you dehumanize a person, it much easier to dislike, discriminate, or even kill that person... all under the umbrella of "well, they're animals, not human." I'm a realist, I understand people have preconceived notions about people, in regards to race, religion, creed, and a variety of other things. We ALL do it, but be wary of how powerful words are when describing people. Because depending on how they are used, you may stop seeing people, as "people."
(insert Godwin's Law reference)

Thanks, Kut. You said this much better than I did. The main point as I see it is to address actions, not the people performing/committing them, which is a point Cathy made, too. As a cop, you don't care if the rapist is Black, White, Asian, or Martian, male, female, teen, or senior. If you catch them, you're busting them. If they resist, they're probably going to have a really bad day. I didn't say it well, but I think as long as we focus on what's being done, the fact that the perpetrators (or "alleged perpetrators", until they're convicted (which may be never)) are one or another color is immaterial. Dehumanizing people to make them easier to deal with, as you described, is IMHO, immoral.

Rep inbound.

Blessings,
Bill