Occupy Thread

  On 11/16/2011 at 9:28 PM, Braintree said:

http://youtu.be/yoG9PmdGaT8

 

  On 11/16/2011 at 9:04 PM, acidphakist said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 8:59 PM, Braintree said:

So just so we're clear, it's totally cool to mace an old woman and a pregnant lady in the face?

 

I don't recall saying that.

 

Often in language, someone can 'say' something without 'saying' anything at all.

 

Don't blame these women for being victims. You would have to be a complete sociopath to mace either one in the face at a peaceful protest. Yes, people have been beaten by the police, but these people are largely grown men. It takes a particular type of coward to attack someone that is clearly fragile.

Am I disagreeing with you?

  On 11/16/2011 at 9:35 PM, jefferoo said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 9:28 PM, Braintree said:

http://youtu.be/yoG9PmdGaT8

 

  On 11/16/2011 at 9:04 PM, acidphakist said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 8:59 PM, Braintree said:

So just so we're clear, it's totally cool to mace an old woman and a pregnant lady in the face?

 

I don't recall saying that.

 

Often in language, someone can 'say' something without 'saying' anything at all.

 

Don't blame these women for being victims. You would have to be a complete sociopath to mace either one in the face at a peaceful protest. Yes, people have been beaten by the police, but these people are largely grown men. It takes a particular type of coward to attack someone that is clearly fragile.

 

 

Yeah. You didn't exactly say it was "cool" but you kinda were saying she deserved it. That is wrong.

I never said anyone deserved to be beaten or maced. I'm simply saying that it is to be expected.

Notice, if you will, that both of you have devolved to the point of placing words in my mouth, bordering on ad hominem attacks. This is a clear sign that your stance is untenable.

  On 11/16/2011 at 9:46 PM, acidphakist said:

I never said anyone deserved to be beaten or maced. I'm simply saying that it is to be expected.

And that is paranoid.

  On 11/16/2011 at 9:48 PM, Braintree said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 9:46 PM, acidphakist said:

I never said anyone deserved to be beaten or maced. I'm simply saying that it is to be expected.

 

And that is paranoid.

Is it paranoid if I'm correct?

  On 11/16/2011 at 9:49 PM, acidphakist said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 9:48 PM, Braintree said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 9:46 PM, acidphakist said:

I never said anyone deserved to be beaten or maced. I'm simply saying that it is to be expected.

 

And that is paranoid.

 

Is it paranoid if I'm correct?

Yes.

If you expect something to happen when it has a miniscule chance of actually happening, then that's paranoia. I understand that you agree it's unfortunate, but to say that it's "expected" that these women get maced in the face, then you obviously don't understand probability.

  On 11/16/2011 at 9:55 PM, Braintree said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 9:49 PM, acidphakist said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 9:48 PM, Braintree said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 9:46 PM, acidphakist said:

I never said anyone deserved to be beaten or maced. I'm simply saying that it is to be expected.

 

And that is paranoid.

 

Is it paranoid if I'm correct?

 

Yes.

 

If you expect something to happen when it has a miniscule chance of actually happening, then that's paranoia. I understand that you agree it's unfortunate, but to say that it's "expected" that these women get maced in the face, then you obviously don't understand probability.

Are you saying that being brutalized by the police has a miniscule probability?

If that's the case, then what are you bitching about?

  On 11/16/2011 at 10:01 PM, acidphakist said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 9:55 PM, Braintree said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 9:49 PM, acidphakist said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 9:48 PM, Braintree said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 9:46 PM, acidphakist said:

I never said anyone deserved to be beaten or maced. I'm simply saying that it is to be expected.

 

And that is paranoid.

 

Is it paranoid if I'm correct?

 

Yes.

 

If you expect something to happen when it has a miniscule chance of actually happening, then that's paranoia. I understand that you agree it's unfortunate, but to say that it's "expected" that these women get maced in the face, then you obviously don't understand probability.

 

Are you saying that being brutalized by the police has a miniscule probability?

 

If that's the case, then what are you bitching about?

It should be a miniscule probability for a senior citizen and a pregnant woman to be attacked by police officers at a peaceful protest [in a city that hasn't had any big headlines about violence]. So blaming them for joining in is pretty out of line.

  On 11/16/2011 at 10:05 PM, Braintree said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 10:01 PM, acidphakist said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 9:55 PM, Braintree said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 9:49 PM, acidphakist said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 9:48 PM, Braintree said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 9:46 PM, acidphakist said:

I never said anyone deserved to be beaten or maced. I'm simply saying that it is to be expected.

 

And that is paranoid.

 

Is it paranoid if I'm correct?

 

Yes.

 

If you expect something to happen when it has a miniscule chance of actually happening, then that's paranoia. I understand that you agree it's unfortunate, but to say that it's "expected" that these women get maced in the face, then you obviously don't understand probability.

 

Are you saying that being brutalized by the police has a miniscule probability?

 

If that's the case, then what are you bitching about?

 

It should be a miniscule probability for a senior citizen and a pregnant woman to be attacked by police officers at a peaceful protest [in a city that hasn't had any big headlines about violence]. So blaming them for joining in is pretty out of line.

So you are admitting it "should be" miniscule but, in fact, is not.

Furthermore, I'm not blaming them for getting maced. Please quote me where I did...

Getting beaten by the police at non-violent protests is not to be expected. That would mean it is the norm. Clearly it is not the norm, as the vast majority of protestors don't go home having been beaten.

What people are bitching about is that it does happen, and in this case it was directed toward two people who were particularly vulnerable.

  On 11/16/2011 at 10:08 PM, chenGOD said:

Getting beaten by the police at non-violent protests is not to be expected. That would mean it is the norm. Clearly it is not the norm, as the vast majority of protestors don't go home having been beaten.

What people are bitching about is that it does happen, and in this case it was directed toward two people who were particularly vulnerable.

So it is common knowledge, then, that it does happen. And therefore one can assume that by showing up, they might be brutalized. Hence it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that shows up and gets brutalized that they were brutalized.

  On 11/16/2011 at 10:07 PM, acidphakist said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 10:05 PM, Braintree said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 10:01 PM, acidphakist said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 9:55 PM, Braintree said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 9:49 PM, acidphakist said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 9:48 PM, Braintree said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 9:46 PM, acidphakist said:

I never said anyone deserved to be beaten or maced. I'm simply saying that it is to be expected.

 

And that is paranoid.

 

Is it paranoid if I'm correct?

 

Yes.

 

If you expect something to happen when it has a miniscule chance of actually happening, then that's paranoia. I understand that you agree it's unfortunate, but to say that it's "expected" that these women get maced in the face, then you obviously don't understand probability.

 

Are you saying that being brutalized by the police has a miniscule probability?

 

If that's the case, then what are you bitching about?

 

It should be a miniscule probability for a senior citizen and a pregnant woman to be attacked by police officers at a peaceful protest [in a city that hasn't had any big headlines about violence]. So blaming them for joining in is pretty out of line.

 

So you are admitting it "should be" miniscule but, in fact, is not.

 

Furthermore, I'm not blaming them for getting maced. Please quote me where I did...

Okay, let me rephrase that: It is grossly improbable for a senior citizen and a pregnant woman to be attacked by police at a peaceful protest in a city that hasn't had any big headlines about violence at said protests.

And as for quoting you, it's already in this thread of quotes. In fact, it's the first one. Your sentiment is known as "blaming the victim."

It does happen, but it is not to be expected. You're making a logical fallacy by saying that if A is true then B must follow.

that was in response to this:

"So it is common knowledge, then, that it does happen. And therefore one can assume that by showing up, they might be brutalized. Hence it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that shows up and gets brutalized that they were brutalized."

  On 11/16/2011 at 10:13 PM, Braintree said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 10:07 PM, acidphakist said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 10:05 PM, Braintree said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 10:01 PM, acidphakist said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 9:55 PM, Braintree said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 9:49 PM, acidphakist said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 9:48 PM, Braintree said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 9:46 PM, acidphakist said:

I never said anyone deserved to be beaten or maced. I'm simply saying that it is to be expected.

 

And that is paranoid.

 

Is it paranoid if I'm correct?

 

Yes.

 

If you expect something to happen when it has a miniscule chance of actually happening, then that's paranoia. I understand that you agree it's unfortunate, but to say that it's "expected" that these women get maced in the face, then you obviously don't understand probability.

 

Are you saying that being brutalized by the police has a miniscule probability?

 

If that's the case, then what are you bitching about?

 

It should be a miniscule probability for a senior citizen and a pregnant woman to be attacked by police officers at a peaceful protest [in a city that hasn't had any big headlines about violence]. So blaming them for joining in is pretty out of line.

 

So you are admitting it "should be" miniscule but, in fact, is not.

 

Furthermore, I'm not blaming them for getting maced. Please quote me where I did...

 

Okay, let me rephrase that: It is grossly improbable for a senior citizen and a pregnant woman to be attacked by police at a peaceful protest in a city that hasn't had any big headlines about violence at said protests.

 

And as for quoting you, it's already in this thread of quotes. In fact, it's the first one. Your sentiment is known as "blaming the victim."

Please use quotation marks around the sentence in which I blame the victim.

Otherwise shut up and sit down :)

  On 11/16/2011 at 10:13 PM, chenGOD said:

It does happen, but it is not to be expected. You're making a logical fallacy by saying that if A is true then B must follow.

 

that was in response to this:

"So it is common knowledge, then, that it does happen. And therefore one can assume that by showing up, they might be brutalized. Hence it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that shows up and gets brutalized that they were brutalized."

There is no logical fallacy there.

A could happen if I B. I B'd and A happened. Hence, I should shut up.

you shouldnt expect to get beaten unless youre in a definite police state or violently resisting arrest

  On 11/16/2011 at 10:18 PM, Glunk said:

you shouldnt expect to get beaten unless youre in a definite police state or violently resisting arrest

I've seen videos of people getting maced, beaten and shot with rubber bullets.

Are you saying I should ignore that evidence that I might get brutalized?

  On 11/16/2011 at 10:18 PM, acidphakist said:

 

  On 11/16/2011 at 10:13 PM, chenGOD said:

It does happen, but it is not to be expected. You're making a logical fallacy by saying that if A is true then B must follow.

 

that was in response to this:

"So it is common knowledge, then, that it does happen. And therefore one can assume that by showing up, they might be brutalized. Hence it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that shows up and gets brutalized that they were brutalized."

 

There is no logical fallacy there.

 

A could happen if I B. I B'd and A happened. Hence, I should shut up.

You said "it should not come as a surprise to anyone that they get brutalized just by showing up."

However, the number of people being beaten is small. Therefore it should be a surprise.

Just because the number of people being brutalized is small does not mean that it is right. Therefore there is no issue in complaining about the brutality.

  On 11/16/2011 at 10:21 PM, chenGOD said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 10:18 PM, acidphakist said:

 

  On 11/16/2011 at 10:13 PM, chenGOD said:

It does happen, but it is not to be expected. You're making a logical fallacy by saying that if A is true then B must follow.

 

that was in response to this:

"So it is common knowledge, then, that it does happen. And therefore one can assume that by showing up, they might be brutalized. Hence it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that shows up and gets brutalized that they were brutalized."

 

There is no logical fallacy there.

 

A could happen if I B. I B'd and A happened. Hence, I should shut up.

 

You said "it should not come as a surprise to anyone that they get brutalized just by showing up."

However, the number of people being beaten is small. Therefore it should be a surprise.

 

Just because the number of people being brutalized is small does not mean that it is right. Therefore there is no issue in complaining about the brutality.

Thank you for not trying to continue down the path of "I'm a logician, this is a logical fallacy, etc." It wasn't working for you.

So, then, we are finally on the same page!

There is police brutality at these protests and you may get brutalized if you show up! It isn't necessarily right, however that's not the discussion we are currently having.

  On 11/16/2011 at 10:24 PM, acidphakist said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 10:21 PM, chenGOD said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 10:18 PM, acidphakist said:

 

  On 11/16/2011 at 10:13 PM, chenGOD said:

It does happen, but it is not to be expected. You're making a logical fallacy by saying that if A is true then B must follow.

 

that was in response to this:

"So it is common knowledge, then, that it does happen. And therefore one can assume that by showing up, they might be brutalized. Hence it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that shows up and gets brutalized that they were brutalized."

 

There is no logical fallacy there.

 

A could happen if I B. I B'd and A happened. Hence, I should shut up.

 

You said "it should not come as a surprise to anyone that they get brutalized just by showing up."

However, the number of people being beaten is small. Therefore it should be a surprise.

 

Just because the number of people being brutalized is small does not mean that it is right. Therefore there is no issue in complaining about the brutality.

 

Thank you for not trying to continue down the path of "I'm a logician, this is a logical fallacy, etc." It wasn't working for you.

 

So, then, we are finally on the same page!

 

There is police brutality at these protests and you may get brutalized if you show up! It isn't necessarily right, however that's not the discussion we are currently having.

It certainly was working for me - you've just proved the point

What you originally said was "you should expect to get brutalized".

Now you have changed to "you may get brutalized"

There is a large difference between those two statements.

  On 11/16/2011 at 10:26 PM, chenGOD said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 10:24 PM, acidphakist said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 10:21 PM, chenGOD said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 10:18 PM, acidphakist said:

 

  On 11/16/2011 at 10:13 PM, chenGOD said:

It does happen, but it is not to be expected. You're making a logical fallacy by saying that if A is true then B must follow.

 

that was in response to this:

"So it is common knowledge, then, that it does happen. And therefore one can assume that by showing up, they might be brutalized. Hence it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that shows up and gets brutalized that they were brutalized."

 

There is no logical fallacy there.

 

A could happen if I B. I B'd and A happened. Hence, I should shut up.

 

You said "it should not come as a surprise to anyone that they get brutalized just by showing up."

However, the number of people being beaten is small. Therefore it should be a surprise.

 

Just because the number of people being brutalized is small does not mean that it is right. Therefore there is no issue in complaining about the brutality.

 

Thank you for not trying to continue down the path of "I'm a logician, this is a logical fallacy, etc." It wasn't working for you.

 

So, then, we are finally on the same page!

 

There is police brutality at these protests and you may get brutalized if you show up! It isn't necessarily right, however that's not the discussion we are currently having.

 

It certainly was working for me - you've just proved the point

What you originally said was "you should expect to get brutalized".

Now you have changed to "you may get brutalized"

 

There is a large difference between those two statements.

You proved nothing, but thanks. :)

I know you like being pedantic so, if you'd like, let's do just that:

If you hold that A implies B only if there is a 100% probability, then yes, I was I made a logical fallacy.

Let's talk about the human experience. When we think of the outcomes to situations we blend the perceived probability with the "goodness" or "badness" of the outcome. In other words, the actual number of people in the crowd at the protest that were maced compared to the total number in the crowd might be 3.5%, but the fear of the pain of such an eventuality will scew the probability upwards.

In other words, with people getting maced and being maced being pretty bad, I certainly wouldn't show up to this party.

that's right - you've done all the proving.

what are we talking about?

How it's shitty that an old woman and a pregnant lady got beaten and/or maced by cops and how it shouldn't be expected, tolerated or be brushed aside.

  On 11/16/2011 at 10:32 PM, chenGOD said:

that's right - you've done all the proving.

No, I just like playing "beat them to submission with lots of words" like you always do! I'm learning, right daddy?

  On 11/16/2011 at 10:18 PM, acidphakist said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 10:13 PM, Braintree said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 10:07 PM, acidphakist said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 10:05 PM, Braintree said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 10:01 PM, acidphakist said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 9:55 PM, Braintree said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 9:49 PM, acidphakist said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 9:48 PM, Braintree said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 9:46 PM, acidphakist said:

I never said anyone deserved to be beaten or maced. I'm simply saying that it is to be expected.

 

And that is paranoid.

 

Is it paranoid if I'm correct?

 

Yes.

 

If you expect something to happen when it has a miniscule chance of actually happening, then that's paranoia. I understand that you agree it's unfortunate, but to say that it's "expected" that these women get maced in the face, then you obviously don't understand probability.

 

Are you saying that being brutalized by the police has a miniscule probability?

 

If that's the case, then what are you bitching about?

 

It should be a miniscule probability for a senior citizen and a pregnant woman to be attacked by police officers at a peaceful protest [in a city that hasn't had any big headlines about violence]. So blaming them for joining in is pretty out of line.

 

So you are admitting it "should be" miniscule but, in fact, is not.

 

Furthermore, I'm not blaming them for getting maced. Please quote me where I did...

 

Okay, let me rephrase that: It is grossly improbable for a senior citizen and a pregnant woman to be attacked by police at a peaceful protest in a city that hasn't had any big headlines about violence at said protests.

 

And as for quoting you, it's already in this thread of quotes. In fact, it's the first one. Your sentiment is known as "blaming the victim."

 

 

Please use quotation marks around the sentence in which I blame the victim.

 

Otherwise shut up and sit down :)

It's this one. The first one. I've also made it bold up there:

  On 11/16/2011 at 9:46 PM, acidphakist said:

I never said anyone deserved to be beaten or maced. I'm simply saying that it is to be expected.

So I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you know what that implies, but are looking for me to quote a single line of text to save face for your faulty argument. If you're that socially inept that you can't figure it out, I'll explain it to you.

The subject is clearly about the two women being maced. You said that it's to be expected. You're implying that by merely showing up, it's expected that they be beaten or maced, which is clearly not true. Thousands of people show up to these things and only a small portion of them have been assaulted by police. So taking that into account, one can assume if she were to take part in a protest [in a city that has largely remained non-violent], then she would probably [key word there] be left alone by the police. Especially since she's fucking pregnant.

So go ahead and read that article on victim blaming that I posted. Here it is again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming

  On 11/16/2011 at 10:54 PM, Braintree said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 10:18 PM, acidphakist said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 10:13 PM, Braintree said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 10:07 PM, acidphakist said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 10:05 PM, Braintree said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 10:01 PM, acidphakist said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 9:55 PM, Braintree said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 9:49 PM, acidphakist said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 9:48 PM, Braintree said:

  On 11/16/2011 at 9:46 PM, acidphakist said:

I never said anyone deserved to be beaten or maced. I'm simply saying that it is to be expected.

 

And that is paranoid.

 

Is it paranoid if I'm correct?

 

Yes.

 

If you expect something to happen when it has a miniscule chance of actually happening, then that's paranoia. I understand that you agree it's unfortunate, but to say that it's "expected" that these women get maced in the face, then you obviously don't understand probability.

 

Are you saying that being brutalized by the police has a miniscule probability?

 

If that's the case, then what are you bitching about?

 

It should be a miniscule probability for a senior citizen and a pregnant woman to be attacked by police officers at a peaceful protest [in a city that hasn't had any big headlines about violence]. So blaming them for joining in is pretty out of line.

 

So you are admitting it "should be" miniscule but, in fact, is not.

 

Furthermore, I'm not blaming them for getting maced. Please quote me where I did...

 

Okay, let me rephrase that: It is grossly improbable for a senior citizen and a pregnant woman to be attacked by police at a peaceful protest in a city that hasn't had any big headlines about violence at said protests.

 

And as for quoting you, it's already in this thread of quotes. In fact, it's the first one. Your sentiment is known as "blaming the victim."

 

 

Please use quotation marks around the sentence in which I blame the victim.

 

Otherwise shut up and sit down :)

 

It's this one. The first one. I've also made it bold up there:

 

  On 11/16/2011 at 9:46 PM, acidphakist said:

I never said anyone deserved to be beaten or maced. I'm simply saying that it is to be expected.

 

So I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you know what that implies, but are looking for me to quote a single line of text to save face for your faulty argument. If you're that socially inept that you can't figure it out, I'll explain it to you.

 

The subject is clearly about the two women being maced. You said that it's to be expected. You're implying that by merely showing up, it's expected that they be beaten or maced, which is clearly not true. Thousands of people show up to these things and only a small portion of them have been assaulted by police. So taking that into account, one can assume if she were to take part in a protest [in a city that has largely remained non-violent], then she would probably [key word there] be left alone by the police. Especially since she's fucking pregnant.

 

So go ahead and read that article on victim blaming that I posted. Here it is again: http://en.wikipedia..../Victim_blaming

No no, you still haven't highlighted the sentence where I say I blame the victim.

You are simply making assumptions.

And you're obviously supposed to be sitting at the kid's table. Now get the fuck out of this thread.

  Quote

Victim blaming occurs when the victim(s) of a crime, an accident, or any type of abusive maltreatment are held entirely or partially responsible for the transgressions committed against them. Blaming the victim has traditionally emerged especially in racist and sexist forms.^[1] However, this attitude may exist independently from these radical views and even be at least half-official in some countries.^[2]

People familiar with victimology are much less likely to see the victim as responsible.^[3] Knowledge about prior relationship between victim and perpetrator increases perceptions of victim blame for rape, but not for robbery.^[4] Another common instance is its use as a defence by bullies.