The 2020 George Floyd/BLM/Police Brutality Protests Discussion Thread

strela
But I'm not making anything up.
Click to expand...
Didn't say you were. I said that the burden of proof on the claimant is what stops things that people made up defaulting to being true.
strela
And everything we trow are promptly rejected.
Click to expand...
Sources are subject to the same scrutiny. If your claim comes from a source, what's to say that source didn't make it up? You can't pass the buck of proof to another entity because that's who told you the thing you're saying is true.
strela
So I wonder how far do I have to go while the other party just sit and do nothing?
Click to expand...
To the point of proving it.

If you can't, don't make the claim that it is true. Instead say that somewhere else says it's true and provide the source. Rather than:
strela
@Scaff you know right that he was hired to protect a shop? A small research is all you need.
Click to expand...
Try:
strela
[This source] says he was hired to protect a shop.
Click to expand...
 
DesertPenguin
This was my the town next to mine yesterday. These people are disgusting. Protesting the protest... This is beyond the whitest of whitey whiteness



Click to expand...

I can understand why a community wouldn't want protestors moving through their neighbourhood in light of the destruction that has happened elsewhere but people also have a right to protest. I guess it really comes down to the Police being able to control everything so that it stays peaceful. And too many times they haven't been able to do that. Very difficult situation.
 
This is an account from someone in the BLM group, one of the comments on the r/LongIsland subreddit:

Here's the thing, these people were not protesting a protest. They were actively getting the police involved to attempt to deny us the right to protest. In the end, the Police and a Community leader (didn't get her name) were able to compromise to let us walk a few blocks. They didn't want us in their neighborhood (even though for most of us, it actually was our neighborhood). The crowd was at a stand-off for hours until that happened. They called us idiots, losers, and traitors.

Look, if they just lined up across the street and hurled insults and opposing views our way, sure it's frustrating, but they have that right, and that would be a counter-protest. These people were blocking us from even attempting to protest, their goal was to silence us and keep it out of their neighborhood.

They didn't want communicate an opposing view, they aimed to silence our right to express our own.
 
DesertPenguin
This is an account from someone in the BLM group, one of the comments on the r/LongIsland subreddit:

Here's the thing, these people were not protesting a protest. They were actively getting the police involved to attempt to deny us the right to protest. In the end, the Police and a Community leader (didn't get her name) were able to compromise to let us walk a few blocks. They didn't want us in their neighborhood (even though for most of us, it actually was our neighborhood). The crowd was at a stand-off for hours until that happened. They called us idiots, losers, and traitors.

Look, if they just lined up across the street and hurled insults and opposing views our way, sure it's frustrating, but they have that right, and that would be a counter-protest. These people were blocking us from even attempting to protest, their goal was to silence us and keep it out of their neighborhood.

They didn't want communicate an opposing view, they aimed to silence our right to express our own.
Click to expand...
Well, then that is clearly wrong. If you shut down a person's right to have their voice heard then don't expect your own voice to be heard when you need it to be. Concern for their property would have been understandable but silencing them is not.
 
It's completely wrong and I can't believe this is happening where I live. I knew that town was full of rich entitled white cronies but this is beyond stupid.
 
Famine
Sources are subject to the same scrutiny. If your claim comes from a source, what's to say that source didn't make it up? You can't pass the buck of proof to another entity because that's who told you the thing you're saying is true.
Click to expand...
So I can't prove it anyway. And the opposite side just need to reject the proof to prove their point.
Famine
To the point of proving it.
Click to expand...
Which is decided by the opposite side?
Famine
If you can't, don't make the claim that it is true. Instead say that somewhere else says it's true and provide the source.
Click to expand...
But I believe it to be true. And I stand behind my claims until proven otherwise. Which take us to the square one.:)
 
DesertPenguin
It's completely wrong and I can't believe this is happening where I live. I knew that town was full of rich entitled white cronies but this is beyond stupid.
Click to expand...
It's always a shock when something happens close to you that you didn't believe possible. At the end of the day though, you can only control your own moral compass.
 
strela
So I can't prove it anyway.
Click to expand...
If you can't prove it, don't make the claim.

It's really not that complicated.
strela
And the opposite side just need to reject the proof to prove their point.
Click to expand...
strela
Which is decided by the opposite side?
Click to expand...
The opposite side to something being true is something not being true. If you cannot prove it is true, it is not true (until proven true) and you should not be claiming that it is. Again, this isn't that complicated.
strela
But I believe it to be true.
Click to expand...
That's not relevant to whether something is true or not. If you can prove it, show the proof. If you cannot, don't make the claim.
strela
And I stand behind my claims until proven otherwise. Which take us to the square one.
Click to expand...
It takes you back to square one, and that should tell you that your position of acting like things are true without proof is the one that is at fault.

The burden of proof lies with the claimant. Always.


Imagine someone made up a horrible thing about you and posted it on here. Your position on this, as posted above, is that they should be allowed to say vile things that weren't true with no proof whatsoever if they say that they believed it to be true, so we shouldn't do anything about it.
 
Last edited:
Famine
If you can't prove it, don't make the claim.
It's really not that complicated.
The opposite side to something being true is something not being true. If you cannot prove it is true, it is not true and you should not be claiming that it is. Again, this isn't that complicated.
That's not relevant to whether something is true or not. If you can prove it, show the proof. If you cannot, don't make the claim.
It takes you back to square one, and that should tell you that your position of acting like things are true without proof is the one that is at fault.

The burden of proof lies with the claimant. Always.
Click to expand...
There was this guy long time ago. His name was Galileo Galilei. He wanted to prove something that the opposition didn't want to acknowledge. He said "yet it moves". Same with me. I will still say it. Because I believe it.
 
strela
There was this guy long time ago. His name was Galileo Galilei. He wanted to prove something that the opposition didn't want to acknowledge. He said "yet it moves". Same with me. I will still say it. Because I believe it.
Click to expand...
Ironic position. Galileo could prove it empirically, but the church - an organisation founded on belief - didn't want to acknowledge the proof because it undermined their belief.

You're not Galileo in your argument. You're the church.


People for whom the burden of proof is simply whether they believe something are not always have been, and still are, the ultimate barrier to progress. To veer wildly back towards the topic, the belief that "negroes" were stupid, incapable of learning, less than human and more like apes - none of which has any foundation in reality - is the basis of the slave trade (and yes, white - particularly Irish - people were also slaves, as were Chinese; once you start treating one group of people as subhuman, it's easy to treat others that way too).

That belief persists today, apparently among a much wider spread of people than you'd ever imagine, and even outside the USA which seems to have a particular issue with it. We're actually closer in time to the point where racial segregation of "coloreds" was legal in the USA, than the end of that was to the start of World War 1.

This isn't something from way back in the day - it's within living memory for huge numbers of people. We still have monkey chants at football games in the UK and Italy, and at Formula 1 races in Spain! It's absolute insanity... and it's founded on belief, without proof.
 
Last edited:
DesertPenguin
If the press reported everything they "believe to be true" where would that get us?
Click to expand...

It would get us: news from unvetted FaceBook posts, news from unvetted Twitter posts, news from unvetted Reddit posts, on and on, etc. Oh the irony.

FWIW, I grew up on Long Island. Nice (sad) to see it hasn't changed much.
 
Famine
People for whom the burden of proof is simply whether they believe something are not always have been, and still are, the ultimate barrier to progress. To veer wildly back towards the topic, the belief that "negroes" were stupid, incapable of learning, less than human and more like apes - none of which has any foundation in reality - is the basis of the slave trade (and yes, white - particularly Irish - people were also slaves, as were Chinese; once you start treating one group of people as subhuman, it's easy to treat others that way too).

That belief persists today, apparently among a much wider spread of people than you'd ever imagine, and even outside the USA which seems to have a particular issue with it. We're actually closer in time to the point where racial segregation of "coloreds" was legal in the USA, than the end of that was to the start of World War 1.

This isn't something from way back in the day - it's within living memory for huge numbers of people. We still have monkey chants at football games in the UK and Italy, and at Formula 1 races in Spain! It's absolute insanity... and it's founded on belief, without proof.
Click to expand...
I'm against racism and always was. My grandfather was in Dachau during WW2 because of racism. Have many black friends. But I'm also a very peaceful person and don't believe in violence. Actually I don't tolerate any form of violence for that matter.
And it has nothing to do with my claim that the white armed person in Chicago was actually a licensed security guard.
 
strela
I'm against racism and always was. My grandfather was in Dachau during WW2 because of racism. Have many black friends. But I'm also a very peaceful person and don't believe in violence. Actually I don't tolerate any form of violence for that matter.
And it has nothing to do with my claim that the white armed person in Chicago was actually a licensed security guard.
Click to expand...
And doesn’t change the fact that he was still acting illegally, as shown by the Illinois FCC regulation I posted and cited, and you tried to use him wearing a star to dispute!

Your proof that he’s licences is a picture of him stood outside a shop and an article in one of the single most untrustworthy publications in the western world, which is hardly cast iron.

The point however is not if he’s licensed, but if he’s acting legally and did the police carry out the actions they should have.
 
Last edited:
Scaff
And doesn’t change the fact that he was still acting illegally, as shown by the Illinois FCC regulation I posted and cited, and you tried to use him wearing a star to dispute!
Click to expand...
Sorry if I didn't find the article to link it for you at the beginning. I still stand behind my claim. That star sure mean something and your saying that is just a decoration is.... just silly.
 
strela
So I can't prove it anyway. And the opposite side just need to reject the proof to prove their point.
Click to expand...
I'm gonna let you in on something. When you cite a legitimate source upon formal request for citation such as the one I made, you do something far more important for the purposes of discussion than provide "proof". You provide context. Legitimate sources typically give information that goes beyond "he had a license", such as where and when events transpired and insights into the events as they transpired.

Armed with context that I didn't have at the time that you made the claim, I am now given to understand that the primary subject was indeed hired to guard a storefront and that he was likely permitted to be armed (at least this is what I believe having gleaned information from multiple other sources) while doing so.

However, I have also found a source that indicates the altercation captured so briefly (and devoid of meaningful context) on video occurred two blocks away from the storefront that the individual was hired to guard. I'm given to understand that the law holds that an individual permitted to carry a firearm in the open is only permitted to do so in service to the task they were hired to fulfill, and it seems highly unlikely that protesters two blocks away--be they peaceful or have violent intentions--pose an imminent threat to said storefront. The storefront may have even been more susceptible as a result of the guard having left his post.

strela
That star sure mean something and your saying that is just a decoration is.... just silly.
Click to expand...
24-249854_clip-art-sheriff-star-wild-west-sheriff-badge.png
 
Police have been attacked at the demonstration against the killing of George Floyd in London this evening.
 
Joey D
I wonder what new evidence they found that made them increase the charges? The investigation must have turned up something that shows intent, which would be a pretty big breakthrough in the case.
Click to expand...
I hope that's what at play, anyway.
 
strela
That star sure mean something and your saying that is just a decoration is.... just silly.
Click to expand...
You see that’s another of those unsubstantiated claims. Why must it mean something?

Let’s be blunt the stars and stripes he’s wearing are decoration, or do you think he needs them just in case anyone doesn’t think he’s American?

It certainly doesn’t mean anything in regard to his legal status to carry as part of his job in that state, as I have quite clearly proven, as only the FCC card is, as per the states law which I posted.
 
Joey D
I wonder what new evidence they found that made them increase the charges? The investigation must have turned up something that shows intent, which would be a pretty big breakthrough in the case.
Click to expand...

Since this by all accounts was a hate crime I supposed George Floyd being black would be a motive.
 
PzR Slim
Police have been attacked at the demonstration against the killing of George Floyd in London this evening.
Click to expand...

In the last 12 months, UK police have killed four people - two terror-related. They were:

Trevor Smith - circumstances unclear, but shot dead in his bedroom while in possession of a firearm
Usman Khan - London Bridge attacker, shot dead after stabbing five while wearing fake suicide vest
Sudesh Amman - Streatham attacker, shot dead after stabbing three while wearing fake suicide vest
Hassan Yahya - Shot dead after being tasered three times, after confronting police with two knives

US police killed seven people just this May. Three of those were in Indianapolis and on three consecutive days (one was a fatal pedestrian-vs-police-car). In fact if both countries go back to June 3 2019, the US exceeds the UK's 12-month total by June 5 2019.
 
Also with the UK officer that shot the person, they were basically on suspension immediately and put on trial to judge whether it was a lawful shooting.
 
If they want an iron-clad case, the prosecution must now be more confident about something that they previously were not.

 

Latest Posts

Back