Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » San Bernadino attack (Page 4)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: San Bernadino attack
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
But neither the right or the left of our contry is intent on harm. Both believe their proposals or defense of current conditions helps more than harms. We probably do much better governing when we accept this as true and pay attention to the other side when they point out the harms we dismiss or failed to notice.

My diatribe on intentionality was born from the discussion on the nature and definition of terrorism and bled into other areas since intentionality is a wide subject matter. It was not in response to the question of the danger of partisanship.
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My use of "But" at the front was misplaced. I was expanding upon your point in order to include it.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
Upset about not being named employee of the month is a potential reason. Ok. That's..just. Yeah. Wow. [DOH]

You're suggesting that there is a rational reason to shoot a bunch of people?

Nice dodge of the point, though, by arguing the example.

Well, it's your example. Addressing it is not a dodge, sorry. Certainly there are rational reasons for this. It's just that none of the reasons you give are even remotely rationale.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So this happened...

quote:

In a surreal scene, a swarm of local and national media entered the apartment where Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik lived after the landlord tore off a piece of plywood that was blocking the door.

News outlets, including MSNBC, BBC, CBS News and CNN, broadcast live scenes as reporters toting cameras and microphones pushed through the open door and reported from inside the apartment.

One MSNBC reporter was seen examining items left on the suspects' desk, at one point picking up a child-rearing book. CNN journalists described seeing licenses, social security cards and shredded documents inside the residence. A group of photographers zeroed in on a pile of papers that were laid out on a bed.

Less than 48 hours after the shooting. But, incredibly, it gets worse:
quote:
It appeared that members of the public were inside the apartment as well. One man lingered holding a large soda. A child was seen wandering throughout the home. Another opened the refrigerator and peered inside.
A FBI spokesperson initially seemed surprised this was happening then came back and said the search there had been completed. It has literally been less than 48 hours since the event and the review of evidence in he apartment is complete?!? Bull. Sh1t.

A raft of people determined to protect a narrative plus apparently a bunch of random people just cruising through. I'd say the investigation just got screwed. It's almost as if he media meant to destroy evidence related to the first homeland ISIS terror attack ...

[ December 04, 2015, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: Rafi ]

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If a guy crawled under my car at night wearing black, laid against the wheel, and I then ran him over when I got into my car, it also changes the responsibility of the action. Same goes if a guy runs onto a shooting range in the middle of a live fire exercise. Responsibility is often a two way street that is attempted to be erased by victim-hood and victim culture.
Sure, but that only applies in situations where people have a choice of their own action and actively put themselves into a dangerous situation. The meaningful relevant examples are an issue because we've already accepted that they caused insult or terror, and while those are things that, perhaps someone can opt into, (a hunted house, an insult service as per the Monty Python sketch) the relevant examples are situations where people did not put themselves into the line of fire. (Or, in the case of terrorism, are forced to put themselves into the possible line of fire in order to accomplish what should otherwise be nonthreatening things)

quote:
To put it most clearly, going back a few years, if I wear an American flag T-shirt on Cinco de Mayo, not intending to insult anyone, but it does in fact insult someone, I think the nature of the act in itself needs to be looked at within itself, regardless of intentionality and how it is received.
Indeed, which is why the proper response is to first educate you on the insulting or threatening message that you are unintentionally conveying, and then only afterward holding you accountable for contributing to promoting fear after it's clear that you understand the nature of your act but choose to repeat it, whether it be for blatant disregard and disrespect or for a willful threat)

quote:
If I intended to harm you, Pyr, by stabbing needles into a doll with your liking, and if in fact you saw this and felt intense pain in your crotch, am I guilty of assault?
If you knew taht would be the result, almost certainly. It's hard to explore other cases, because the example is a poor parallel since it posits a lack of connection between the action and the result that doesn't parallel the actual situations being discussed where the action directly and indisputably caused the reaction.

If I know my neighbor has PTSD from being in a warzone and deliberately set off firecrackers in my yard while he's home, even if it's just because I like to do that as a holiday celebration, then I am absolutely culpable for harm that arises from it, even if it's just at the level of willful negligence. I can't simply wave away responsibility by pretending that he had a functional choice in his reaction.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
By the way, sheriffs department is now confirming that is was still a crime scene and had not been cleared. ****ing unreal.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Agent A: Can you believe the BS the media is spewing about this?
Agent B: I know right? Anyone could take one look in here and see tha... <locks eyes with Agent A>
Agent B: <looks out at swarm of media> Time for a break.
Agent A: Sounds good. Cheese burgers up the road?
Agent B: Sure.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
Well, it's your example. Addressing it is not a dodge, sorry. Certainly there are rational reasons for this. It's just that none of the reasons you give are even remotely rationale.

So, you have nothing to say to address the actual point, then? Please, feel free to fill in any example of a more "appropriate" motive for workplace violence, since the example isn't essential to the point, just a tool to help articulate it.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
By the way, sheriffs department is now confirming that is was still a crime scene and had not been cleared. ****ing unreal.

That's pretty much what you've got to expect will happen when people let sensationalist speculation become more important than careful procedural examination.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For those still ducking and weaving for a reason, please note that the FBI has officially declare they are investigating this as an "act of terrorism". [Wink]
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Really? We should expect law enforcement procedures should be poorly handled by the law enforcement officers and should be ignored by the public and media?

Maybe the terrorist already won while we were speculating about their motives and identities.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
For those still ducking and weaving for a reason, please note that the FBI has officially declare they are investigating this as an "act of terrorism". [Wink]

AMazing what can happen if you actually wait for evidence to lead you instead of making stuff up, then pretending that it's just as good.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I must admit, taking the glaringly obvious and some simple facts to reach smart conclusion just ain't that amazing. Kind of boring really, most of us do it all the time so it's no big deal. The amazing stuff was the denial.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Really? We should expect law enforcement procedures should be poorly handled by the law enforcement officers and should be ignored by the public and media?

If you create an atmosphere where promotion of sensationalism and speculation means there's more money in feeding it rather than respecting proper procedure and remembering that the maxim of our system is innocent until proven guilty, it's absolutely to be expected.

It's not a good then, to be sure, just basic cause and effect.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
I must admit, taking the glaringly obvious and some simple facts to reach smart conclusion just ain't that amazing. Kind of boring really, most of us do it all the time so it's no big deal. The amazing stuff was the denial.

It's even easier when you make up facts to support your conclusion instead of waiting for actual evidence to emerge. And then call those waiting for evidence "deniers" because they don't take your fabrications as facts.

If the FBI has found some evidence that actually points to a possible provable terroristic motive, then their action seems reasonable. But hey haven't released that evidence yet, so you're still patting yourself on the back for making stuff up, then being lucky enough to have landed close to the mark.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The atmosphere could also be framed as one where speculation is taboo and the drive to get "the truth" ASAP causes a disregard of procedure.

Just like our earlier discussion on motives, once you know the effect you can speculate on a variety of causes.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Really? We should expect law enforcement procedures should be poorly handled by the law enforcement officers and should be ignored by the public and media?

Maybe the terrorist already won while we were speculating about their motives and identities.

Do you think they were simply handled poorly and he media ignored? Or, foil hat time, could his have been a way to derail things and protect a narrative? ISIS has been contained don't you know! But within a hour or two of finding out ISIS had a connection, boom. Good timing, that.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
I must admit, taking the glaringly obvious and some simple facts to reach smart conclusion just ain't that amazing. Kind of boring really, most of us do it all the time so it's no big deal. The amazing stuff was the denial.

It's even easier when you make up facts to support your conclusion instead of waiting for actual evidence to emerge. And then call those waiting for evidence "deniers" because they don't take your fabrications as facts.

If the FBI has found some evidence that actually points to a possible provable terroristic motive, then their action seems reasonable. But hey haven't released that evidence yet, so you're still patting yourself on the back for making stuff up, then being lucky enough to have landed close to the mark.

What facts did I make up? Which were false? Look, I think you're just hurt I was right all along. Let it go, bro, let it go.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually Rafi, my little narrative was to show that my own brand of tinfoil hattary went the other direction and that it was to kill the "we're not sure" narrative and reinforce the terrorist narrative.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What facts did I make up? Which were false? Look, I think you're just hurt I was right all along.
Motive. You still have not shown a shred of evidence of a motive here, just circumstantial facts taht make the motive you made up a possible guess.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
The atmosphere could also be framed as one where speculation is taboo and the drive to get "the truth" ASAP causes a disregard of procedure.


That seems to be saying that we say speculation is taboo and instead encourage speculation.

quote:
Just like our earlier discussion on motives, once you know the effect you can speculate on a variety of causes.
We could, but in order to actually assert one as proof, we need pretty solid evidence. The statues to prosecute people for terrorism aren't used as often as they technically could be, because the standard of evidence we require to ensure taht they're not used speculatively is pretty high, and there's usually enough other provable activity to go on to mean that it's not worth investing in trying to prove them.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
We could, but in order to actually assert one as proof, we need pretty solid evidence.
No, you need a compelling narrative. Preferably one your audience is predisposed to speculate towards anyway. It's only when you intend to prove something which conflicts with those predispositions do you need "pretty solid" (if not overwhelming) evidence.

We may use innocent until proven guilty in the court room but in the living room it's confirmation bias until proven outlier.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Sure, but that only applies in situations where people have a choice of their own action and actively put themselves into a dangerous situation. The meaningful relevant examples are an issue because we've already accepted that they caused insult or terror, and while those are things that, perhaps someone can opt into, (a hunted house, an insult service as per the Monty Python sketch) the relevant examples are situations where people did not put themselves into the line of fire. (Or, in the case of terrorism, are forced to put themselves into the possible line of fire in order to accomplish what should otherwise be nonthreatening things)

I generally agree, but I think you would shy away from the idea that a woman wearing a tight dress and walking alone down a dark alley at midnight would bear any responsibility for being raped. I would also generally agree with you in that situation despite finding the actions of the woman to be imprudent, and would advise all women and men to not conduct themselves thus. But these opinions probably label me as a victim blamer or some other such.

quote:
Indeed, which is why the proper response is to first educate you on the insulting or threatening message that you are unintentionally conveying, and then only afterward holding you accountable for contributing to promoting fear after it's clear that you understand the nature of your act but choose to repeat it, whether it be for blatant disregard and disrespect or for a willful threat)
I'm not going to respond to this other than to say that the primary difference in opinion here is not the value of intent, but whether intent is primary and takes precedence over response or result.

quote:
If you knew taht would be the result, almost certainly.
I think you've missed my point and gotten it at the same time. Of course I BELIEVED that pain in your crotch would be the result. That's why I did it. But the fact of the matter is that what I did didn't actually cause pain in your crotch.

The fact that you had pain in your crotch had everything to do with the fact that YOU believed that what I did harmed you. To expand, if you BELIEVE that me calling you a name or whatever caused you pain, you would certainly feel pain. But the simple fact is that I did not cause you pain by calling you a name. How you took it is what caused you pain.

quote:
If I know my neighbor has PTSD from being in a warzone and deliberately set off firecrackers in my yard while he's home, even if it's just because I like to do that as a holiday celebration, then I am absolutely culpable for harm that arises from it, even if it's just at the level of willful negligence. I can't simply wave away responsibility by pretending that he had a functional choice in his reaction.
I both agree and disagree. The fact of the matter is that setting off firecrackers is not actually harming your neighbor. His response is not a healthy one. Being triggered by firecrackers is in fact not a normal, healthy response. He has PTSD. You may in fact be helping your neighbor by exposing him to situations where he can gradually come to terms with his past and resolve it. It's not the firecrackers that are the problem, it's the PTSD.

To give a personal example, I once went through a period of time that I seriously no longer liked watching violent movies. Particularly where the violence was extremely realistic and contained children. My time as a paramedic working on the street had brought me into contact with these actual scenes, which were disturbing. Viewing realistic violence in film or television, particularly when it included children, brought me back to those scenes and I didn't like it.

In one particular case, I had been off the street for two years or more, and I was riding on a bus with my drilling crew back to a different dock since we had made a rig move. During the long trip, one of the other hands put on a movie that contained Kevin Bacon and dealt with the murder of his family.

The violence in the movie was particularly realistic and very gruesome. It disturbed me and I was not happy with basically being forced to watch it, and I probably vocalized it in a grumpy and grumbling manner. But I did not insist that the movie be turned off because opinions are like ********, and mine was simply one of many. I was the only person that reacted that way to the movie. To everyone else, it was entertainment.

Nobody watching that movie was trying to make me feel uncomfortable. The problem was mine.

I generally no longer respond to realistic violence in that way. I've gotten over it. But I doubt I would have gotten over it if violence were not so prevalent in television and film. Time helped as well.

The flip side is that I agree that it's polite not to trigger people when it can be helped. I was always very sensitive to my father's experiences in 'Nam, and as such always made sure that I changed the channel during the sniper attack part of Full Metal Jacket. I'm equally sensitive to other's experiences, and purposely exposing them to things that may bother them would be impolite.

Nevertheless, I believe that consideration goes two ways, and politeness has it's place, which is not everywhere and all the time.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What facts did I make up? Which were false?
What was the name of the guy, again?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If I intended to harm you, Pyr, by stabbing needles into a doll with your liking, and if in fact you saw this and felt intense pain in your crotch, am I guilty of assault?
If you knew taht would be the result, almost certainly. It's hard to explore other cases,

You are horribly wrong. Assault requires a REASONABLE apprehension of unwanted BODILY contact. No jurisdiction in the USA or any other sane place would convict voodoo man of "assault"

There are other possible remedies dependent on facts, (eg intentional infliction of emotional distress if the did was your psychiatrist)

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
While silly, I think he clearly linked "hurtful words" to "voodoo assault" later.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyrt:
quote:
Motive. You still have not shown a shred of evidence of a motive here, just circumstantial facts taht make the motive you made up a possible guess.
Circumstantial evidence is actually evidence, Pyrt. And Rafi did refer to the FBI's statement that one of the shooters had "pledged allegiance to ISIS" on Facebook (during the attack, apparently).

And the issue of whether ISIS was directly involved in the planning of these attacks is rather moot. ISIS has released videos urging Muslims in western nations who are unable to travel to Syria to carry out attacks in the western nations in which such individuals live.

It may be circumstantial evidence, but evidence has been provided--and valid evidence of a motive is actually quite frequently far more tenuous.

[ December 04, 2015, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There are other rumblings out there that the Farook angrily left the party because of an argument with a coworker who claimed that Islam was inherently flawed.

That plays into the "disgruntled worker" narrative, but it doesn't suggest that the act wasn't terrorism--just that human motivations are often complex.

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I generally agree, but I think you would shy away from the idea that a woman wearing a tight dress and walking alone down a dark alley at midnight would bear any responsibility for being raped.
I fail to see how this applies, because it confuses personal reaction with positive action. Unless you're postulating that there's some expected way taht someone might be mentally conditioned to defend themselves by attacking her.

It's one thing to say that such clothes may very well be a turn on for someone who sees her, regardless of whether she intended for any given person to feel attracted to her. It's quite another to say that feeling attracted to her excuses taking a physical action against her.

quote:
I think you've missed my point and gotten it at the same time. Of course I BELIEVED that pain in your crotch would be the result. That's why I did it. But the fact of the matter is that what I did didn't actually cause pain in your crotch.
No, I addressed taht in the next part of my reply by pointing out that that disconnect invalidates the example as a useful parallel.

quote:
The fact that you had pain in your crotch had everything to do with the fact that YOU believed that what I did harmed you. To expand, if you BELIEVE that me calling you a name or whatever caused you pain, you would certainly feel pain. But the simple fact is that I did not cause you pain by calling you a name. How you took it is what caused you pain.
And that belief is what matters. That's the nature of PTSD, intimidation, etc. It plays on the reality of such beliefs.

Burning a cross in someone's yard technically doesn't hurt them, but you can't avoid the fact that it sends a message based on the historical practice. You can't handwave away the message just because you didn't intend that; because it's simply a matter of belief that the act and the message are connected. You also cannot avoid the fact that doing so will increase the degree to which such acts intimidate people, even if you claim that your intent was to try to make it seem less threatening buy helping them get used to it.

quote:
The fact of the matter is that setting off firecrackers is not actually harming your neighbor. His response is not a healthy one. Being triggered by firecrackers is in fact not a normal, healthy response. He has PTSD. You may in fact be helping your neighbor by exposing him to situations where he can gradually come to terms with his past and resolve it. It's not the firecrackers that are the problem, it's the PTSD.
No, you're not. Even if you think you are. FActually you are _aggrivating_ the PTSD. That's part of the nature of what it is.

You treat it by helping them create a sense of safety, where they will not be exposed to the dangerous stimulus at random, helping them build a sense of security, then giving them full control of their gradual exposure to it at a pace that they control and doesn't violate that sense of security

quote:
Nobody watching that movie was trying to make me feel uncomfortable. The problem was mine.
But the fact is, that you were made uncomfortable by it, and the proper preparation would have been to collect information ahead of time from people and work to select something more palatable to everyone.

The discomfort was your problem, sure. But your hosts in this situation were actively responsible for ensuring your comfort, and they failed to do that, even if you chose to suck it up instead of making an issues of it. The fact that you did not raise the issue does not mean that they did not fail to show the basic decency of making an effort to be aware of your comfort and seek to accommodate it.

In this case you were willing to subordinate yourself as a solution, as as long as that works for you and you're doing it by choice, that's fine. But to demand others do it routinely just to excuse you from the responsibility of making an effort to show basic consideration for them is effectively demanding that they subordinate themselves to your preferences.

quote:
But I doubt I would have gotten over it if violence were not so prevalent in television and film. Time helped as well.
The key to time and a medium like television is that i gives you control of your exposure. You can generally choose to walk away or not expose yourself unless you actually want to see the show or movie in question. You can turn it off at any point that it goes over your limit. That control is key to overcoming your discomfort, not simple exposure in and of itself.

(This is also why MDMA/Ecstasy is showing significant promise in the treatment of such conditions. It creates a sense of safety and wellbeing in the person under its effect, letting them more easily work through such fears and aversions without triggering the discomfort feedback reaction that otherwise reinforces them.)

quote:
Nevertheless, I believe that consideration goes two ways, and politeness has it's place, which is not everywhere and all the time.
Absolutely. That's why I point out that the problem lies not necessarily with impote behavior, but with not acknowledging that the behavior is impolite and owning the act instead of blaming the person that is hurt by your lack of consideration for not just sucking it up.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
If I intended to harm you, Pyr, by stabbing needles into a doll with your liking, and if in fact you saw this and felt intense pain in your crotch, am I guilty of assault?
If you knew taht would be the result, almost certainly. It's hard to explore other cases,

You are horribly wrong. Assault requires a REASONABLE apprehension of unwanted BODILY contact. No jurisdiction in the USA or any other sane place would convict voodoo man of "assault"
That was his point in the parallel. He was trying to say that there isn't a connection between what was said an the reaction of the person that was hurt by the words, but rather that the reaction was a separate, disconnected issue.

My reply was to point out that the example fails because there is a direct connection between the words and the harm; it's not an optional reaction by the person affected.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It may be circumstantial evidence, but evidence has been provided--and valid evidence of a motive is actually quite frequently far more tenuous.
You miss my point, and nothing you said disagrees with what I said.

It is not direct evidence to make a positive assertion from. Any assertion based on circumstantial evidence is inherently speculative. It's not evidence that terrorism _was_ the motive, just evidence that it _could be_ the motive. If Rafi was limiting his claim to saying that it's possible this was a terrorist act, he'd be within the limits of the evidence. But instead he's asserting taht it was terrorism as a positive fact and trying to cast those who are pointing out that wile it could be terrorism it could also be something else and we need more information to make that clear as "denying" that it's terrorism rather than waiting for enough information to make a positive assertion.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'd agree that Rafi has been mischaracterizing the position of individuals who have been waiting for official information to come out--particularly in the first few hours after the attack.

But what you said was that he "still ha(d) not shown a shred of evidence of a motive here;" and both the record, and what I said, do disagree with such a statement.
quote:
It's not evidence that terrorism _was_ the motive, just evidence that it _could be_ the motive.
This is some fine hair-splitting, but while the positive affirmation in your second clause is true, the negative statement in the first clause isn't actually correct. Circumstantial evidence isn't direct evidence of a fact, because circumstantial evidence requires an inference. But the circumstantial evidence is nonetheless evidence that the motive is what it appears to be--it simply isn't sufficient to establish a motive as a "fact," as it requires inferential thinking.

You can correctly claim that this particular piece of evidence is direct evidence that terrorism "could be" a motive--but this doesn't change the reality that it is also circumstantial evidence of what the motive is.

In this case, the inferences we have to make are A) that it was actually Malik who posted what was posted to her Facebook feed, and B) that her pledge of allegiance to ISIS during the shooting is related to her motives in the shooting.

Neither of these inferences seem like they should appear controversial to a reasonable person. They are inferences, and they may be incorrect, but the fact that such a post was made to her Facebook account during the attack is actually strong evidence (albeit circumstantial evidence) of what the motive was.

Before such evidence was released, an assertion that the motive for the attack had something to do with Islamist terrorism was purely speculative. But once such evidence is entered into the record, the assumption that the attack was related to Islamist terrorism is actually warranted, and the issue becomes about potential flaws with the warrant.

Personally, I think that it's unfortunate that you guys do this--Rafi was mischaracterizing the hesitancy to jump to conclusions before evidence was provided. But you guys really undermine the validity of urging reasonable caution rather than leaping to an unwarranted conclusion when you fail to acknowledge the point at which valid evidence has actually been provided for an assumption.

[ December 04, 2015, 07:30 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I know how the FBI sometimes treats a potential terrorism case. They sometimes cordon off city blocks, have dozens of police vehicles brought in. If a major scene of evidence was left unsecured for civilians to peruse at will then it makes me wonder some things. It's possible that this was FBI or police incompetence. But then the added bit about the scene having already been investigated sounds fishy. Either this is not really what the FBI said, or if it is then they're either covering up their incompetence in not securing the scene or it could be something worse (such as a frame job).

For those who blame the news people messing up an evidence scene on civilians who want sensationalized news, I don't see the connection. If the scene was declared as evidence then knowingly interfering with it would be a crime. If it wasn't declared that way then it's not. There is a middle case, like in Nighcrawler (not the mutant), where a news team could locate a crime scene before the police do. Is it legal for them to knowingly modify such a scene prior to the police's arrival? Maybe Pete can answer this one. If it's not legal, then the clear answer is that every single news person present in that apartment should be arrested for obstruction. The civilians who wandered in likely only did so because the media opened the door.

Don't blame the news audience for crazy things the media does. Most of the stupidities of the audience are due to the media turning them into morons in the first place.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wait, what?

It sounds like you're suggesting that it might be more reasonable to assume that there was an FBI conspiracy to make themselves look incompetent, than that they actually were, simply, incompetent...

[ December 04, 2015, 09:03 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
Wait, what?

It sounds like you're suggesting that it might be more reasonable to assume that there was an FBI conspiracy to make themselves look incompetent, than that they actually were, simply, incompetent...

No, the two options I suggested were either that they possibly covered up incompetence, or else the lack of taking the evidence scene seriously may indicate that it's not actually a real evidence scene (which implies competence, just not honesty). This rides, of course, on the circumstances. Here's what I found right away with a Google search:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/us/landlord-lets-reporters-into-san-bernardino-suspects-apartment.html?_r=0

quote:
F.B.I. officials confirmed that they had searched the home and were finished.

The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said at a news conference in Washington that he had seen the video of the reporters in the townhouse. “I think I’m neither unhappy nor happy,” he said. “When we are done with a location, we return it to their rightful owners and we have to leave an inventory under the law about what was taken. So, people got to see our great criminal justice system in action.”

On Friday morning, after the authorities were finished, the owner, Doyle Miller, arrived to assess its condition. He allowed journalists inside the house (though not the garage, which the authorities say was where the bombs were made).

This was from Friday, the shooting having been two days earlier.

I have to say I'm wondering about this just as Rafi is. Even if they had found nothing I'd expect the place to be cordoned off for a good while so that the literature could be searched carefully, make sure there are no hidden cabinets or safes, no weapons they missed. In fact a veritable munitions dump was found. But two days later after the shooting (and therefore less than two days after naming the suspects and going to their home) the place is left alone and in the hands of the landlord. This sounds so weird. What if they missed some weapons hidden in a floor board? They're going to just let reporters and children in there to look around and play with things?

It doesn't make sense that the primary residence of the two terrorism suspects (with possible ISIS ties) is just left there and the investigation over. What if they need to go back and search it again for some reason? What if one of the suspects names something in the apartment that's important evidence? The place wasn't cleaned out completely, so the reporters (or strangers wandering in) could just mess with stuff, move it, pocket it, whatever.

This is why I suggested the tinfoilhat possibilities. The best explanation I can come up with as to why they'd have such loose security at that place and let people mess up the scene is if that scene was not a primary evidence site.

[ December 05, 2015, 12:56 AM: Message edited by: Fenring ]

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
I must admit, taking the glaringly obvious and some simple facts to reach smart conclusion just ain't that amazing. Kind of boring really, most of us do it all the time so it's no big deal. The amazing stuff was the denial.

Caution is not the same as denial, just as leaps from bits of unconfirmed or unreliable information is not always smart. Sometimes when you reach into the box of Cracker Jacks you get the prize you wanted. That can make up for all the times you didn't.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Neither of these inferences seem like they should appear controversial to a reasonable person. They are inferences, and they may be incorrect, but the fact that such a post was made to her Facebook account during the attack is actually strong evidence (albeit circumstantial evidence) of what the motive was.
It is, but we should find out more about the time and location where the post was made. It can't have been while she was inside shooting, so it must have been made either just before or just after. She had a burner phone when she her body was examined later. Was that where the post came from? Is it possible that someone else made the post? Doubtful, but I'd like to see that door closed.

At this point I'm 99% satisfied with this damning bit of information that terrorism was the dominant motive (up from 75% immediately after the attack (and before their identities were discovered, and 90% from the accumulation of circumstantial evidence yesterday). If it doesn't sound contradictory, I still think workplace, emotional (child abuse), cultural dissonance and/or social issues comprise a set of additional contributing factors, even if they are not enough to explain the scale of their actions.

So there's still a lot more to learn about their mindsets and other possible motivations. It's never been a stretch to say that someone has to be irrational to do what they did. Understanding all of the background information can be applied to reducing the likelihood of similar future attacks. Here's where I do put blame on NRA-fueled Republicans who block research into these kinds of questions.

I'm puzzled about how they were able to stay completely below the radar during the entire process of becoming radicalized, collecting and building their arsenal, how/when/whether they actually received training in the use of the weapons, and why nobody in government or their friends, neighbors, coworkers and family had a clue about what was coming.

The other thing that bothers me is the apparent utter incompetence of the police to leave the crime scene unprotected. I can't imagine the level of stupidity that allowed that to happen. When I can't wrap my head around something so utterly basic and automatic as that, I do have to acknowledge a small but real possibility that it might not have been just an accident.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I fail to see how this applies, because it confuses personal reaction with positive action.
It applies because it goes towards the question regarding shared responsibility for the results of an occurrence. The original example was a driver being responsible for hitting a pedestrian, regardless of the intent of the driver. I pointed out that the responsibility must be shared when the pedestrian puts themselves in danger, knowingly or unknowingly. You agreed:

quote:
Sure, but that only applies in situations where people have a choice of their own action and actively put themselves into a dangerous situation.
The example of the woman putting herself in danger goes to show that putting oneself into danger is seen differently in different cases by different people. If a man runs into traffic on a freeway in Dallas, he will probably share the bulk of responsibility for being hit by a car. But to say that a woman places herself in danger by walking alone down a dark alley after midnight is a crime against women.

To me, the difference lies in intent, and goes to my belief that intent is a primary driver of responsibility. A rapist intends to rape. A person hitting a man running on the freeway probably did not intend to hit him.

quote:
And that belief is what matters. That's the nature of PTSD, intimidation, etc. It plays on the reality of such beliefs.
This would seem to argue that there is no such thing as an incorrect belief. That all feelings and reactions are natural and correct, instead of the idea that some beliefs, some feelings, and some reactions are incorrect, unhealthy, and not natural. Reaction and result cannot be primary. Intent and the nature of the action itself much be.

quote:
No, you're not. Even if you think you are. FActually you are _aggrivating_ the PTSD. That's part of the nature of what it is.

You treat it by helping them create a sense of safety, where they will not be exposed to the dangerous stimulus at random, helping them build a sense of security, then giving them full control of their gradual exposure to it at a pace that they control and doesn't violate that sense of security

I don't think that you are correct in this, Pyr. PTSD is treated by exposure and cognitive behavior therapy. You cannot treat it by creating safe spaces, because life is not a safe space. You treat by exposing to the triggers and showing that the triggers are not connected directly to the initial trauma. If a PTSD patient is triggered by fireworks, a good way to get them over that trigger is to expose them to fireworks and watching children play and having fun.

I don't think we are necessarily opposed on this because I agree that initial treatment has to take place in a therapist's office. There the exposure can be more controlled, but to call it a "safe space" may be incorrect, since the purpose is still to expose to the trigger. In this case, the purpose of such a space is self limiting. It's purpose is to end it's need.

quote:
The discomfort was your problem, sure. But your hosts in this situation were actively responsible for ensuring your comfort, and they failed to do that, even if you chose to suck it up instead of making an issues of it. The fact that you did not raise the issue does not mean that they did not fail to show the basic decency of making an effort to be aware of your comfort and seek to accommodate it.
I believe that what you are suggesting places too much of a burden on society to make people comfortable. I believe the primary burden must be on the individual rather than society. Because my reaction to a film was generally unfounded and unhealthy, I don't believe that people around me are obliged to cater to my reactions.

A society that you describes is one that must constantly walk on eggshells so as not to offend, and erases the primacy of intent and nature of action.

quote:
Absolutely. That's why I point out that the problem lies not necessarily with impote behavior, but with not acknowledging that the behavior is impolite and owning the act instead of blaming the person that is hurt by your lack of consideration for not just sucking it up.
The problem is Pyr, that individuals are not obliged by law to be polite. People have the freedom to be ******** and you cannot have a healthy society unless people are able to handle their existence. You can't outlaw being a jerk, because we'll all end up under arrest.
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Developments overnight, the government finally checked Malik's visa application. Her address was not a residence but a Pakistan mosque notorious for promoting violence and Islamic radicalism. ISIS has claimed both of them as their own.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al:

The home isn't actually a crime scene. (The garage, where they built the bombs, arguably is--but apparently reporters weren't allowed in there.) Investigators would have removed all potential evidence of communications from the home, and may have taken additional DNA-related evidence on the off-chance that they had had radical visitors whose DNA might show up in a database at some point, but the home isn't actually like the scene of a crime where unidentified suspects are assumed to have left evidence that could lead to their identification.

The suspects have been positively identified, and are dead. The actual crime didn't occur at their house. And, perhaps most importantly, none of this is an episode of CSI...

...just the setting of another garish scene brought to you by the gauche members of the media...

[ December 05, 2015, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1