POLITICAL THREAD

[Willy4UK]

Can't we just shoot these guys with elephant tranquilizers?

 

[krazykats]

I'm trying to make sense of the posts here. People are against government unless it's a cop deciding to execute someone without a trial. Is that pretty close?

You understand the irony here compared to years of your posts?

 

[thabigbluenation]

Can't we just shoot these guys with elephant tranquilizers?

hell, you can shoot me with an elephant tranquilizer anytime. i hear that stuff is dope

 

[Willy4UK]

hell, you can shoot me with an elephant tranquilizer anytime. i hear that stuff is dope

Yeah, that might not be a good idea after all. Surely, there is something that we can do to get people to submission without capping them full of bullets. Something stronger than a taser, but 100% non-lethal.

 

[JBHolmesfan]

I'm trying to make sense of the posts here. People are against government unless it's a cop deciding to execute someone without a trial. Is that pretty close?

Let me try to put this in a way you can understand, no.

 

[Willy4UK]

They could have captured some of the gas that the Syrian gov't was using.

Yep, grabbed a big net and filled up ISIS mustard gas guns.

 

[the nail at the foul line]

Where in the video did he go for their gun?

This single case is a citizen that may not been of his wits being shot down by the people that suppose to help,
Four cops and none them can use a baton or some other form on non-lethal force?
From what I see them walk away to consul the shooter and not even check on the guy.
No first aid, not even checking a pulse, wtf?

Ainglish is hard.

They may have thought he was going to blow up car. I was talking about other cases.

 

[PhattyJ4UK]

Have you ever noticed that the sun and the moon are never around each other? Is that coincidence? I don't know? Seems to me that might be enough evidence to suggest there really the same thing!

They're

Good lord. Can't even have a fricking argument these days. A bunch of idiots don't even know how to use simple contractions and can't spell. What is the world coming to? People are so dumb that people don't know the difference between there, their, and they're. **


Did i capture the essence of one of the biggest (insert putdown here) on this board?


**i may have made grammatical errors above. The difference is i dont spend half*** my life being a blowhard putting others down and acting like the queen of modern debates.


***i realize half was a sever underestimation. Dont fret, we all know it is probably closer to 95%.

 

[buckkiller]

If you have a,wepon and you are not listening to cops well your going yo get shot! IDGAF who you are or what color your are. The riots are idiots acting like subhuman and animals! Its a bad look started by lies! Dude had a gun. I was in Law enforcement academy inh the USAF. When there is "Intent, Capability, oppurtunity" deadly force is authorized PERIOD. take away 1 of thosee 3 and deadly force is not authorized. Before people want to get out and act like animals. Wait til after investigation,find out if officer had Intent, capability, oppurtunity. If those 3 are there the issue is done and police had just cause! Period! Educate yourself of regulations if you do not understand the Law of Deadly force before you want to Riot!! This kind of shit is what is going to turn our country into a globalist nation with UN TROOPS on our streets.

 

[Willy4UK]

BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT ELEPHANTS WILLY GODDAMIT

 

[Teachable Moe]

You understand the irony here compared to years of your posts?

No. For one thing I started posting here (Politics thread) just a few months ago.

Yep, grabbed a big net and filled up ISIS mustard gas guns.

Or attacked a depot where it was stored.

Let me try to put this in a way you can understand, no.

I don't know how you think that would clarify things.

 

[WettCat]

UN Troops would be scared to death to walk our streets knowing at least half the households are armed and don't want them here. They aren't used to a full blown militia in every neighborhood.

 

[WettCat]

I think Moe jumped the shark today. Or maybe they just decided to cut him loose after Hillary's putrid 3% polling.

No worries, we'll see another name surface in a few days to take his place.

 

[CrittendenWildcat]

My fault. I should not have engaged you.

Description of Hasty Generalization
This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is not large enough. It has the following form:

1. Sample S, which is too small, is taken from population P.
2. Conclusion C is drawn about Population P based on S.

The person committing the fallacy is misusing the following type of reasoning, which is known variously as Inductive Generalization, Generalization, and Statistical Generalization:

1. X% of all observed A's are B''s.
2. Therefore X% of all A's are Bs.

The fallacy is committed when not enough A's are observed to warrant the conclusion. If enough A's are observed then the reasoning is not fallacious.

Small samples will tend to be unrepresentative. As a blatant case, asking one person what she thinks about gun control would clearly not provide an adequate sized sample for determing what Canadians in general think about the issue. The general idea is that small samples are less likely to contain numbers proportional to the whole population. For example, if a bucket contains blue, red, green and orange marbles, then a sample of three marbles cannot possible be representative of the whole population of marbles. As the sample size of marbles increases the more likely it becomes that marbles of each color will be selected in proprtion to their numbers in the whole population. The same holds true for things others than marbles, such as people and their political views.

Since Hasty Generalization is committed when the sample (the observed instances) is too small, it is important to have samples that are large enough when making a generalization. The most reliable way to do this is to take as large a sample as is practical. There are no fixed numbers as to what counts as being large enough. If the population in question is not very diverse (a population of cloned mice, for example) then a very small sample would suffice. If the population is very diverse (people, for example) then a fairly large sample would be needed. The size of the sample also depends on the size of the population. Obviously, a very small population will not support a huge sample. Finally, the required size will depend on the purpose of the sample. If Bill wants to know what Joe and Jane think about gun control, then a sample consisting of Bill and Jane would (obviously) be large enough. If Bill wants to know what most Australians think about gun control, then a sample consisting of Bill and Jane would be far too small.

People often commit Hasty Generalizations because of bias or prejudice. For example, someone who is a sexist might conclude that all women are unfit to fly jet fighters because one woman crashed one. People also commonly commit Hasty Generalizations because of laziness or sloppiness. It is very easy to simply leap to a conclusion and much harder to gather an adequate sample and draw a justified conclusion. Thus, avoiding this fallacy requires minimizing the influence of bias and taking care to select a sample that is large enough.

One final point: a Hasty Generalization, like any fallacy, might have a true conclusion. However, as long as the reasoning is fallacious there is no reason to accept the conclusion based on that reasoning.

Examples of Hasty Generalization

1. Smith, who is from England, decides to attend graduate school at Ohio State University. He has never been to the US before. The day after he arrives, he is walking back from an orientation session and sees two white (albino) squirrels chasing each other around a tree. In his next letter home, he tells his family that American squirrels are white.
   
   
   
2. Sam is riding her bike in her home town in Maine, minding her own business. A station wagon comes up behind her and the driver starts beeping his horn and then tries to force her off the road. As he goes by, the driver yells "get on the sidewalk where you belong!" Sam sees that the car has Ohio plates and concludes that all Ohio drivers are jerks.
   
   
   
3. Bill: "You know, those feminists all hate men."
   Joe: "Really?"
   Bill: "Yeah. I was in my philosophy class the other day and that Rachel chick gave a presentation."
   Joe: "Which Rachel?"
   Bill: "You know her. She's the one that runs that feminist group over at the Women's Center. She said that men are all sexist pigs. I asked her why she believed this and she said that her last few boyfriends were real sexist pigs. "
   Joe: "That doesn't sound like a good reason to believe that all of us are pigs."
   Bill: "That was what I said."
   Joe: "What did she say?"
   Bill: "She said that she had seen enough of men to know we are all pigs. She obviously hates all men."
   Joe: "So you think all feminists are like her?"
   Bill: "Sure. They all hate men."

TL/DR

 

[MrLair]

I got my popcorn ready for the planned protest tonight.

Over under one building on fire?

 

[Free_Salato_Blue]

Ainglish is hard.

They may have thought he was going to blow up car. I was talking about other cases.

Yo no comprendo.

 

[Free_Salato_Blue]

BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT ELEPHANTS WILLY GODDAMIT

You may need the hard stuff to slow Willy down.

 

[Double Tay]

I still can't understand why twice as many whites are killed by police than blacks. Is that not racist?

In fact, more Hispanics were killed by police last year than blacks. Why are whites and Hispanics not burning down their own neighborhoods?

And blacks commit significantly more violent crime than any other race. Black males committed 54% if all murders last year despite making up only 6% of the population. Is it not reasonable they will not have more police encounters? And as someone else mentioned, when the facts eventually come out, how many of these police shootings actually involve a black man doing nothing wrong and doing exactly what the police tell them to do? Obviously there are examples (in fact the worst one I've seen involved a white teenager in Fresno-I challenge anyone to top it) but by and large it's unbelievable how few shootings there are given the complete disrespect and unwillingness to cooperate these criminals show.

The reality is there is a complete breakdown in the family structure. Absolutely indisputable. Education, family structure, criminal behavior, and income are all directly related. In fact, these problems are more correlated to poor people than to a race.

 

[CrittendenWildcat]

Why do terrorists always seem to get captured, while armed, without being killed? Yet a black kid moves to the left when they say move to the right and they are shot down.

Obviously because cops love them some terrorists.

Dumb@ss.

 

[WildcatofNati]

I realize this is a predominately male sports focused message board in a conservative state, but in a completely blind poll Hillary got three votes out of 100? You can consider the demographics and small sample size all you want...but three? She's just barely beating out Christian Laettner.

Telling.

It's not only people from a conservative state. I gave the Donald a vote from a supposed swing state (though he's actually going to have her for lunch in Ohio).

 

[augustaky1]

They could have captured some of the gas that the Syrian gov't was using.

Do you mean the WMDs that went to Syria from Iraq as a means to hide them?

The ones ISIS have probably do not exist either.

 

[screwduke1]

After hearing about this chemical weapons attack on American troops in Iraq, Obama furiously broke out his red crayons and drew lines in Iraq.

 

[-LEK-]

Who is using one example? Seems to me your totally confused about what you are saying IMO.

You're confused because you have the IQ equivalency of a potato.

It's not one example. That's what is frustrating. You don't understand the point I'm making and you are missing. There is this basic level of understanding you don't have.

See, logic is a branch of study that deals with truth in statements. We derive truth from premises and arguments give us conclusions. The study of logic then breaks them down.

For example, we use deductive reasoning to get the following conclusion.

P1: all men are mortal
P2: Socrates is a man

Therefor?

What can you logically conclude? In your head, you think it proves he has brown shoes. It doesn't.

The answer is that Socrates is mortal.

This is what we call truth. The opposite would be a fallacy.

There are various types of fallacies. When you use a single event to describe an entire whole, that's a fallacy. This type of generalization is what your arguments are based on.

So when I say it's frustrating to engage, yes, this is engaging, besides the normal grammar errors(not misspellings, you don't know the correct use of you're/your or there/their/they're) you lack a basic semblance or understanding that a majority of the population possesses. When you make arguments, it literally hurts one's head, because your conclusions are like the brown shoed Socrates.

So when you say you're confused, it's expected.

 

[-LEK-]

They're

Good lord. Can't even have a fricking argument these days. A bunch of idiots don't even know how to use simple contractions and can't spell. What is the world coming to? People are so dumb that people don't know the difference between there, their, and they're. **


Did i capture the essence of one of the biggest (insert putdown here) on this board?


**i may have made grammatical errors above. The difference is i dont spend half*** my life being a blowhard putting others down and acting like the queen of modern debates.


***i realize half was a sever underestimation. Dont fret, we all know it is probably closer to 95%.

I think I upset the dumb monkey.

 

[CrittendenWildcat]

You're confused because you have the IQ equivalency of a potato.

It's not one example. That's what is frustrating. You don't understand the point I'm making and you are missing. There is this basic level of understanding you don't have.

See, logic is a branch of study that deals with truth in statements. We derive truth from premises and arguments give us conclusions. The study of logic then breaks them down.

For example, we use deductive reasoning to get the following conclusion.

P1: all men are mortal
P2: Socrates is a man

Therefor?

What can you logically conclude? In your head, you think it proves he has brown shoes. It doesn't.

The answer is that Socrates is mortal.

This is what we call truth. The opposite would be a fallacy.

There are various types of fallacies. When you use a single event to describe an entire whole, that's a fallacy. This type of generalization is what your arguments are based on.

So when I say it's frustrating to engage, yes, this is engaging, besides the normal grammar errors(not misspellings, you don't know the correct use of you're/your or there/their/they're) you lack a basic semblance or understanding that a majority of the population possesses. When you make arguments, it literally hurts one's head, because your conclusions are like the brown shoed Socrates.

So when you say you're confused, it's expected.

Still TL/DR. Say something relevant, d!ckwad.

 

[-LEK-]

Still TL/DR. Say something relevant, d!ckwad.

Yea, thinking is hard.

 

[Willy4UK]

After hearing about this chemical weapons attack on American troops in Iraq, Obama furiously broke out his red crayons and drew lines in Iraq.

Found it.

 

[UKBrassowTipIN]

I'm trying to make sense of the posts here. People are against government unless it's a cop deciding to execute someone without a trial. Is that pretty close?

No, I'm against it all around. Especially getting rid of police unions. Where else can you shoot someone and be put on "paid leave". I also believe the government is at fault for laws and regulations it's put in place so that's why many of these ppl are being stopped.. to collect money for the govt.

 

[CrittendenWildcat]

Yea, thinking is hard.

I'm sorry, where was your thought? You just quoted someone else at length, and acted as if you said something deep or profound. You didn't. You repeated something someone you deem smart said and then deemed it relevant to the conversation.

 

[-LEK-]

I'm sorry, where was your thought? You just quoted someone else at length, and acted as if you said something deep or profound. You didn't. You repeated something someone you deem smart said and then deemed it relevant to the conversation.

What? I wrote that. Thanks for proving my point though. I am arguing with dumb apes. Perhaps I should reply, "oooh ahh ahhh?" Better?

 

[-LEK-]

I'm trying to teach you, you dumb little monkeys. I have faith that you can do more than buy bread and be scared of the slightest noises. You born with intelligence, yet you squandered it. You can be more than a primate.

 

[warrior-cat]

And when that homeowner or business owner decides to use lethal force, what happens? More torched buildings? More screams of racism? Or does someone finally wake TF up and realize that looting, stealing and threatening aren't covered by the Constitution and the individual was fully within their rights to shoot them?

Have we come to this?

Getting there unfortunately. Looting and destruction does no good, in fact, it tends to make things worse.

 

[buckkiller]

Just for people who do not understand the law of deadly force. There are 3 things you must have to have probable cause to use deadly force.
1-Intent
2-opportunity
3-capability

If a law enforcement officer has those 3 things it is authorized to use force or deadly force. If just 1 is missing deadly force is not authorized. That is what the admin leave is for and when a shooting takes place that is the goal. The main thing is to findout if officer had those 3 things going for him.1 did the person have "intent" to kill or harm, 2 Did the person have "capability" to do same, 3 Did the person have "oppurtunity". If 1 is missing you cannot use deadly force. Last night during riots the police have were handcuffed . During Riot footage i watched over and over again officers could of used more force maybe not deadly but force. . These situations are going to keep get more out of control due to the lack of knowledge by certain people. If your going to Riot wait til after investigation to see if those 3 things were or were not there to justify or not justify use of force or deadly force. I know use of force was justified during Riots due to the fact I seen they Had opportunity, capability, intent, plus multiple officers were injured. Educate yourself!!!

 

[the nail at the foul line]

Who would love to see a debate where both candidates were given sodium pentathol?

We could give Johnson sodium chloride.

 

[warrior-cat]

I'm trying to make sense of the posts here. People are against government unless it's a cop deciding to execute someone without a trial. Is that pretty close?

I guess you are for people looting and attacking innocent people when cops shoot when they should not have. Is that pretty close? In other cases when it was warranted, they still should have let the thugs take and do what they want. Is that pretty close?

 

[PhattyJ4UK]

I think I upset the dumb monkey.

Nope, actually gave me a nice little chuckle about how easy you make it. Keep on keepin on though.

You make me feel a lot better about myself everytime i see you post.

 

[warrior-cat]

You act like these aren't related. People in Charlotte aren't just upset about the shooting there. People are tired of cops $hit. Like the CT cops caught on video making up charges so they could arrest a guy for filming them. Cops have been out of control for years and have literally gotten away with murder or planting evidence/making up stories for decades. Why you think they don't want body cams or that they magically stop recording at the most convenient times.

And the good ones help cover it up or stay silent.

Yeah it sucks to be a cop right now, but they are paying for decades of neglect and dishonest dealings with minority communities.

Why do terrorists always seem to get captured, while armed, without being killed? Yet a black kid moves to the left when they say move to the right and they are shot down.

There's more outrage from whites about Colin Kaepernick kneeling than unarmed black people being shot to death over jaywalking, car trouble, shoplifting, being compliant, whatever.

Some of that is due in part to catching criminals and then some bleeding heart judge or jury with people like you on it who think you should be able to do whatever without consequences let them go. Your hate for the police and white people makes you dangerous to any community.

 

[warrior-cat]

UN Troops would be scared to death to walk our streets knowing at least half the households are armed and don't want them here. They aren't used to a full blown militia in every neighborhood.

Had me laughing at the truth of this post.

 

[AustinTXCat]

Wow, Charlotte thread went straight to hell in a hurry.

 

[krazykats]

[aQUOTE="-LEK-, post: 5203535, member: 8444"]You're confused because you have the IQ equivalency of a potato.

It's not one example. That's what is frustrating. You don't understand the point I'm making and you are missing. There is this basic level of understanding you don't have.

See, logic is a branch of study that deals with truth in statements. We derive truth from premises and arguments give us conclusions. The study of logic then breaks them down.

For example, we use deductive reasoning to get the following conclusion.

P1: all men are mortal
P2: Socrates is a man

Therefor?

What can you logically conclude? In your head, you think it proves he has brown shoes. It doesn't.

The answer is that Socrates is mortal.

This is what we call truth. The opposite would be a fallacy.

There are various types of fallacies. When you use a single event to describe an entire whole, that's a fallacy. This type of generalization is what your arguments are based on.

So when I say it's frustrating to engage, yes, this is engaging, besides the normal grammar errors(not misspellings, you don't know the correct use of you're/your or there/their/they're) you lack a basic semblance or understanding that a majority of the population possesses. When you make arguments, it literally hurts one's head, because your conclusions are like the brown shoed Socrates.

So when you say you're confused, it's expected.[/QUOTE]

You are not making a point for your argument that can't be used against the same idiots you defend.

That is my point you are not getting. It was clear and I even pointed it out with sarcastic retort.

I'm not confused at all, but I think you are a liberal jackass not capable of using logic for when to riot and when not to.

*Sorry if my use of words is wrong, my phone auto corrects dum stuff and I really don't care enough to proof read