shirgall

Force is already being used against you. Amelioration of this fact, whatever the course of action, is a personal decision that is difficult to generalize.

Thank you very much for confronting the abuser. I don't know the best way to deal with the white knight that came to the mother's rescue, but indeed that has always been one of my fears would happen in such a situation. I don't know if just saying, "She was wrong" would work to defuse the situation, and clearly there's no time to say something more complex when he's cutting you off like that.

Becoming a state is a matter of being tough enough to make the claim stick. Consensus is certainly one path, but it's not the only one.

And three interesting facts stem from this incident: 1. the driver had a gun and grenades, despite restrictions on such items 2. A hero tried to get into the cab and stop the driver, and the driver shot at him, fended him off, and continued his spree 3. two weeks before the incident, French police were given permission to be armed on the Prom (as a result of the assassination of the police chief and his partner), which may have led to the event being stopped more quickly than before

Accept that you cannot always reason someone out of a position they have not been reasoned into. If you are going to try anyway, then: You were shooting for something clear and concrete, but your post contains material that detracts from your message. Less adjectives, less metaphors, and simple clear arguments are often the best, and more importantly, they will be far more engaged if you ask them questions and take the time to listen to their answers. You had a good start with comparing their certainty with that of a Muslim, but I think you missed the key element of "How do we decide who is right?" Involve them in the discovery and they will have more ownership of the conclusion. From your description, I felt there was a missing discussion of objectivity. How do you identify someone that doesn't bring their own bias towards answering a question? How do you present your arguments to such a person? How would that person be swayed one way or the other. Now, replace that person with another... do the conclusions change? What if you filled an auditorium with people and presented the same case... which argument would be more compelling? Also, your use of terms like "judgmental" and "madness" should not be in play in such a discussion unless you are portraying drama instead of a debate. Never get called into name-calling if you can help it. Even avoid labels unless it's very clear, understood, and widely agreed that a certain label applies to a situation or person. A4E gave some nice examples of a positing a hypothetical, or playing devil's advocate. This is not as effective, in my experience, as positive claims. (And, part of my personality, they are too tempting to end up as snark coming from me.) The soul discussion can be tough, but it can be interesting to delve into. What is a soul worth to God or the Devil? Why? Why can't you be the owner of your own soul like you can be the owner of your own works and accomplishments? What is the value of a soul to you other than an ephemeral essence that apparently explained consciousness and personality? Is that explanation really valid any more knowing what we do now about the brain and it's functions? There's a George Carlin skit called "Heavy Mystery Time". You and our friends might get a kick out of it:

Well, Stef's Canadian vote will cancel out one dead Chicagoan, but what's the other reason?

"What Pisses Me Off About"

Possession and ownership are distinct concepts, however. Taking a diamond and swallowing it creates a debt to the original owner to the tune of his diamond, undamaged, and possibly recompense for the time you've had it, especially if the diamond was being used for something. Thus, a fetus created by choice is both possessed and owned until it can exist independently. It is that moment of potential independence that I have long used as the demarcation line of self-ownership. That doesn't change the fact that the mother possesses the fetus until it is born. So, my position is that abortion is unjustified killing (murder) once the child could potentially be removed from the mother (without further escalation of the adverse effects to the mother's health with respect to pregnancy itself) and live independent of the mother, even before being born.

And it would have saved me a lot of time trying to ferret the meaning out.

Stef has gone further than most to expose himself to opinionated experts all across the spectrum of political opinion. We could easily make light of his politeness to Noam Chomsky in his interviews as well. Egalitarianism is dead just like Feminism is, something new and dark has co-opted the position and turned it away from the principles that lead to its creation. Egalitarianism has stopped meaning equality of opportunity to becoming equality of outcome, just like "The Rule of Law" used to mean that the law applied equally to everyone regardless of social status, and that unjust laws were invalid on their face, but now it means laws should govern a nation, unless I disagree with them. Stef has spent a lot of time researching since 2006, granted, and more time than we have likely spent. It really moved me that he broke down into tears just mentioning his research into the wars in the Middle East in a recent podcast. It won't matter that it moved me, though, since Stef doesn't read the forums.

i cook sous vide to avoid a lot of the troubling aspects of char, but I do sear to get a maillard effect flavor. I suppose I have to add my truck to the "bad boy" list, now, too. I have a M35A2 "Deuce and a Half"... for my own personal reasons. The unregistered assault redhead in the driver's seat is my wife.

They're called "sidewalks," and this guy ignored them. They should increase the sentence. That will deter copycats!

I agree with you. I was hoping for engagement, too.

The facts and statistics have been talked about on FDR for years. There have been periods of deeper inquiry or focus, sure, but long before there was this "alt right". Head back to 2006 and podcast #175 some time.

Since the alt-right does not have a unifying ideology I'm not sure of the utility of the label. Which if Stef's friends have which beliefs that support your thesis of... well, what, exactly? Racism? Are you claiming that there is a bias (there ya go, @dsayers) in the interpretation of facts or the presentation of them? The state of mind of the victims, and their proclivity to resist arrest or make furtive movements, is directly relevant here. The responding policeman has no chance to do anything except interpret what is going on before him, based on the nature of the call to which he is responding (in both recent events, suspicion of armed men who have committed crimes with those weapons). We are all armchair quarterbacks here, but we have to make use of what facts we can to determine if the victim acted in a way that would lead the responding officer to assume he faced imminent lethal attack. A lot of training goes into police on this, and I have posted in the past the results of regular people getting put into lethal force shoot/don't-shoot drills. It's a sobering thing. I keep reminding people that the time to fight the police is in the courts, not in the street. They are trained to end street confrontations by escalation and compliance because they have to be trained that way. The real fight should be against the laws the police are called upon to enforce. Let's rail against victimless crimes that put police and citizens in bad situations. It would have zero effect on the recent two cases, but it might make the water boil a great deal less.

Then you need to use a different term, as the central tenet of Christianity is the divinity of Christ. "Cultural Christianity" perhaps, but you've really dulled the edge somewhat. There's nothing special about the values of Christianity without the magic of divinity.

I have a different issue which is ever since my 30s I dream maybe one or twice in a year, and not every night like when I was younger. Yes, I once had sleep apnea, but I fixed that problem when I lost weight.

There is no truth in the supernatural claims of any religion. Therefore, claiming that someone who does not believe in any supernatural claims is a member of a religion which has as central tenets specific supernatural claims because of a subset of shared secondary values is incorrect.

You have a selective memory. And, of course atheists do not connect objectively with Christian because you cannot connect something that is not true to the the idea that something is true whether or not someone believes it.

Well, perhaps he was just being obtuse?

Since Noah Webster was also a sticker for definitions, wouldn't the above make you objectively Congregationalist?

Nope. I gave a list of examples in post #15. I am certain that knowledge exists because I can ascertain what "certain" means. You cannot impart meaning without some knowledge of language, concepts, and reality.

If you claim I cannot have any knowledge, why would you ask me to impart it to you? Why would you expect me to try? I don't even know if that's what your claim was.

I guess it follows then, if you can't know your own stance on something then knowledge is unattainable. I think the rest of us will muddle on with some form of imperfect knowledge, then, but at least we'll be able to know what our own stance on something is.