Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Name a single green company that has managed to survive without massive amounts of taxpayer support.
So you don't want to talk about the real issue? You just want to beat to death a 2009 talking point from Fox News?Name a single green company that has managed to survive without massive amounts of taxpayer support.
So you don't want to talk about the real issue? You just want to beat to death a 2009 talking point from Fox News?
I thought we were. Name one.
I actually DID name one, unless I'm wrong and Tesla received federal funds?
Yes, TESLA has received billions in taxpayer money.
Damn, $4.9B to be exact, but hey at least they have succeeded.
Wow! You really danced around the obvious on that one. Occam's Razor. This simplest explanation is likely the truth. Personal choices is the difference between those three men.
The legitimacy of parsimony stands or falls, in a particular research context, on subject matter specific (and a posteriori) considerations. […] What makes parsimony reasonable in one context may have nothing in common with why it matters in another.
-- Elliot Sober
What could be simpler, and fairer, than refraining from making assumptions about other individuals and refraining from drawing conclusions about them once one has the full set of information that exists about them?
Parsimony is a wonderful thing, but as with all things, context determines what philosophical principle rightly applies. Simplicity for its own sake is of no real value at all. Simplicity in passing judgment on a photo is one thing for, but applying it to the assessment of other humans is a wholly different matter. Individuals of high ethical constitution know when and what it is they don't know about another person, and knowing that, they accord the other person the objectivity they are due from extant doubt.
As I wrote, and it clearly went right past you, we are talking about people, not merely pictures, and the assumptions made about them (currently or in the past, but that yet endure today). Of all the things in the world that are simple, and simply understood and concluded upon, people are not among them.
FWIW, I suggest you read this. It'll give you a much better understanding of simplicity as a mode of thought and analysis. After reading it, assuming you do read it, you should be able to understand comprehensively why your having invoked Occam is amiss in this context. Prior to the 20th century it was believed that the metaphysical justification for Ockham's Razor was simplicity. It was thought that nature was in some sense simple and that our theories about nature should reflect that simplicity. With such a metaphysical justification came the implication that Ockham's Razor is a metaphysical principle. From the beginning of the 20th century, these views fell out of favor as scientists presented an increasingly complex world view. In response, philosophers turned away from metaphysical justifications for Ockham's Razor to epistemological ones including inductive, pragmatic, likelihood and probabilistic justifications, which is where things stand today. Thus, Ockham's Razor is accurately conceived of as a methodological principle not as a conclusive one, which is the substantive implication of the idea expressed in your response to my post.
A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
-- Alexander Pope
Yes, apparently quite dangerous. In your case, a little bit of knowledge leads you to pretend the obvious does not exist. Your view leads to nothing but a continuation of the same problems. Everyone throwing up their hands wondering why the problems have been going on so long and why they still exist. Your overthinking paralyzes not just you but all efforts to solve the problem. It really is that simple. The man on the right made personal choices that led him to handcuffs in front of a judge. The man on the left made personal choices that led him to a responsible position in court of law. The man in the center made personal choices that led him to a high level of success. Could be that the man in the center made the personal choice to be a lawyer and help people like the man on the right. Could be that the man on the left made the personal choice to protect his neighborhood from people like the man in the right. I can only guess at their motivations, but it's all personal choices. Unless you think the ones not in handcuffs were given their positions and the man on the right got left out for some reason.
In this case the simplest answer is the correct one: personal choices.
And what makes you know, based solely on the photo, that "personal choices" is the correct answer; moreover that, by the implication of your comment posted when you shared the photo, as "the correct answer," it can be extrapolated to the entirely of the black community? Your remarks indicate your answer to that question must essentially follow the line of "Occam's razor tells me so." Sure, you go with that....
Logic, reason, and knowledge is why I know. The only explanation other than personal choice is that those three men were arbitrarily handed their positions. One was given the job of lawyer, one was given the job of bailiff, and the third drew the short straw and was given a life of crime.
Of course the reality is that those three men earned what they got by personal choices they made.
Red:
To logically and reasonably know that the conclusion at which you have arrived about the people in the photo is correct, one would actually have to know a variety of things, things not provided in the photo alone, about the three pictured individuals. One cannot know, based solely on the photo, what distinguishes the key life choices the pictured individuals have made.
Here's the photo again for reference.
So you don't want to talk about the real issue? You just want to beat to death a 2009 talking point from Fox News?So you don't want to talk about the real issue? You just want to beat to death a 2009 talking point from Fox News?
I thought we were. Name one.
I actually DID name one, unless I'm wrong and Tesla received federal funds?
Yes, TESLA has received billions in taxpayer money.
Damn, $4.9B to be exact, but hey at least they have succeeded.
Not really. They have never turned a profit in all the years of their taxpayer support. The taxpayers have been footing the bill so that wealthy progressives can get a sweetheart deal on a car that the average taxpayer could never afford. And the stockholders have been sold a bill of goods that when it collapses will hurt a lot of people. The wealthy investors though will be safely protected so they won't lose a dime.
The legitimacy of parsimony stands or falls, in a particular research context, on subject matter specific (and a posteriori) considerations. […] What makes parsimony reasonable in one context may have nothing in common with why it matters in another.
-- Elliot Sober
What could be simpler, and fairer, than refraining from making assumptions about other individuals and refraining from drawing conclusions about them once one has the full set of information that exists about them?
Parsimony is a wonderful thing, but as with all things, context determines what philosophical principle rightly applies. Simplicity for its own sake is of no real value at all. Simplicity in passing judgment on a photo is one thing for, but applying it to the assessment of other humans is a wholly different matter. Individuals of high ethical constitution know when and what it is they don't know about another person, and knowing that, they accord the other person the objectivity they are due from extant doubt.
As I wrote, and it clearly went right past you, we are talking about people, not merely pictures, and the assumptions made about them (currently or in the past, but that yet endure today). Of all the things in the world that are simple, and simply understood and concluded upon, people are not among them.
FWIW, I suggest you read this. It'll give you a much better understanding of simplicity as a mode of thought and analysis. After reading it, assuming you do read it, you should be able to understand comprehensively why your having invoked Occam is amiss in this context. Prior to the 20th century it was believed that the metaphysical justification for Ockham's Razor was simplicity. It was thought that nature was in some sense simple and that our theories about nature should reflect that simplicity. With such a metaphysical justification came the implication that Ockham's Razor is a metaphysical principle. From the beginning of the 20th century, these views fell out of favor as scientists presented an increasingly complex world view. In response, philosophers turned away from metaphysical justifications for Ockham's Razor to epistemological ones including inductive, pragmatic, likelihood and probabilistic justifications, which is where things stand today. Thus, Ockham's Razor is accurately conceived of as a methodological principle not as a conclusive one, which is the substantive implication of the idea expressed in your response to my post.
A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
-- Alexander Pope
Yes, apparently quite dangerous. In your case, a little bit of knowledge leads you to pretend the obvious does not exist. Your view leads to nothing but a continuation of the same problems. Everyone throwing up their hands wondering why the problems have been going on so long and why they still exist. Your overthinking paralyzes not just you but all efforts to solve the problem. It really is that simple. The man on the right made personal choices that led him to handcuffs in front of a judge. The man on the left made personal choices that led him to a responsible position in court of law. The man in the center made personal choices that led him to a high level of success. Could be that the man in the center made the personal choice to be a lawyer and help people like the man on the right. Could be that the man on the left made the personal choice to protect his neighborhood from people like the man in the right. I can only guess at their motivations, but it's all personal choices. Unless you think the ones not in handcuffs were given their positions and the man on the right got left out for some reason.
In this case the simplest answer is the correct one: personal choices.
And what makes you know, based solely on the photo, that "personal choices" is the correct answer; moreover that, by the implication of your comment posted when you shared the photo, as "the correct answer," it can be extrapolated to the entirely of the black community? Your remarks indicate your answer to that question must essentially follow the line of "Occam's razor tells me so." Sure, you go with that....
Logic, reason, and knowledge is why I know. The only explanation other than personal choice is that those three men were arbitrarily handed their positions. One was given the job of lawyer, one was given the job of bailiff, and the third drew the short straw and was given a life of crime.
Of course the reality is that those three men earned what they got by personal choices they made.
Red:
To logically and reasonably know that the conclusion at which you have arrived about the people in the photo is correct, one would actually have to know a variety of things, things not provided in the photo alone, about the three pictured individuals. One cannot know, based solely on the photo, what distinguishes the key life choices the pictured individuals have made.
Here's the photo again for reference.
Incorrect. Predfan is absolutely correct here. The suit wearer obviously is a college graduate based on his posture and his demeanor. The one in the uniform is likewise a trained individual who has undergone years of instruction and that too is demonstrated by his posture. The individual in the grey sweater/workout set is clearly not educated, nor is he vocationally trained.
His demeanor is one of prey, he clearly is in danger, and knows it. And, based on posture is accepting guilt. Were he educated, and not guilty his demeanor would be one of outrage. This is not present here.
I thought we were. Name one.
I actually DID name one, unless I'm wrong and Tesla received federal funds?
Yes, TESLA has received billions in taxpayer money.
Damn, $4.9B to be exact, but hey at least they have succeeded.
Not really. They have never turned a profit in all the years of their taxpayer support. The taxpayers have been footing the bill so that wealthy progressives can get a sweetheart deal on a car that the average taxpayer could never afford. And the stockholders have been sold a bill of goods that when it collapses will hurt a lot of people. The wealthy investors though will be safely protected so they won't lose a dime.
Oh, I meant succesful in terms of an electric vehicle which performs as desired.
I'm no fan of government subsidizing research though.
For example. this "cancer moonshot" business. That is just backwards. Instead of subsidizing the research the USG should just say "we will pay $1B to the first company that cures cancer" if that is that you believe the government should be funding such things at all.
I actually DID name one, unless I'm wrong and Tesla received federal funds?
Yes, TESLA has received billions in taxpayer money.
Damn, $4.9B to be exact, but hey at least they have succeeded.
Not really. They have never turned a profit in all the years of their taxpayer support. The taxpayers have been footing the bill so that wealthy progressives can get a sweetheart deal on a car that the average taxpayer could never afford. And the stockholders have been sold a bill of goods that when it collapses will hurt a lot of people. The wealthy investors though will be safely protected so they won't lose a dime.
Oh, I meant succesful in terms of an electric vehicle which performs as desired.
I'm no fan of government subsidizing research though.
For example. this "cancer moonshot" business. That is just backwards. Instead of subsidizing the research the USG should just say "we will pay $1B to the first company that cures cancer" if that is that you believe the government should be funding such things at all.
I don't mind government funded research so long as it is geared towards things that regular companies will tend to avoid as they will not be able to immediately profit from it. Government should be funding research that will have paradigm shifting results. Corporations don't care to spend money on that sort of thing.
Yes, TESLA has received billions in taxpayer money.
Damn, $4.9B to be exact, but hey at least they have succeeded.
Not really. They have never turned a profit in all the years of their taxpayer support. The taxpayers have been footing the bill so that wealthy progressives can get a sweetheart deal on a car that the average taxpayer could never afford. And the stockholders have been sold a bill of goods that when it collapses will hurt a lot of people. The wealthy investors though will be safely protected so they won't lose a dime.
Oh, I meant succesful in terms of an electric vehicle which performs as desired.
I'm no fan of government subsidizing research though.
For example. this "cancer moonshot" business. That is just backwards. Instead of subsidizing the research the USG should just say "we will pay $1B to the first company that cures cancer" if that is that you believe the government should be funding such things at all.
I don't mind government funded research so long as it is geared towards things that regular companies will tend to avoid as they will not be able to immediately profit from it. Government should be funding research that will have paradigm shifting results. Corporations don't care to spend money on that sort of thing.
They certainly would if offered a reward.
Our system encourages graft. That's just that simple. Green companies prove that. How many took MILLIONS of dollars in taxpayer money and never produced a single favorable result, and no one even cared?
Damn, $4.9B to be exact, but hey at least they have succeeded.
Not really. They have never turned a profit in all the years of their taxpayer support. The taxpayers have been footing the bill so that wealthy progressives can get a sweetheart deal on a car that the average taxpayer could never afford. And the stockholders have been sold a bill of goods that when it collapses will hurt a lot of people. The wealthy investors though will be safely protected so they won't lose a dime.
Oh, I meant succesful in terms of an electric vehicle which performs as desired.
I'm no fan of government subsidizing research though.
For example. this "cancer moonshot" business. That is just backwards. Instead of subsidizing the research the USG should just say "we will pay $1B to the first company that cures cancer" if that is that you believe the government should be funding such things at all.
I don't mind government funded research so long as it is geared towards things that regular companies will tend to avoid as they will not be able to immediately profit from it. Government should be funding research that will have paradigm shifting results. Corporations don't care to spend money on that sort of thing.
They certainly would if offered a reward.
Our system encourages graft. That's just that simple. Green companies prove that. How many took MILLIONS of dollars in taxpayer money and never produced a single favorable result, and no one even cared?
Yes, graft is endemic in anything the government does. Of that there is no doubt. Your idea has merit. Back in past centuries wealthy individuals would offer huge prizes for technological advances, so there is a precedent.
Wow! You really danced around the obvious on that one. Occam's Razor. This simplest explanation is likely the truth. Personal choices is the difference between those three men.
The legitimacy of parsimony stands or falls, in a particular research context, on subject matter specific (and a posteriori) considerations. […] What makes parsimony reasonable in one context may have nothing in common with why it matters in another.
-- Elliot Sober
What could be simpler, and fairer, than refraining from making assumptions about other individuals and refraining from drawing conclusions about them once one has the full set of information that exists about them?
Parsimony is a wonderful thing, but as with all things, context determines what philosophical principle rightly applies. Simplicity for its own sake is of no real value at all. Simplicity in passing judgment on a photo is one thing for, but applying it to the assessment of other humans is a wholly different matter. Individuals of high ethical constitution know when and what it is they don't know about another person, and knowing that, they accord the other person the objectivity they are due from extant doubt.
As I wrote, and it clearly went right past you, we are talking about people, not merely pictures, and the assumptions made about them (currently or in the past, but that yet endure today). Of all the things in the world that are simple, and simply understood and concluded upon, people are not among them.
FWIW, I suggest you read this. It'll give you a much better understanding of simplicity as a mode of thought and analysis. After reading it, assuming you do read it, you should be able to understand comprehensively why your having invoked Occam is amiss in this context. Prior to the 20th century it was believed that the metaphysical justification for Ockham's Razor was simplicity. It was thought that nature was in some sense simple and that our theories about nature should reflect that simplicity. With such a metaphysical justification came the implication that Ockham's Razor is a metaphysical principle. From the beginning of the 20th century, these views fell out of favor as scientists presented an increasingly complex world view. In response, philosophers turned away from metaphysical justifications for Ockham's Razor to epistemological ones including inductive, pragmatic, likelihood and probabilistic justifications, which is where things stand today. Thus, Ockham's Razor is accurately conceived of as a methodological principle not as a conclusive one, which is the substantive implication of the idea expressed in your response to my post.
A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
-- Alexander Pope
Yes, apparently quite dangerous. In your case, a little bit of knowledge leads you to pretend the obvious does not exist. Your view leads to nothing but a continuation of the same problems. Everyone throwing up their hands wondering why the problems have been going on so long and why they still exist. Your overthinking paralyzes not just you but all efforts to solve the problem. It really is that simple. The man on the right made personal choices that led him to handcuffs in front of a judge. The man on the left made personal choices that led him to a responsible position in court of law. The man in the center made personal choices that led him to a high level of success. Could be that the man in the center made the personal choice to be a lawyer and help people like the man on the right. Could be that the man on the left made the personal choice to protect his neighborhood from people like the man in the right. I can only guess at their motivations, but it's all personal choices. Unless you think the ones not in handcuffs were given their positions and the man on the right got left out for some reason.
In this case the simplest answer is the correct one: personal choices.
And what makes you know, based solely on the photo, that "personal choices" is the correct answer; moreover that, by the implication of your comment posted when you shared the photo, as "the correct answer," it can be extrapolated to the entirely of the black community? Your remarks indicate your answer to that question must essentially follow the line of "Occam's razor tells me so." Sure, you go with that....
Logic, reason, and knowledge is why I know. The only explanation other than personal choice is that those three men were arbitrarily handed their positions. One was given the job of lawyer, one was given the job of bailiff, and the third drew the short straw and was given a life of crime.
Of course the reality is that those three men earned what they got by personal choices they made.
Red:
To logically and reasonably know that the conclusion at which you have arrived about the people in the photo is correct, one would actually have to know a variety of things, things not provided in the photo alone, about the three pictured individuals. One cannot know, based solely on the photo, what distinguishes the key life choices the pictured individuals have made.
Here's the photo again for reference.
So would you call the war on poverty a success or utter failure, the numbers are trending down for black folks soo..Here is a very well researched, data driven look at how things just aren't the same for people of color when it comes to upward mobility and wealth creation.
The Average Black Family Would Need 228 Years to Build the Wealth of a White Family Today
It would be great if at least one person is able to learn something from this info. In so many ways....the path toward prosperity is much more difficult for black Americans.
The legitimacy of parsimony stands or falls, in a particular research context, on subject matter specific (and a posteriori) considerations. […] What makes parsimony reasonable in one context may have nothing in common with why it matters in another.
-- Elliot Sober
What could be simpler, and fairer, than refraining from making assumptions about other individuals and refraining from drawing conclusions about them once one has the full set of information that exists about them?
Parsimony is a wonderful thing, but as with all things, context determines what philosophical principle rightly applies. Simplicity for its own sake is of no real value at all. Simplicity in passing judgment on a photo is one thing for, but applying it to the assessment of other humans is a wholly different matter. Individuals of high ethical constitution know when and what it is they don't know about another person, and knowing that, they accord the other person the objectivity they are due from extant doubt.
As I wrote, and it clearly went right past you, we are talking about people, not merely pictures, and the assumptions made about them (currently or in the past, but that yet endure today). Of all the things in the world that are simple, and simply understood and concluded upon, people are not among them.
FWIW, I suggest you read this. It'll give you a much better understanding of simplicity as a mode of thought and analysis. After reading it, assuming you do read it, you should be able to understand comprehensively why your having invoked Occam is amiss in this context. Prior to the 20th century it was believed that the metaphysical justification for Ockham's Razor was simplicity. It was thought that nature was in some sense simple and that our theories about nature should reflect that simplicity. With such a metaphysical justification came the implication that Ockham's Razor is a metaphysical principle. From the beginning of the 20th century, these views fell out of favor as scientists presented an increasingly complex world view. In response, philosophers turned away from metaphysical justifications for Ockham's Razor to epistemological ones including inductive, pragmatic, likelihood and probabilistic justifications, which is where things stand today. Thus, Ockham's Razor is accurately conceived of as a methodological principle not as a conclusive one, which is the substantive implication of the idea expressed in your response to my post.
A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
-- Alexander Pope
Yes, apparently quite dangerous. In your case, a little bit of knowledge leads you to pretend the obvious does not exist. Your view leads to nothing but a continuation of the same problems. Everyone throwing up their hands wondering why the problems have been going on so long and why they still exist. Your overthinking paralyzes not just you but all efforts to solve the problem. It really is that simple. The man on the right made personal choices that led him to handcuffs in front of a judge. The man on the left made personal choices that led him to a responsible position in court of law. The man in the center made personal choices that led him to a high level of success. Could be that the man in the center made the personal choice to be a lawyer and help people like the man on the right. Could be that the man on the left made the personal choice to protect his neighborhood from people like the man in the right. I can only guess at their motivations, but it's all personal choices. Unless you think the ones not in handcuffs were given their positions and the man on the right got left out for some reason.
In this case the simplest answer is the correct one: personal choices.
And what makes you know, based solely on the photo, that "personal choices" is the correct answer; moreover that, by the implication of your comment posted when you shared the photo, as "the correct answer," it can be extrapolated to the entirely of the black community? Your remarks indicate your answer to that question must essentially follow the line of "Occam's razor tells me so." Sure, you go with that....
Logic, reason, and knowledge is why I know. The only explanation other than personal choice is that those three men were arbitrarily handed their positions. One was given the job of lawyer, one was given the job of bailiff, and the third drew the short straw and was given a life of crime.
Of course the reality is that those three men earned what they got by personal choices they made.
Red:
To logically and reasonably know that the conclusion at which you have arrived about the people in the photo is correct, one would actually have to know a variety of things, things not provided in the photo alone, about the three pictured individuals. One cannot know, based solely on the photo, what distinguishes the key life choices the pictured individuals have made.
Here's the photo again for reference.
Incorrect. Predfan is absolutely correct here. The suit wearer obviously is a college graduate based on his posture and his demeanor. The one in the uniform is likewise a trained individual who has undergone years of instruction and that too is demonstrated by his posture. The individual in the grey sweater/workout set is clearly not educated, nor is he vocationally trained.
His demeanor is one of prey, he clearly is in danger, and knows it. And, based on posture is accepting guilt. Were he educated, and not guilty his demeanor would be one of outrage. This is not present here.
??? How can you be sure of that? All you've presented is a photo. The only things I see as being materially different among those three individuals is their style of dress, height, apparent weight and their facial hair. I think there ages are notably different in that the person on the right may not be an adult, whereas the other two are; thus I cannot say for sure there are even three men in the photo. It may be two men and a boy/minor.If you are black in America today, you have no excuse for not being successful. The difference between these three black men: personal choices.
View attachment 85804
From the photo alone, I can't even say for sure whether all three have a job. Moreover, I can't even say whether the photo is one from a staged situation like a play, movie, or television show, or whether it comes from a real-world situation. What is the relationship among the three individuals? I don't know just from the photo. I know what it looks like. I know from the context of this thread discussion what it presumably purports to be. But do I actually know what it is? No. You didn't even provide a caption to the photo, so how could I know?
For some folks, the assumptions they'd make about the three individuals are the same ones they'd make were the individuals not black. You, for example have assumed they each made materially different life choices. In contrast, I have no way to tell how different their life choices may be, so I have no assumptions about them in that regard. About the only pretty good assumption one can make as go life choices is that the man on the left made one that resulted in his working in law enforcement. I don't see handcuffs on the guy on the right, so I don't know whether he's merely standing with his hands clasped behind his back or whether he is indeed cuffed.
Now can I make a bunch of assumptions about the situation shown in the photo and about the three people in it? Of course I can, but our society's willingness to make those assumptions about individuals and rely upon them is squarely at the center of the race problem we have in the U.S. What we're discussing here is a photo and what can be inferred from it, and that's somewhat innocuous in and of itself because the context is merely a photo. But in "real life," folks continue to make about actual people the same kinds of assumptions they must make to interpret a photo. When folks do that, what in a different situation would be harmless assumptions, become detrimental and unjust bias. I hope you and others can see how doing that is dehumanizing for it unavoidably and tacitly asserts that a person deserves no greater level of consideration than does a photo.
Wow! You really danced around the obvious on that one. Occam's Razor. This simplest explanation is likely the truth. Personal choices is the difference between those three men.
The legitimacy of parsimony stands or falls, in a particular research context, on subject matter specific (and a posteriori) considerations. […] What makes parsimony reasonable in one context may have nothing in common with why it matters in another.What could be simpler, and fairer, than refraining from making assumptions about other individuals and refraining from drawing conclusions about them once one has the full set of information that exists about them?
-- Elliot Sober
Parsimony is a wonderful thing, but as with all things, context determines what philosophical principle rightly applies. Simplicity for its own sake is of no real value at all. Simplicity in passing judgment on a photo is one thing for, but applying it to the assessment of other humans is a wholly different matter. Individuals of high ethical constitution know when and what it is they don't know about another person, and knowing that, they accord the other person the objectivity they are due from extant doubt.
As I wrote, and it clearly went right past you, we are talking about people, not merely pictures, and the assumptions made about them (currently or in the past, but that yet endure today). Of all the things in the world that are simple, and simply understood and concluded upon, people are not among them.
FWIW, I suggest you read this. It'll give you a much better understanding of simplicity as a mode of thought and analysis. After reading it, assuming you do read it, you should be able to understand comprehensively why your having invoked Occam is amiss in this context. Prior to the 20th century it was believed that the metaphysical justification for Occam's Razor was simplicity. It was thought that nature was in some sense simple and that our theories about nature should reflect that simplicity. With such a metaphysical justification came the implication that Occam's Razor is a metaphysical principle. From the beginning of the 20th century, these views fell out of favor as scientists presented an increasingly complex world view. In response, philosophers turned away from metaphysical justifications for Occam's Razor to epistemological ones including inductive, pragmatic, likelihood and probabilistic justifications, which is where things stand today. Thus, Occam's Razor is accurately conceived of as a methodological principle not as a conclusive one, which is the substantive implication of the idea expressed in your response to my post.
A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
-- Alexander Pope
Yes, apparently quite dangerous. In your case, a little bit of knowledge leads you to pretend the obvious does not exist. Your view leads to nothing but a continuation of the same problems. Everyone throwing up their hands wondering why the problems have been going on so long and why they still exist. Your overthinking paralyzes not just you but all efforts to solve the problem. It really is that simple. The man on the right made personal choices that led him to handcuffs in front of a judge. The man on the left made personal choices that led him to a responsible position in court of law. The man in the center made personal choices that led him to a high level of success. Could be that the man in the center made the personal choice to be a lawyer and help people like the man on the right. Could be that the man on the left made the personal choice to protect his neighborhood from people like the man in the right. I can only guess at their motivations, but it's all personal choices. Unless you think the ones not in handcuffs were given their positions and the man on the right got left out for some reason.
In this case the simplest answer is the correct one: personal choices.
And what makes you know, based solely on the photo, that "personal choices" is the correct answer; moreover that, by the implication of your comment posted when you shared the photo, as "the correct answer," it can be extrapolated to the entirely of the black community? Your remarks indicate your answer to that question must essentially follow the line of "Occam's razor tells me so." Sure, you go with that....
Logic, reason, and knowledge is why I know. The only explanation other than personal choice is that those three men were arbitrarily handed their positions. One was given the job of lawyer, one was given the job of bailiff, and the third drew the short straw and was given a life of crime.
Of course the reality is that those three men earned what they got by personal choices they made.
Red:
To logically and reasonably know that the conclusion at which you have arrived about the people in the photo is correct, one would actually have to know a variety of things, things not provided in the photo alone, about the three pictured individuals. One cannot know, based solely on the photo, what distinguishes the key life choices the pictured individuals have made.
Here's the photo again for reference.
Yes, apparently quite dangerous. In your case, a little bit of knowledge leads you to pretend the obvious does not exist. Your view leads to nothing but a continuation of the same problems. Everyone throwing up their hands wondering why the problems have been going on so long and why they still exist. Your overthinking paralyzes not just you but all efforts to solve the problem. It really is that simple. The man on the right made personal choices that led him to handcuffs in front of a judge. The man on the left made personal choices that led him to a responsible position in court of law. The man in the center made personal choices that led him to a high level of success. Could be that the man in the center made the personal choice to be a lawyer and help people like the man on the right. Could be that the man on the left made the personal choice to protect his neighborhood from people like the man in the right. I can only guess at their motivations, but it's all personal choices. Unless you think the ones not in handcuffs were given their positions and the man on the right got left out for some reason.
In this case the simplest answer is the correct one: personal choices.
And what makes you know, based solely on the photo, that "personal choices" is the correct answer; moreover that, by the implication of your comment posted when you shared the photo, as "the correct answer," it can be extrapolated to the entirely of the black community? Your remarks indicate your answer to that question must essentially follow the line of "Occam's razor tells me so." Sure, you go with that....
Logic, reason, and knowledge is why I know. The only explanation other than personal choice is that those three men were arbitrarily handed their positions. One was given the job of lawyer, one was given the job of bailiff, and the third drew the short straw and was given a life of crime.
Of course the reality is that those three men earned what they got by personal choices they made.
Red:
To logically and reasonably know that the conclusion at which you have arrived about the people in the photo is correct, one would actually have to know a variety of things, things not provided in the photo alone, about the three pictured individuals. One cannot know, based solely on the photo, what distinguishes the key life choices the pictured individuals have made.
Here's the photo again for reference.
Incorrect. Predfan is absolutely correct here. The suit wearer obviously is a college graduate based on his posture and his demeanor. The one in the uniform is likewise a trained individual who has undergone years of instruction and that too is demonstrated by his posture. The individual in the grey sweater/workout set is clearly not educated, nor is he vocationally trained.
His demeanor is one of prey, he clearly is in danger, and knows it. And, based on posture is accepting guilt. Were he educated, and not guilty his demeanor would be one of outrage. This is not present here.
Green:
Those are assumptions and inferences that you have made, every one of which may be accurate or inaccurate.
Read the entire conversation between PredFan and me. Parts of it are missing from the quoted content in your post #182.
Here is the whole conversation:
If you look at the whole conversation, you'll see that it derives from Predfan's "blue" statement in the quoted messages. I've color coded the remarks that follow and that are related:The legitimacy of parsimony stands or falls, in a particular research context, on subject matter specific (and a posteriori) considerations. […] What makes parsimony reasonable in one context may have nothing in common with why it matters in another.What could be simpler, and fairer, than refraining from making assumptions about other individuals and refraining from drawing conclusions about them once one has the full set of information that exists about them?
-- Elliot Sober
Parsimony is a wonderful thing, but as with all things, context determines what philosophical principle rightly applies. Simplicity for its own sake is of no real value at all. Simplicity in passing judgment on a photo is one thing for, but applying it to the assessment of other humans is a wholly different matter. Individuals of high ethical constitution know when and what it is they don't know about another person, and knowing that, they accord the other person the objectivity they are due from extant doubt.
As I wrote, and it clearly went right past you, we are talking about people, not merely pictures, and the assumptions made about them (currently or in the past, but that yet endure today). Of all the things in the world that are simple, and simply understood and concluded upon, people are not among them.
FWIW, I suggest you read this. It'll give you a much better understanding of simplicity as a mode of thought and analysis. After reading it, assuming you do read it, you should be able to understand comprehensively why your having invoked Occam is amiss in this context. Prior to the 20th century it was believed that the metaphysical justification for Occam's Razor was simplicity. It was thought that nature was in some sense simple and that our theories about nature should reflect that simplicity. With such a metaphysical justification came the implication that Occam's Razor is a metaphysical principle. From the beginning of the 20th century, these views fell out of favor as scientists presented an increasingly complex world view. In response, philosophers turned away from metaphysical justifications for Occam's Razor to epistemological ones including inductive, pragmatic, likelihood and probabilistic justifications, which is where things stand today. Thus, Occam's Razor is accurately conceived of as a methodological principle not as a conclusive one, which is the substantive implication of the idea expressed in your response to my post.
A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
-- Alexander Pope
Yes, apparently quite dangerous. In your case, a little bit of knowledge leads you to pretend the obvious does not exist. Your view leads to nothing but a continuation of the same problems. Everyone throwing up their hands wondering why the problems have been going on so long and why they still exist. Your overthinking paralyzes not just you but all efforts to solve the problem. It really is that simple. The man on the right made personal choices that led him to handcuffs in front of a judge. The man on the left made personal choices that led him to a responsible position in court of law. The man in the center made personal choices that led him to a high level of success. Could be that the man in the center made the personal choice to be a lawyer and help people like the man on the right. Could be that the man on the left made the personal choice to protect his neighborhood from people like the man in the right. I can only guess at their motivations, but it's all personal choices. Unless you think the ones not in handcuffs were given their positions and the man on the right got left out for some reason.
In this case the simplest answer is the correct one: personal choices.
And what makes you know, based solely on the photo, that "personal choices" is the correct answer; moreover that, by the implication of your comment posted when you shared the photo, as "the correct answer," it can be extrapolated to the entirely of the black community? Your remarks indicate your answer to that question must essentially follow the line of "Occam's razor tells me so." Sure, you go with that....
Logic, reason, and knowledge is why I know. The only explanation other than personal choice is that those three men were arbitrarily handed their positions. One was given the job of lawyer, one was given the job of bailiff, and the third drew the short straw and was given a life of crime.
Of course the reality is that those three men earned what they got by personal choices they made.
Red:
To logically and reasonably know that the conclusion at which you have arrived about the people in the photo is correct, one would actually have to know a variety of things, things not provided in the photo alone, about the three pictured individuals. One cannot know, based solely on the photo, what distinguishes the key life choices the pictured individuals have made.
Here's the photo again for reference.
- Pink --> Remarks about assumptions and making assumptions.
- Purple --> Remarks that are assumptions about facts for which there's no clear evidence supporting those facts (hypothesis contrary to fact) and that are used to draw one or more conclusions.
- Brown --> Remarks about Ockham's razor and applying it to the human condition.
- Fluorescent blue --> A cognitively incoherent idea that begins as an assumption and reappears later as an assertion/conclusion.
- Pale blue --> Remarks about the impact of assumptions on our culture.
Is there more of a problem with individual choices, than there is with shared or collective responsibility? I'd argue it's more with shared responsibility, take for instance a group project...we all have experienced a group project of which one individual took a lax approach because they figured the group would pick up the slack. What's to say this never happens in society as a wholeAnd what makes you know, based solely on the photo, that "personal choices" is the correct answer; moreover that, by the implication of your comment posted when you shared the photo, as "the correct answer," it can be extrapolated to the entirely of the black community? Your remarks indicate your answer to that question must essentially follow the line of "Occam's razor tells me so." Sure, you go with that....
Logic, reason, and knowledge is why I know. The only explanation other than personal choice is that those three men were arbitrarily handed their positions. One was given the job of lawyer, one was given the job of bailiff, and the third drew the short straw and was given a life of crime.
Of course the reality is that those three men earned what they got by personal choices they made.
Red:
To logically and reasonably know that the conclusion at which you have arrived about the people in the photo is correct, one would actually have to know a variety of things, things not provided in the photo alone, about the three pictured individuals. One cannot know, based solely on the photo, what distinguishes the key life choices the pictured individuals have made.
Here's the photo again for reference.
Incorrect. Predfan is absolutely correct here. The suit wearer obviously is a college graduate based on his posture and his demeanor. The one in the uniform is likewise a trained individual who has undergone years of instruction and that too is demonstrated by his posture. The individual in the grey sweater/workout set is clearly not educated, nor is he vocationally trained.
His demeanor is one of prey, he clearly is in danger, and knows it. And, based on posture is accepting guilt. Were he educated, and not guilty his demeanor would be one of outrage. This is not present here.
Green:
Those are assumptions and inferences that you have made, every one of which may be accurate or inaccurate.
Read the entire conversation between PredFan and me. Parts of it are missing from the quoted content in your post #182.
Here is the whole conversation:
If you look at the whole conversation, you'll see that it derives from Predfan's "blue" statement in the quoted messages. I've color coded the remarks that follow and that are related:Yes, apparently quite dangerous. In your case, a little bit of knowledge leads you to pretend the obvious does not exist. Your view leads to nothing but a continuation of the same problems. Everyone throwing up their hands wondering why the problems have been going on so long and why they still exist. Your overthinking paralyzes not just you but all efforts to solve the problem. It really is that simple. The man on the right made personal choices that led him to handcuffs in front of a judge. The man on the left made personal choices that led him to a responsible position in court of law. The man in the center made personal choices that led him to a high level of success. Could be that the man in the center made the personal choice to be a lawyer and help people like the man on the right. Could be that the man on the left made the personal choice to protect his neighborhood from people like the man in the right. I can only guess at their motivations, but it's all personal choices. Unless you think the ones not in handcuffs were given their positions and the man on the right got left out for some reason.
In this case the simplest answer is the correct one: personal choices.
And what makes you know, based solely on the photo, that "personal choices" is the correct answer; moreover that, by the implication of your comment posted when you shared the photo, as "the correct answer," it can be extrapolated to the entirely of the black community? Your remarks indicate your answer to that question must essentially follow the line of "Occam's razor tells me so." Sure, you go with that....
Logic, reason, and knowledge is why I know. The only explanation other than personal choice is that those three men were arbitrarily handed their positions. One was given the job of lawyer, one was given the job of bailiff, and the third drew the short straw and was given a life of crime.
Of course the reality is that those three men earned what they got by personal choices they made.
Red:
To logically and reasonably know that the conclusion at which you have arrived about the people in the photo is correct, one would actually have to know a variety of things, things not provided in the photo alone, about the three pictured individuals. One cannot know, based solely on the photo, what distinguishes the key life choices the pictured individuals have made.
Here's the photo again for reference.
- Pink --> Remarks about assumptions and making assumptions.
- Purple --> Remarks that are assumptions about facts for which there's no clear evidence supporting those facts (hypothesis contrary to fact) and that are used to draw one or more conclusions.
- Brown --> Remarks about Ockham's razor and applying it to the human condition.
- Fluorescent blue --> A cognitively incoherent idea that begins as an assumption and reappears later as an assertion/conclusion.
- Pale blue --> Remarks about the impact of assumptions on our culture.
^ trying WAY too hard just to avoid admitting that yes when you take 3 black men from the same geographic area and one is in a suit , one is in a sheriff's uniform, and one is handcuffs it's pretty obvious that one made great choices, one made good choices, and one made terrible choices...............
And what makes you know, based solely on the photo, that "personal choices" is the correct answer; moreover that, by the implication of your comment posted when you shared the photo, as "the correct answer," it can be extrapolated to the entirely of the black community? Your remarks indicate your answer to that question must essentially follow the line of "Occam's razor tells me so." Sure, you go with that....
Logic, reason, and knowledge is why I know. The only explanation other than personal choice is that those three men were arbitrarily handed their positions. One was given the job of lawyer, one was given the job of bailiff, and the third drew the short straw and was given a life of crime.
Of course the reality is that those three men earned what they got by personal choices they made.
Red:
To logically and reasonably know that the conclusion at which you have arrived about the people in the photo is correct, one would actually have to know a variety of things, things not provided in the photo alone, about the three pictured individuals. One cannot know, based solely on the photo, what distinguishes the key life choices the pictured individuals have made.
Here's the photo again for reference.
Incorrect. Predfan is absolutely correct here. The suit wearer obviously is a college graduate based on his posture and his demeanor. The one in the uniform is likewise a trained individual who has undergone years of instruction and that too is demonstrated by his posture. The individual in the grey sweater/workout set is clearly not educated, nor is he vocationally trained.
His demeanor is one of prey, he clearly is in danger, and knows it. And, based on posture is accepting guilt. Were he educated, and not guilty his demeanor would be one of outrage. This is not present here.
Green:
Those are assumptions and inferences that you have made, every one of which may be accurate or inaccurate.
Read the entire conversation between PredFan and me. Parts of it are missing from the quoted content in your post #182.
Here is the whole conversation:
If you look at the whole conversation, you'll see that it derives from Predfan's "blue" statement in the quoted messages. I've color coded the remarks that follow and that are related:Yes, apparently quite dangerous. In your case, a little bit of knowledge leads you to pretend the obvious does not exist. Your view leads to nothing but a continuation of the same problems. Everyone throwing up their hands wondering why the problems have been going on so long and why they still exist. Your overthinking paralyzes not just you but all efforts to solve the problem. It really is that simple. The man on the right made personal choices that led him to handcuffs in front of a judge. The man on the left made personal choices that led him to a responsible position in court of law. The man in the center made personal choices that led him to a high level of success. Could be that the man in the center made the personal choice to be a lawyer and help people like the man on the right. Could be that the man on the left made the personal choice to protect his neighborhood from people like the man in the right. I can only guess at their motivations, but it's all personal choices. Unless you think the ones not in handcuffs were given their positions and the man on the right got left out for some reason.
In this case the simplest answer is the correct one: personal choices.
And what makes you know, based solely on the photo, that "personal choices" is the correct answer; moreover that, by the implication of your comment posted when you shared the photo, as "the correct answer," it can be extrapolated to the entirely of the black community? Your remarks indicate your answer to that question must essentially follow the line of "Occam's razor tells me so." Sure, you go with that....
Logic, reason, and knowledge is why I know. The only explanation other than personal choice is that those three men were arbitrarily handed their positions. One was given the job of lawyer, one was given the job of bailiff, and the third drew the short straw and was given a life of crime.
Of course the reality is that those three men earned what they got by personal choices they made.
Red:
To logically and reasonably know that the conclusion at which you have arrived about the people in the photo is correct, one would actually have to know a variety of things, things not provided in the photo alone, about the three pictured individuals. One cannot know, based solely on the photo, what distinguishes the key life choices the pictured individuals have made.
Here's the photo again for reference.
- Pink --> Remarks about assumptions and making assumptions.
- Purple --> Remarks that are assumptions about facts for which there's no clear evidence supporting those facts (hypothesis contrary to fact) and that are used to draw one or more conclusions.
- Brown --> Remarks about Ockham's razor and applying it to the human condition.
- Fluorescent blue --> A cognitively incoherent idea that begins as an assumption and reappears later as an assertion/conclusion.
- Pale blue --> Remarks about the impact of assumptions on our culture.
^ trying WAY too hard just to avoid admitting that yes when you take 3 black men from the same geographic area and one is in a suit , one is in a sheriff's uniform, and one is handcuffs it's pretty obvious that one made great choices, one made good choices, and one made terrible choices...............
Logic, reason, and knowledge is why I know. The only explanation other than personal choice is that those three men were arbitrarily handed their positions. One was given the job of lawyer, one was given the job of bailiff, and the third drew the short straw and was given a life of crime.
Of course the reality is that those three men earned what they got by personal choices they made.
Red:
To logically and reasonably know that the conclusion at which you have arrived about the people in the photo is correct, one would actually have to know a variety of things, things not provided in the photo alone, about the three pictured individuals. One cannot know, based solely on the photo, what distinguishes the key life choices the pictured individuals have made.
Here's the photo again for reference.
Incorrect. Predfan is absolutely correct here. The suit wearer obviously is a college graduate based on his posture and his demeanor. The one in the uniform is likewise a trained individual who has undergone years of instruction and that too is demonstrated by his posture. The individual in the grey sweater/workout set is clearly not educated, nor is he vocationally trained.
His demeanor is one of prey, he clearly is in danger, and knows it. And, based on posture is accepting guilt. Were he educated, and not guilty his demeanor would be one of outrage. This is not present here.
Green:
Those are assumptions and inferences that you have made, every one of which may be accurate or inaccurate.
Read the entire conversation between PredFan and me. Parts of it are missing from the quoted content in your post #182.
Here is the whole conversation:
If you look at the whole conversation, you'll see that it derives from Predfan's "blue" statement in the quoted messages. I've color coded the remarks that follow and that are related:And what makes you know, based solely on the photo, that "personal choices" is the correct answer; moreover that, by the implication of your comment posted when you shared the photo, as "the correct answer," it can be extrapolated to the entirely of the black community? Your remarks indicate your answer to that question must essentially follow the line of "Occam's razor tells me so." Sure, you go with that....
Logic, reason, and knowledge is why I know. The only explanation other than personal choice is that those three men were arbitrarily handed their positions. One was given the job of lawyer, one was given the job of bailiff, and the third drew the short straw and was given a life of crime.
Of course the reality is that those three men earned what they got by personal choices they made.
Red:
To logically and reasonably know that the conclusion at which you have arrived about the people in the photo is correct, one would actually have to know a variety of things, things not provided in the photo alone, about the three pictured individuals. One cannot know, based solely on the photo, what distinguishes the key life choices the pictured individuals have made.
Here's the photo again for reference.
- Pink --> Remarks about assumptions and making assumptions.
- Purple --> Remarks that are assumptions about facts for which there's no clear evidence supporting those facts (hypothesis contrary to fact) and that are used to draw one or more conclusions.
- Brown --> Remarks about Ockham's razor and applying it to the human condition.
- Fluorescent blue --> A cognitively incoherent idea that begins as an assumption and reappears later as an assertion/conclusion.
- Pale blue --> Remarks about the impact of assumptions on our culture.
^ trying WAY too hard just to avoid admitting that yes when you take 3 black men from the same geographic area and one is in a suit , one is in a sheriff's uniform, and one is handcuffs it's pretty obvious that one made great choices, one made good choices, and one made terrible choices...............
I'd be apt to say two made great choices as they appear to be productive members of society, the third one is the opposite, however he can change if he chooses to.
Is there more of a problem with individual choices, than there is with shared or collective responsibility? I'd argue it's more with shared responsibility, take for instance a group project...we all have experienced a group project of which one individual took a lax approach because they figured the group would pick up the slack. What's to say this never happens in society as a wholeLogic, reason, and knowledge is why I know. The only explanation other than personal choice is that those three men were arbitrarily handed their positions. One was given the job of lawyer, one was given the job of bailiff, and the third drew the short straw and was given a life of crime.
Of course the reality is that those three men earned what they got by personal choices they made.
Red:
To logically and reasonably know that the conclusion at which you have arrived about the people in the photo is correct, one would actually have to know a variety of things, things not provided in the photo alone, about the three pictured individuals. One cannot know, based solely on the photo, what distinguishes the key life choices the pictured individuals have made.
Here's the photo again for reference.
Incorrect. Predfan is absolutely correct here. The suit wearer obviously is a college graduate based on his posture and his demeanor. The one in the uniform is likewise a trained individual who has undergone years of instruction and that too is demonstrated by his posture. The individual in the grey sweater/workout set is clearly not educated, nor is he vocationally trained.
His demeanor is one of prey, he clearly is in danger, and knows it. And, based on posture is accepting guilt. Were he educated, and not guilty his demeanor would be one of outrage. This is not present here.
Green:
Those are assumptions and inferences that you have made, every one of which may be accurate or inaccurate.
Read the entire conversation between PredFan and me. Parts of it are missing from the quoted content in your post #182.
Here is the whole conversation:
If you look at the whole conversation, you'll see that it derives from Predfan's "blue" statement in the quoted messages. I've color coded the remarks that follow and that are related:And what makes you know, based solely on the photo, that "personal choices" is the correct answer; moreover that, by the implication of your comment posted when you shared the photo, as "the correct answer," it can be extrapolated to the entirely of the black community? Your remarks indicate your answer to that question must essentially follow the line of "Occam's razor tells me so." Sure, you go with that....
Logic, reason, and knowledge is why I know. The only explanation other than personal choice is that those three men were arbitrarily handed their positions. One was given the job of lawyer, one was given the job of bailiff, and the third drew the short straw and was given a life of crime.
Of course the reality is that those three men earned what they got by personal choices they made.
Red:
To logically and reasonably know that the conclusion at which you have arrived about the people in the photo is correct, one would actually have to know a variety of things, things not provided in the photo alone, about the three pictured individuals. One cannot know, based solely on the photo, what distinguishes the key life choices the pictured individuals have made.
Here's the photo again for reference.
- Pink --> Remarks about assumptions and making assumptions.
- Purple --> Remarks that are assumptions about facts for which there's no clear evidence supporting those facts (hypothesis contrary to fact) and that are used to draw one or more conclusions.
- Brown --> Remarks about Ockham's razor and applying it to the human condition.
- Fluorescent blue --> A cognitively incoherent idea that begins as an assumption and reappears later as an assertion/conclusion.
- Pale blue --> Remarks about the impact of assumptions on our culture.
^ trying WAY too hard just to avoid admitting that yes when you take 3 black men from the same geographic area and one is in a suit , one is in a sheriff's uniform, and one is handcuffs it's pretty obvious that one made great choices, one made good choices, and one made terrible choices...............
Several folks here seem quite willing to form conclusions based solely on how the people in the photo are dressed.
If you didn't recognize OJ, how are you going to know which person in the photo above is the defendant? How can you know about the choices any of them made?
Did this defendant above make poor choices? Does he have on sweats?
People here are trying to pass off their generalizations and assumptions as fact and they are also trying to claim that there's something equitable about applying the conclusions deriving from their generalizations to other humans, particularly to black folks. And amidst all that, I suspect those same folks want the rest of us to accept that they aren't racists, idiots or ignoramuses. I don't know whether folks are doing that because they are biased (racially or otherwise), or because they are simply not any good at applying rigorously rational reasoning, or because they are just dumber than the day is long. I do know, however, that there's nothing assuredly right about generalizing about a whole class of people and applying those generalizations to specific individuals in the class. At the center of it all, that is what an "ism" bias is, racism, ageism, sexism, etc.
Red:Several folks here seem quite willing to form conclusions based solely on how the people in the photo are dressed.
If you didn't recognize OJ, how are you going to know which person in the photo above is the defendant? How can you know about the choices any of them made?
Did this defendant above make poor choices? Does he have on sweats?
People here are trying to pass off their generalizations and assumptions as fact and they are also trying to claim that there's something equitable about applying the conclusions deriving from their generalizations to other humans, particularly to black folks. And amidst all that, I suspect those same folks want the rest of us to accept that they aren't racists, idiots or ignoramuses. I don't know whether folks are doing that because they are biased (racially or otherwise), or because they are simply not any good at applying rigorously rational reasoning, or because they are just dumber than the day is long. I do know, however, that there's nothing assuredly right about generalizing about a whole class of people and applying those generalizations to specific individuals in the class. At the center of it all, that is what an "ism" bias is, racism, ageism, sexism, etc.
Ahhh yes, the infamous Billy Hawk. Drug dealer and general scumbag. Used to hang around with a corrupt cop. Then he got tired of the competition so killed him. The suit doesn't hide the scumbag underneath. I heard he was finally found guilty in his trial. Is that true?
Red:Several folks here seem quite willing to form conclusions based solely on how the people in the photo are dressed.
If you didn't recognize OJ, how are you going to know which person in the photo above is the defendant? How can you know about the choices any of them made?
Did this defendant above make poor choices? Does he have on sweats?
People here are trying to pass off their generalizations and assumptions as fact and they are also trying to claim that there's something equitable about applying the conclusions deriving from their generalizations to other humans, particularly to black folks. And amidst all that, I suspect those same folks want the rest of us to accept that they aren't racists, idiots or ignoramuses. I don't know whether folks are doing that because they are biased (racially or otherwise), or because they are simply not any good at applying rigorously rational reasoning, or because they are just dumber than the day is long. I do know, however, that there's nothing assuredly right about generalizing about a whole class of people and applying those generalizations to specific individuals in the class. At the center of it all, that is what an "ism" bias is, racism, ageism, sexism, etc.
Ahhh yes, the infamous Billy Hawk. Drug dealer and general scumbag. Used to hang around with a corrupt cop. Then he got tired of the competition so killed him. The suit doesn't hide the scumbag underneath. I heard he was finally found guilty in his trial. Is that true?
Off Topic.
Blue:
The sweats that other boy was wearing doesn't make there be a scumbag underneath.
