Done with the NFL if....

[topdecktiger]

So, what is your opinion on the significant number of Veterans who have openly stated that the freedom of expression at issue here is the exact freedom for which they have fought? That they value his freedom above their own desire to agree with his message? They openly state that they don't find this disrespectful.

Who gets to draw the line and decide what is disrespectful? Is it just numbers?

Does one group get to dictate to all others what is offensive? How do we pick that group?

Sounds like a very "PC" request to have him tailor his conduct to protect people's feelings.

The fact is, dialogue, even provocative dialogue - ESPECIALLY provocative dialogue on the national stage - is crucial to ensuring that we discuss, confront and address conflicts that we would prefer to ignore.

Freedom of speech is not an issue in this case. The First Amendment only protects individuals from censorship by the government. It does not protect individuals from criticism by other people. If Kaepernick has the right to speak his mind, then every other person has the right to speak also, which includes criticizing Kaepernick. If the veterans you mentioned don't support the right of other people to criticize Kaepernick's views, then their support for freedom of speech is not consistent.

There is no "rule" about what is disrespectful. You have this inability to discern between something being imposed by the government, and individual opinions of people. Nobody is saying the cops should come out on the field and force Kaeperinck to stand for the anthem. What people are saying is that he is being disrespectful, because he is making sweeping generalizations about society (and cops in particular), without any concrete evidence to support his views.

Nobody gets to dictate what is offensive. Again, you are being selective in your support of freedom of speech. Just as Kaepernick has the right to express his views, I (and everyone else) have the right to express my views about Kaeperinck. I deem his actions and views to be disrespectful, and I'm not alone, by a long shot. Yet again, nobody is saying Kaepernick should be forced to stand for the anthem or forced into silence.

It's funny how you say provocative dialogue is critical, but you don't want hear any dialogue that's critical of Kaepernick. I'm not sure why you think we should all be lemmings and believe everything Kaepernick says on face value, and not critically examine his statements.

Brown was shot in the back several times.

If you are taking about Michael Brown, he was not shot in the back. The autopsy refuted this. You are simply incorrect.

 

[88ND]

No, you're deflecting. I'll be immature, to a punk a$$ racist. Even without suicide, it shows all things being equal, white people are more violent. Don't ignore all the others stats, because you don't want me bringing up suicide. I'm exposing all your beliefs, yet you ignored the entire post.

Research shows that crime has more to do with economics than the race of people. For instance, a study of Columbus neighborhoods found that violent crime rates in extremely disadvantaged white neighborhoods were very similar to rates in comparable Black neighborhoods.The violent crime rate in highly disadvantaged Black areas was 22 per 1,000 residents, not much different from the 20 per 1,000 rate in similar white communities.

Now explain why middle class white people, break more laws than middle class black people. We see that black crime comes from poverty. We see that all things being equal, white people are more violent, and they have more cowards that commit suicide.

White people commit more crimes, white people are more violent, and they are not profiled as much. I don't trust your crooked criminal justice system. We arrested more, because were profiled more, while white people remain more violent.

Punk ass racist?lol. That maturity is in neon lights.
I repeatedly indicated that WHITES WERE ARRESTED BY MORE THAN twice the number of blacks. Repeatedly.
You chose to ignore or comprehension isn't your strong suit.

These statements and movements as of late have been motivated by police shootings thought to be unlawful.

Most of these shootings were deemed righteous but for convo sake if every one was illegal shooting....
the police officers, being human, arrest 9,500 blacks per day.
By the grand scale of it you don't think they are doing an amazing job.? Even if they did two illegal shootings in 24 hours..(which they don't) that's a .9999998 % success rate. A robot couldn't do better.

 

[blh111]

Freedom of speech is not an issue in this case. The First Amendment only protects individuals from censorship by the government. It does not protect individuals from criticism by other people. If Kaepernick has the right to speak his mind, then every other person has the right to speak also, which includes criticizing Kaepernick. If the veterans you mentioned don't support the right of other people to criticize Kaepernick's views, then their support for freedom of speech is not consistent.

There is no "rule" about what is disrespectful. You have this inability to discern between something being imposed by the government, and individual opinions of people. Nobody is saying the cops should come out on the field and force Kaeperinck to stand for the anthem. What people are saying is that he is being disrespectful, because he is making sweeping generalizations about society (and cops in particular), without any concrete evidence to support his views.

Nobody gets to dictate what is offensive. Again, you are being selective in your support of freedom of speech. Just as Kaepernick has the right to express his views, I (and everyone else) have the right to express my views about Kaeperinck. I deem his actions and views to be disrespectful, and I'm not alone, by a long shot. Yet again, nobody is saying Kaepernick should be forced to stand for the anthem or forced into silence.

It's funny how you say provocative dialogue is critical, but you don't want hear any dialogue that's critical of Kaepernick. I'm not sure why you think we should all be lemmings and believe everything Kaepernick says on face value, and not critically examine his statements.




If you are taking about Michael Brown, he was not shot in the back. The autopsy refuted this. You are simply incorrect.

You're right, but the shot they said killed him, was the one on top of his head (two in the head). He was still unarmed, and the autopsy said the shots were not fired from close range. So why did he shoot an unarmed black man, that wasn't up on him at the time of the shooting, then shot him in the head, as he was bent over, as the autopsy also said. But that's one case, there have been many that were much more clear on what happened. But that one situation, changes nothing about the conversation.

 

[twalsh]

You are more violent.

Blacks committed 52 percent of homicides between 1980 and 2008, despite composing just 13 percent of the population. Across the same timeframe, whites committed 45 percent of homicides while composing 77% of the population, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Here are some more statistics from the FBI:

In 2013, the FBI has black criminals carrying out 38 per cent of murders, compared to 31.1 per cent for whites. The offender’s race was “unknown” in 29.1 per cent of cases.

What about violent crime more generally? FBI arrest rates are one way into this. Over the last three years of data – 2011 to 2013 – 38.5 per cent of people arrested for murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault were black.

 

[blh111]

Punk ass racist?lol. That maturity is in neon lights.
I repeatedly indicated that WHITES WERE ARRESTED BY MORE THAN twice the number of blacks. Repeatedly.
You chose to ignore or comprehension isn't your strong suit.

These statements and movements as of late have been motivated by police shootings thought to be unlawful.

Most of these shootings were deemed righteous but for convo sake if every one was illegal shooting....
the police officers, being human, arrest 9,500 blacks per day.
By the grand scale of it you don't think they are doing an amazing job.? Even if they did two illegal shootings in 24 hours..(which they don't) that's a .9999998 % success rate. A robot couldn't do better.

They were deemed righteous, by unrighteous people like you. We know what we are dealing with. No justice, no peace. **** an anthem that doesn't represent me. I served for his right to sit, not to stand for a song written by your slave owning uncle.

 

[88ND]

They were deemed righteous, by unrighteous people like you. We know what we are dealing with. No justice, no peace. **** an anthem that doesn't represent me. I served for his right to sit, not to stand for a song written by your slave owning uncle.

Thank you for solidifying exactly what I was talking about.

 

[blh111]

Blacks committed 52 percent of homicides between 1980 and 2008, despite composing just 13 percent of the population. Across the same timeframe, whites committed 45 percent of homicides while composing 77% of the population, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Here are some more statistics from the FBI:

In 2013, the FBI has black criminals carrying out 38 per cent of murders, compared to 31.1 per cent for whites. The offender’s race was “unknown” in 29.1 per cent of cases.

What about violent crime more generally? FBI arrest rates are one way into this. Over the last three years of data – 2011 to 2013 – 38.5 per cent of people arrested for murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault were black.

"That percentage jumped to 69.2% for white adults. By comparison, that number dropped to 28.4% for black adults."

So poor and young black people, and ALL white people. White people commit more violent crimes and drug related crimes.

Research shows that crime has more to do with economics than the race of people. For instance, a study of Columbus neighborhoods found that violent crime rates in extremely disadvantaged white neighborhoods were very similar to rates in comparable Black neighborhoods.The violent crime rate in highly disadvantaged Black areas was 22 per 1,000 residents, not much different from the 20 per 1,000 rate in similar white communities.

Now explain why middle class white people, break more laws than middle class black people. We see that black crime comes from poverty. We see that all things being equal, white people are more violent. ANSWER THE QUESTION!

 

[blh111]

Thank you for solidifying exactly what I was talking about.

Likewise.

 

[twalsh]

"That percentage jumped to 69.2% for white adults. By comparison, that number dropped to 28.4% for black adults."

So poor and young black people, and ALL white people. White people commit more violent crimes and drug related crimes.

Research shows that crime has more to do with economics than the race of people. For instance, a study of Columbus neighborhoods found that violent crime rates in extremely disadvantaged white neighborhoods were very similar to rates in comparable Black neighborhoods.The violent crime rate in highly disadvantaged Black areas was 22 per 1,000 residents, not much different from the 20 per 1,000 rate in similar white communities.

Now explain why middle class white people, break more laws than middle class black people. We see that black crime comes from poverty. We see that all things being equal, white people are more violent. ANSWER THE QUESTION!

My sense is you are going to believe whatever you want.

Show us where, in relation to their respective ratios to total applicable population, white people commit more crimes than black people.

And FYI, one study does not make empirical evidence. Unless of course it shows what you want it to show, then it does.

 

[blh111]

My sense is you are going to believe whatever you want.

Show us where, in relation to their respective ratios to total applicable population, white people commit more crimes than black people.

And FYI, one study does not make empirical evidence. Unless of course it shows what you want it to show, then it does.

Or it's you that is going to believe what you want. It's all about economics; and because of the racist and evil history of this country, along with the present day systemic racism, a larger percent of black people live in poverty. All things being equal, as in take poverty out of the equation, white people commit more crimes. You can do the math. I gave you the info, to do so with. Nothing has changed, ask Native Americans have anything changed. Still a racist country. That's why y'all are more upset about Kap kneeling, then you are the evil that he is protesting. We won't let your white nationalism deter his protest. I fought for his right to do so.

 

[88ND]

Or it's you that is going to believe what you want. It's all about economics; and because of the racist and evil history of this country, along with the present day systemic racism, a larger percent of black people live in poverty. All things being equal, as in take poverty out of the equation, white people commit more crimes. You can do the math. I gave you the info, to do so with. Nothing has changed, ask Native Americans have anything changed. Still a racist country. That's why y'all are more upset about Kap kneeling, then you are the evil that he is protesting. We won't let your white nationalism deter his protest. I fought for his right to do so.

Another one...you know all the words but no clue the meaning.

I point out to you the police bad shooting ratio and it's so ridiculously lopsided in favor of human LEO ..that you don't acknowledge it but divert it to suicide and economics.

Self serving ignorance comes to mind here.
Good luck.

 

[twalsh]

Or it's you that is going to believe what you want. It's all about economics; and because of the racist and evil history of this country, along with the present day systemic racism, a larger percent of black people live in poverty. All things being equal, as in take poverty out of the equation, white people commit more crimes. You can do the math. I gave you the info, to do so with. Nothing has changed, ask Native Americans have anything changed. Still a racist country. That's why y'all are more upset about Kap kneeling, then you are the evil that he is protesting. We won't let your white nationalism deter his protest. I fought for his right to do so.

Sorry, you are delving way into the theoretical world here. There is no math there, just theories and hypotheses.

If you think nothing has changed, you are either really young, just looking for someone to blame that's not in your own mirror, or listening to the wrong people. If you lived in the 1960s, and you live in the 2010s, the change has been monumental. The list is a mile long of the things that are racially and ethnically different, better, today than they were in the 1960s.

 

[deadmanramsey]

So, the question remains: WHY? What causes this? WHY are blacks responsible for a disproportionate level of crime, per your numbers?

KP believes it is institutional. But, what do you believe?

Is it really just as simple as a group of people "choosing" to act a certain way? And why? Why choose to act that way?

High single motherhood rate causing a lack of stability and authority figure in households. High dropout rate in HS. Also, a hip hop/rap culture that promotes and often glorifies crime that permeates within the youth of black communities.

Just some factors I would say. It's a cultural and values problem.

 

[deadmanramsey]

Roughly 90% of prisoners in this country are male. Is the criminal justice system sexist too?

 

[Walruzz]

Tiger - I appreciate your recent response. It is both civil and well thought out.

But it is not responsive to my post at all. Do not confuse yourself with what you think I believe.

You show me where I've either:
1. Agreed or disagreed with CK's argument.
2. Suggested people should not criticize him.

My argument is that "disrespectful" has no meaning except as a subjective value, and that mere numbers don't make an opinion objective truth.

Basing an opinion of his argument on his level of respect fails to address the merit of he argument.

If he wants you to agree with him, then it would probably be wise for him to add some "concrete" facts. That is, after all, how you win a debate or an argument.

Do you think that is his stated mission? To convince you or any other person that he is right? If that is what he is trying to do, then I agree, he is doing a piss poor job. I think he realizes his role here is much smaller. His proof, after all, is anecdotal.

However, citizenship demands vigilance - I'll develop my own opinion on this matter without his help because I don't know enough about CK to rely on him as my basis for any of my opinions. I will not wait for others to answer this question for me or decide how I feel.

Finally, the First amendment is more than mere protection from the government, it is protection from each other as well. Has this risen to the level of intervention? Not yet.

 

[Walruzz]

High single motherhood rate causing a lack of stability and authority figure in households. High dropout rate in HS. Also, a hip hop/rap culture that promotes and often glorifies crime that permeates within the youth of black communities.

Just some factors I would say. It's a cultural and values problem.

I agree with you, those are all factors that could affect these issues, like crime rate, etc.
But this is scratching the surface.
Why do we have those factors in play?
Where did they come from? Nature? Nurture?
Are those just causes or other symptoms of an earlier generation's causes?
Was this a conscious decision to embrace this? How did it happen?
We all live 'together', right? Why does one group have a different culture and values?

 

[deadmanramsey]

I agree with you, those are all factors that could affect these issues, like crime rate, etc.
But this is scratching the surface.
Why do we have those factors in play?
Where did they come from? Nature? Nurture?
Are those just causes or other symptoms of an earlier generation's causes?
Was this a conscious decision to embrace this? How did it happen?
We all live 'together', right? Why does one group have a different culture and values?

Hard to say exactly, but all of these are behaviors, and they are preventable. Nobody makes people have children out of wedlock, or drop out of high school, or join gangs. Not sure how a system can be blamed for other people's poor decision making.

A black person can definitely succeed just as well as anyone. But it's about hardwork and good decision making - that goes for all. We have witnessed many players on our team make it into this fine university and go on to have great careers, inside and outside of football, who are black.

Sending a message of victimhood only perpetuates problems.

 

[Walruzz]

Hard to say exactly, but all of these are behaviors, and they are preventable. Nobody makes people have children out of wedlock, or drop out of high school, or join gangs. Not sure how a system can be blamed for other people's poor decision making.

A black person can definitely succeed just as well as anyone. But it's about hardwork and good decision making - that goes for all. We have witnessed many players on our team make it into this fine university and go on to have great careers, inside and outside of football, who are black.

Sending a message of victimhood only perpetuates problems.

Okay, so there is no genetic component. Agreed. And can we agree on the definition that crime is anything breaking "the law?"

Environment is our big variable, do you have thoughts about the different environments blacks and whites live in?

What makes somebody break "the law," in your opinion? Are there different reasons for each crime, a general disregard? An inability to control an impulse? Peer pressure? What do you think?

 

[Walruzz]

You are saying its productive?

Going from being civil to immediately destroying their own communities is smart?

Yes or no

You didn't say "it's not smart to destroy a community" though, did you?

You specifically said: "They would rather destroy...... Than discuss in a mature fashion."

(Your words.)

Would you be willing to clarify your question? Is this about a specific incident? I want to make sure I understand what you are asking me. I certainly am not going home tonight and destroying anything but dinner, but I'm not really facing much in the way of adversity at the moment, so I'm not sure that I'm the best case study.

I also don't understand what you mean by productive. What made me uncivil? Was it a sporting event? And what am I trying to accomplish?

Are you asking me if I can think of example where your scenario is a justified and appropriate response?

 

[mbd11]

The whole BLM movement is built on lies.

The statistics show that whites are actually more likely to get shot by police, than blacks. The reason more blacks are shot per capita, is because more of them are involved in crime, and confrontations with the police. More crime, more police confrontations = more shootings. It's simple statistics.

 

[Walruzz]

The whole BLM movement is built on lies.

The statistics show that whites are actually more likely to get shot by police, than blacks. The reason more blacks are shot per capita, is because more of them are involved in crime, and confrontations with the police. More crime, more police confrontations = more shootings. It's simple statistics.

Link?

I just love statistics. They are so reliable and are seldom used to serve an agenda. Rarely manipulated, so to speak.

 

[mbd11]

Link?

I just love statistics. They are so reliable and are seldom used to serve an agenda. Rarely manipulated, so to speak.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/black-lies-matter/article/2600164#!

 

[topdecktiger]

You're right, but the shot they said killed him, was the one on top of his head (two in the head). He was still unarmed, and the autopsy said the shots were not fired from close range. So why did he shoot an unarmed black man, that wasn't up on him at the time of the shooting, then shot him in the head, as he was bent over, as the autopsy also said. But that's one case, there have been many that were much more clear on what happened. But that one situation, changes nothing about the conversation.

So you lied in your earlier post. You clearly said Michael Brown was shot in the back, and that is blatantly false. That's the problem many people have with protesters. They spread false narratives.

The policeman shot Michael Brown because Brown attacked him. That's perfectly legitimate. It doesn't matter that Brown was unarmed. That's the stupidest argument in the world. The policeman doesn't have to wait until Brown arms himself to make it a "fair fight." Michael Brown attacked a police officer, and tried to attack him again. At that point, it is legal (and reasonable) to use deadly force.

That situation does completely change the conversation. It illustrates the point that people claiming oppression and police brutality will accept or spread false information about these cases, which calls into question the validity of their overall claims.

Tiger - I appreciate your recent response. It is both civil and well thought out.

But it is not responsive to my post at all. Do not confuse yourself with what you think I believe.

You show me where I've either:
1. Agreed or disagreed with CK's argument.
2. Suggested people should not criticize him.

My argument is that "disrespectful" has no meaning except as a subjective value, and that mere numbers don't make an opinion objective truth.

Basing an opinion of his argument on his level of respect fails to address the merit of he argument.

If he wants you to agree with him, then it would probably be wise for him to add some "concrete" facts. That is, after all, how you win a debate or an argument.

Do you think that is his stated mission? To convince you or any other person that he is right? If that is what he is trying to do, then I agree, he is doing a piss poor job. I think he realizes his role here is much smaller. His proof, after all, is anecdotal.

However, citizenship demands vigilance - I'll develop my own opinion on this matter without his help because I don't know enough about CK to rely on him as my basis for any of my opinions. I will not wait for others to answer this question for me or decide how I feel.

Finally, the First amendment is more than mere protection from the government, it is protection from each other as well. Has this risen to the level of intervention? Not yet.

1. Show me where I said you agree or disagree with Kaepernick's statements.
2. If you have no problem with people criticizing Kaepernick, then the rest of your post is illogical. Kaepernick was not prohibited from speaking or acting, so then you have no basis to make this an issue of free speech.

People are not basing their opinion of Kaepernick on the "disrespect" issue. If you haven't noticed in this thread, people are questioning the validity of his claims, not just his "disrespect."

If Kaepernick is not trying to convince me or anyone else he is right, then his whole protest is pointless. If Kaepernick wants to solve the problems he has mentioned, then he has to convince other people, or else the actions he desires will never be taken.

Actually, no, you are wrong. The First Amendment only protects you from the government. It doesn't apply to private interaction. For example, if the 49ers wanted to, they could fire Kaepernick for his statements, and it would be perfectly legal.

 

[Walruzz]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/black-lies-matter/article/2600164#!

The Washington Examiner no less! The fact that they took the time to reprint somebody else's study is very compelling. Notice that they didn't link any of those studies?

Here is a good follow up for you, if you want to know why.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5796f2d8e4b02d5d5ed2b4aa

 

[topdecktiger]

The Washington Examiner no less! The fact that they took the time to reprint somebody else's study is very compelling. Notice that they didn't link any of those studies?

Here is a good follow up for you, if you want to know why.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5796f2d8e4b02d5d5ed2b4aa

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, from 2003-2009, 42% of all arrest-related deaths were white, 32% black, and 20% Hispanic. That figure does include more than police killings, but it is a start and paints a reasonable picture.

 

[Walruzz]

So you lied in your earlier post. You clearly said Michael Brown was shot in the back, and that is blatantly false. That's the problem many people have with protesters. They spread false narratives.

The policeman shot Michael Brown because Brown attacked him. That's perfectly legitimate. It doesn't matter that Brown was unarmed. That's the stupidest argument in the world. The policeman doesn't have to wait until Brown arms himself to make it a "fair fight." Michael Brown attacked a police officer, and tried to attack him again. At that point, it is legal (and reasonable) to use deadly force.

That situation does completely change the conversation. It illustrates the point that people claiming oppression and police brutality will accept or spread false information about these cases, which calls into question the validity of their overall claims.



1. Show me where I said you agree or disagree with Kaepernick's statements.
2. If you have no problem with people criticizing Kaepernick, then the rest of your post is illogical. Kaepernick was not prohibited from speaking or acting, so then you have no basis to make this an issue of free speech.

People are not basing their opinion of Kaepernick on the "disrespect" issue. If you haven't noticed in this thread, people are questioning the validity of his claims, not just his "disrespect."

If Kaepernick is not trying to convince me or anyone else he is right, then his whole protest is pointless. If Kaepernick wants to solve the problems he has mentioned, then he has to convince other people, or else the actions he desires will never be taken.

Actually, no, you are wrong. The First Amendment only protects you from the government. It doesn't apply to private interaction. For example, if the 49ers wanted to, they could fire Kaepernick for his statements, and it would be perfectly legal.

Go back to my first post. Read it again. No first amendment mentioned anywhere. No freedom of speech mentioned anywhere.

I used the phrase "freedom of expression," which you proceeded to define for me. I did not say freedom of speech, did I? Didn't ask me what I meant, did you?

Now, I'll follow up on your gauntlet anyway. The government protects my right to several freedoms in the first amendment, and those protections have been extended over the last 200+ years. Ever asked yourself why the police protect protesters? Klan gatherings? Because they have a right to a protected forum. It must be protected from both the government and from violent expressions of private citizens. (The Pee test, as it's known, lemon test to some if I remember.....) So yes, there is a mandate that the government protect our first amendment rights from each other.

CK was asked why he did something and he explained why, and that he would continue to do so until he felt a problem was addressed. Again, you read what you want to read, not what I write. He clearly has been successful in inspiring a debate, bringing others to the table and recruiting people to speak their mind in his defense. He doesn't have to convince you of anything, and might never be able to. He used his forum and celebrity to express himself. Change does not require buy in or consensus from everybody, does it? He may have more than he needs recruiting people he doesn't have to convince. These things can change with or without you. He never said "until I convince people who don't believe me," did he?

 

[Walruzz]

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, from 2003-2009, 42% of all arrest-related deaths were white, 32% black, and 20% Hispanic. That figure does include more than police killings, but it is a start and paints a reasonable picture.

For the sake of this argument, I'll concede it's the DOJ and not some fly by night study institute. It does not explain where the numbers came from. It doesn't say why or how they died. You can definitely gleam disproportionate contact with the CJS, but does that negate his argument?

There are conclusions made on both sides of the argument, and a lot of them are based on anecdotal information. None of that precludes or conclusively proves or disproves systemic racism. CK believes there is systemic racism in this country, that is expressed in a variety of events. How do you disprove or prove this in one article or conclusion?

 

[topdecktiger]

Go back to my first post. Read it again. No first amendment mentioned anywhere. No freedom of speech mentioned anywhere.

I used the phrase "freedom of expression," which you proceeded to define for me. I did not say freedom of speech, did I? Didn't ask me what I meant, did you?

Now, I'll follow up on your gauntlet anyway. The government protects my right to several freedoms in the first amendment, and those protections have been extended over the last 200+ years. Ever asked yourself why the police protect protesters? Klan gatherings? Because they have a right to a protected forum. It must be protected from both the government and from violent expressions of private citizens. (The Pee test, as it's known, lemon test to some if I remember.....) So yes, there is a mandate that the government protect our first amendment rights from each other.

CK was asked why he did something and he explained why, and that he would continue to do so until he felt a problem was addressed. Again, you read what you want to read, not what I write. He clearly has been successful in inspiring a debate, bringing others to the table and recruiting people to speak their mind in his defense. He doesn't have to convince you of anything, and might never be able to. He used his forum and celebrity to express himself. Change does not require buy in or consensus from everybody, does it? He may have more than he needs recruiting people he doesn't have to convince. These things can change with or without you. He never said "until I convince people who don't believe me," did he?

Speech is expression. Freedom of speech is not limited to language. There are plenty of court cases in which displaying a symbol, for example, is covered under freedom of "speech," even though it isn't literally speech. You're just trying to play a semantics game (unsuccessfully).


The police have to protect citizens from violence, period. It's not the speech that's being protected. By that logic, the police could allow Klan member (using your example) to be assaulted when he's not at a rally, since his right to speech is not being violated.

Actually, change does require consensus. If you don't get enough people to stop a certain action, then it won't be stopped. Conversely, if you don't get enough people to support a certain action, that action will never happen. If enough people don't agree with Kaepernick, then there will never be any legislative action, government programs, or private initiatives to bring about the changes he wants.

Kaepernick hasn't really been successful at inspiring a debate on the actual issues like police brutality. He's really only inspired a debate about kneeling during the anthem. Kaepernick himself complained that people are talking too much about his protest, and not enough about the issues he's protesting. Kaepernick himself refutes your theory.

Kaepernick, by your own admission, said he was going to keep protesting until the problems he cites are addressed. By definition, he is going to have to convince people who don't believe him, or his concerns won't be addressed.

For the sake of this argument, I'll concede it's the DOJ and not some fly by night study institute. It does not explain where the numbers came from. It doesn't say why or how they died. You can definitely gleam disproportionate contact with the CJS, but does that negate his argument?

There are conclusions made on both sides of the argument, and a lot of them are based on anecdotal information. None of that precludes or conclusively proves or disproves systemic racism. CK believes there is systemic racism in this country, that is expressed in a variety of events. How do you disprove or prove this in one article or conclusion?

Yes, it does negate his argument.

Here is the problem. You were very critical of the other poster, and the source of his information. Well, you have to be exactly as critical of Kaepernick and protesters like BLM, and equally question their information. The fact is Kaepernick and other protesters, by your own admission, are basing their conclusion mostly on anecdotal information and personal belief, rather than verified data. Now, you can talk all you want about freedom of expression, but you cannot argue that government policy be dictated by anecdotes or "hunches."

You keep playing this game of trying to parse what Kaepernick says. Let's cut the BS and talk turkey. You know good and well Kaepernick thinks the country is racist, it oppresses minorities, and the police brutalize blacks. You know good and well he wants some type of action to stop this. Ok, well for any action to be taken, he has to come up with more than just what he feels. He has to show data before the government or police departments go around changing laws and policies that affect all citizens.

 

[mbd11]

The Washington Examiner no less! The fact that they took the time to reprint somebody else's study is very compelling. Notice that they didn't link any of those studies?

Here is a good follow up for you, if you want to know why.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5796f2d8e4b02d5d5ed2b4aa

They used the Washington Post's statistics, in case you didn't notice. Here's the quote:

The facts are these: Last year, the police shot 990 people, the vast majority armed or violently resisting arrest, according to the Washington Post's database of fatal police shootings. Whites made up 49.9 percent of those victims, blacks, 26 percent. That proportion of black victims is lower than what the black violent crime rate would predict.

Blacks constituted 62 percent of all robbery defendants in America's 75 largest counties in 2009, 57 percent of all murder defendants and 45 percent of all assault defendants, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, even though blacks comprise only 15 percent of the population in those counties.

 

[Walruzz]

Wow. Where to start....

1. Speech is expression. Freedom of speech is not limited to language. There are plenty of court cases in which displaying a symbol, for example, is covered under freedom of "speech," even though it isn't literally speech. You're just trying to play a semantics game (unsuccessfully).

You don't seem to understand that I can talk about my freedom to speak without referring to the first amendment or asking the Federal government to intervene. (Your original accusation, ironically.) That was your first error. And just because you can't distinguish a legal term doesbt mean the difference is "semantics." It's just you making an assumption and failing to acknowledge I didn't say what you thought. Again, point out my government reference in my original post.

2. The police have to protect citizens from violence, period. It's not the speech that's being protected. By that logic, the police could allow Klan member (using your example) to be assaulted when he's not at a rally, since his right to speech is not being violated.

No, that's not a logical extension of my argument. It is another non-sequitur. They can and do protect more than one right at a time. (In this case I referred to freedom of assembly, not free speech. Different legal body of decisions.) The government has to ensure my right to peaceable public assembly.

The army has been repeatedly used to protect civil rights such as this. Ever seen the pictures of the 101st Airborne escorting the Little Rock Nine? Remember the conflict between State and Federal law? Was that because the 101st were police officers? Surely they already had people in Little Rock with a duty to protect the kids from violence. (The logical extension is not they were only owed protection in school.)


3. Actually, change does require consensus. If you don't get enough people to stop a certain action, then it won't be stopped. Conversely, if you don't get enough people to support a certain action, that action will never happen. If enough people don't agree with Kaepernick, then there will never be any legislative action, government programs, or private initiatives to bring about the changes he wants.

Wow, you really didn't read what I said, did you. Go back and read again. Consensus is not unanimity, or even majority. Again, these are not interchangeable terms, and this is not semantics.

But yes, you have to have "enough" support for a change to happen.... Great point. (You also have to be six feet tall to be six feet tall.)

4. hasn't really been successful at inspiring a debate on the actual issues like police brutality. He's really only inspired a debate about kneeling during the anthem. Kaepernick himself complained that people are talking too much about his protest, and not enough about the issues he's protesting. Kaepernick himself refutes your theory.

I've got 6 pages of posts here on this subject that suggest you're wrong. And he is right, too many people are focusing on what is "disrespectful" and not enough on the issues. Sounds a bit like my original post.

That doesn't "refute my theory." You posted a DOJ study in response to this, right? I missed the "percentage of kneeling during anthem" column in your "deaths by arrest" study. (I don't feel refuted.)

5. Kaepernick , by your own admission, said he was going to keep protesting until the problems he cites are addressed. By definition, he is going to have to convince people who don't believe him, or his concerns won't be addressed.

No, that's another self serving definition and assumption. I don't need you to believe me to have you address my concerns. I don't need unanimity or buy-in. I just need you uncomfortable enough to fix it, or to get somebody who already agreed with me to fix it. How long did you spend addressing my concerns here? Does that mean you agree with me now?


6. Yes, it does negate his argument. Here is the problem. You were very critical of the other poster, and the source of his information. Well, you have to be exactly as critical of Kaepernick and protesters like BLM, and equally question their information. The fact is Kaepernick and other protesters, by your own admission, are basing their conclusion mostly on anecdotal information and personal belief, rather than verified data. Now, you can talk all you want about freedom of expression, but you cannot argue that government policy be dictated by anecdotes or "hunches."

"Mostly" is your word and an opinion. Like many of your quotes, if is inaccurate. I didn't say that. But, just like "disrespectful", it is not an absolute. The Washington Reporter article contains zero indicia of scientific reliability. It doesn't even link the studies. Is that point of view "mostly" dependent on bad science until they provide data?

7. You keep playing this game of trying to parse what Kaepernick says. Let's cut the BS and talk turkey. You know good and well Kaepernick thinks the country is racist, it oppresses minorities, and the police brutalize blacks. You know good and well he wants some type of action to stop this. Ok, well for any action to be taken, he has to come up with more than just what he feels. He has to show data before the government or police departments go around changing laws and policies that affect all citizens.

I'll do you one better. That is exactly what he is saying. He is also saying is that people who don't want to discuss the issue are writing him off because he is a "disrespectful" black man. And you know good and well that people are doing that.

As for changes that affect all citizens, what data was used inRoe v. Wade? Miranda v. Arizona? Mapp v. Ohio? Plessy v. Ferguson? Brown v. Board of Education? Bowers v. Hardwick? Schneckloth v. Bustamonte? Shmerber v. Illinois? Powell v. Alabama? Fourteenth amendment? Fifteenth amendment? I'll concede the 18th probably was.

Data? Sounds like the next "disrespectful" barrier so we don't have to talk about this.

Speech is expression. Freedom of speech is not limited to language. There are plenty of court cases in which displaying a symbol, for example, is covered under freedom of "speech," even though it isn't literally speech. You're just trying to play a semantics game (unsuccessfully).


The police have to protect citizens from violence, period. It's not the speech that's being protected. By that logic, the police could allow Klan member (using your example) to be assaulted when he's not at a rally, since his right to speech is not being violated.

Actually, change does require consensus. If you don't get enough people to stop a certain action, then it won't be stopped. Conversely, if you don't get enough people to support a certain action, that action will never happen. If enough people don't agree with Kaepernick, then there will never be any legislative action, government programs, or private initiatives to bring about the changes he wants.

Kaepernick hasn't really been successful at inspiring a debate on the actual issues like police brutality. He's really only inspired a debate about kneeling during the anthem. Kaepernick himself complained that people are talking too much about his protest, and not enough about the issues he's protesting. Kaepernick himself refutes your theory.

Kaepernick, by your own admission, said he was going to keep protesting until the problems he cites are addressed. By definition, he is going to have to convince people who don't believe him, or his concerns won't be addressed.



Yes, it does negate his argument.

Here is the problem. You were very critical of the other poster, and the source of his information. Well, you have to be exactly as critical of Kaepernick and protesters like BLM, and equally question their information. The fact is Kaepernick and other protesters, by your own admission, are basing their conclusion mostly on anecdotal information and personal belief, rather than verified data. Now, you can talk all you want about freedom of expression, but you cannot argue that government policy be dictated by anecdotes or "hunches."

You keep playing this game of trying to parse what Kaepernick says. Let's cut the BS and talk turkey. You know good and well Kaepernick thinks the country is racist, it oppresses minorities, and the police brutalize blacks. You know good and well he wants some type of action to stop this. Ok, well for any action to be taken, he has to come up with more than just what he feels. He has to show data before the government or police departments go around changing laws and policies that affect all citizens.

 

[Walruzz]

They used the Washington Post's statistics, in case you didn't notice. Here's the quote:

The facts are these: Last year, the police shot 990 people, the vast majority armed or violently resisting arrest, according to the Washington Post's database of fatal police shootings. Whites made up 49.9 percent of those victims, blacks, 26 percent. That proportion of black victims is lower than what the black violent crime rate would predict.

Blacks constituted 62 percent of all robbery defendants in America's 75 largest counties in 2009, 57 percent of all murder defendants and 45 percent of all assault defendants, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, even though blacks comprise only 15 percent of the population in those counties.

Yes, they posted the Washington Post stats in the middle of the page. They used those in one paragraph. And they apparently cite the Bureau of Justive Statistics. They are being used to buttress a frequency-begets-shootings theory.

So, where did all the other numbers come from? And how do they address the issue?

You've got a bunch of privately funded studies at private "think tanks," and not a single link for the reader to review the studies. You just have to take their word and trust them.

Who commissioned the studies? What were the studies intended for? What methodology did they use? Was there any peer review? What was the sample size?

The Huffington Post cites research peers who directly contradict the validity of the studies relied upon by the Examiner. Looks like facts are in dispute.

 

[topdecktiger]

Wow. Where to start....

1. Speech is expression. Freedom of speech is not limited to language. There are plenty of court cases in which displaying a symbol, for example, is covered under freedom of "speech," even though it isn't literally speech. You're just trying to play a semantics game (unsuccessfully).

You don't seem to understand that I can talk about my freedom to speak without referring to the first amendment or asking the Federal government to intervene. (Your original accusation, ironically.) That was your first error. And just because you can't distinguish a legal term doesbt mean the difference is "semantics." It's just you making an assumption and failing to acknowledge I didn't say what you thought. Again, point out my government reference in my original post.

2. The police have to protect citizens from violence, period. It's not the speech that's being protected. By that logic, the police could allow Klan member (using your example) to be assaulted when he's not at a rally, since his right to speech is not being violated.

No, that's not a logical extension of my argument. It is another non-sequitur. They can and do protect more than one right at a time. (In this case I referred to freedom of assembly, not free speech. Different legal body of decisions.) The government has to ensure my right to peaceable public assembly.

The army has been repeatedly used to protect civil rights such as this. Ever seen the pictures of the 101st Airborne escorting the Little Rock Nine? Remember the conflict between State and Federal law? Was that because the 101st were police officers? Surely they already had people in Little Rock with a duty to protect the kids from violence. (The logical extension is not they were only owed protection in school.)


3. Actually, change does require consensus. If you don't get enough people to stop a certain action, then it won't be stopped. Conversely, if you don't get enough people to support a certain action, that action will never happen. If enough people don't agree with Kaepernick, then there will never be any legislative action, government programs, or private initiatives to bring about the changes he wants.

Wow, you really didn't read what I said, did you. Go back and read again. Consensus is not unanimity, or even majority. Again, these are not interchangeable terms, and this is not semantics.

But yes, you have to have "enough" support for a change to happen.... Great point. (You also have to be six feet tall to be six feet tall.)

4. hasn't really been successful at inspiring a debate on the actual issues like police brutality. He's really only inspired a debate about kneeling during the anthem. Kaepernick himself complained that people are talking too much about his protest, and not enough about the issues he's protesting. Kaepernick himself refutes your theory.

I've got 6 pages of posts here on this subject that suggest you're wrong. And he is right, too many people are focusing on what is "disrespectful" and not enough on the issues. Sounds a bit like my original post.

That doesn't "refute my theory." You posted a DOJ study in response to this, right? I missed the "percentage of kneeling during anthem" column in your "deaths by arrest" study. (I don't feel refuted.)

5. Kaepernick , by your own admission, said he was going to keep protesting until the problems he cites are addressed. By definition, he is going to have to convince people who don't believe him, or his concerns won't be addressed.

No, that's another self serving definition and assumption. I don't need you to believe me to have you address my concerns. I don't need unanimity or buy-in. I just need you uncomfortable enough to fix it, or to get somebody who already agreed with me to fix it. How long did you spend addressing my concerns here? Does that mean you agree with me now?


6. Yes, it does negate his argument. Here is the problem. You were very critical of the other poster, and the source of his information. Well, you have to be exactly as critical of Kaepernick and protesters like BLM, and equally question their information. The fact is Kaepernick and other protesters, by your own admission, are basing their conclusion mostly on anecdotal information and personal belief, rather than verified data. Now, you can talk all you want about freedom of expression, but you cannot argue that government policy be dictated by anecdotes or "hunches."

"Mostly" is your word and an opinion. Like many of your quotes, if is inaccurate. I didn't say that. But, just like "disrespectful", it is not an absolute. The Washington Reporter article contains zero indicia of scientific reliability. It doesn't even link the studies. Is that point of view "mostly" dependent on bad science until they provide data?

I'll do you one better. That is exactly what he is saying. He is also saying is that people who don't want to discuss the issue are writing him off because he is a "disrespectful" black man. And you know good and well that people are doing that.

As for changes that affect all citizens, what data was used inRoe v. Wade? Miranda v. Arizona? Mapp v. Ohio? Plessy v. Ferguson? Brown v. Board of Education? Bowers v. Hardwick? Schneckloth v. Bustamonte? Shmerber v. Illinois? Powell v. Alabama? Fourteenth amendment? Fifteenth amendment? I'll concede the 18th probably was.

Data? Sounds like the next "disrespectful" barrier so we don't have to talk about this.

1. No, sorry, I'm not wrong. Freedom of speech (or "expression") is not the issue here. Kaeperinck can and does say or do what he wants. Everybody else also had the right to express their opinions about Kaepernick. It's nothing but a circular argument. Every time you say Kaeperinick is exercising his rights, I can also say that his critics are exercising their rights. There is never going to be a point on this "expression" argument where one person "wins."

2. You are wrong on this point also. Again, I will give you the example. If the 49ers fired Kaepernick for what he said, that is perfectly legal. The government can't "protect" anything in that case, because Kaepernick's rights would not be violated. You are simply wrong when you say the First Amendment extents to private interaction between individuals. Yet again, it if did, the it would be illegal for a private company to fire anyone for speech, but it's not illegal.

3. Yes, I did read what you said. My response was valid.

4. This issue had plenty of attention before Kaepernick. The Michael Brown case was national news and was debated ad nauseam. Same thing for the Eric Garner case. Kaepernick hasn't shed light on anything that isn't already being widely debated.

Your point about the kneeling relating to the DOJ report has no bearing on the discussion. You said the other poster was inaccurate when he said more whites are killed by police than blacks. The DOJ report suggests that assertion is accurate. The reason the other poster brought up the issue is that it calls into question the basis of Kaepernick's claims.

5. This is the entire point. It's very debatable whether or not Kaepernick will make people "unconfortable" enough to fix the problems. It's debatable whether or not he's even making them uncomfortable at all. It looks more like he's making those people more resolute in their opinions and more likely to resist the changes he wants. It's also debatable whether he is even prompting people who do agree with him to act. In plain English, it looks like all Kaepernick is doing is alienating people, rather than prompting any action to solve the problems he sees.

6. Oh no, my quotes are not inaccurate. Kaepernick and BLM aren't basing their opinion on concrete data. That's because the data that supports their position simply doesn't exist.

Regarding the Washington Examiner got its information from a database compiled by the Washington Post. Here is the data. They actually did collect the data scientifically. (Again you can study the link if you wish). It is not a definitive report, and the Post doesn't claim it to be. However, when look at their findings, and compare that with the DOJ figures, it's pretty hard to make the case the data is wrong. And I'll again point out, where are the figures Kaepernick is using? Where are the figures Black Lives Matter is using? Show me what scientific data Kaepernick and BLM have to support their claims.

7. People are writing off Kaepernick because he claims the country is oppressive and the police are racist, without any proof. Then based on these unfounded accusations, he takes an action many people find disrespectful.

Yeah, you do have to have data. You can't claim that the country is "oppressing" minorities, and pass laws under that theory without some proof. You can't claim the police are racist, and then pass laws changing how their departments are run without some sort of proof. Even if Black Lives Matter, for example, filed some sort of lawsuit, the Supreme Court would have to find some cause to find in their favor. You really think the Supreme Court is going to say, "Well, we don't see any actual evidence that the police departments are intentionally killing black, but we will just assume they are"? Of course they won't. This is relevant to the discussion.

 

[Walruzz]

1. No, sorry, I'm not wrong. Freedom of speech (or "expression") is not the issue here. Kaeperinck can and does say or do what he wants. Everybody else also had the right to express their opinions about Kaepernick. It's nothing but a circular argument. Every time you say Kaeperinick is exercising his rights, I can also say that his critics are exercising their rights. There is never going to be a point on this "expression" argument where one person "wins."

2. You are wrong on this point also. Again, I will give you the example. If the 49ers fired Kaepernick for what he said, that is perfectly legal. The government can't "protect" anything in that case, because Kaepernick's rights would not be violated. You are simply wrong when you say the First Amendment extents to private interaction between individuals. Yet again, it if did, the it would be illegal for a private company to fire anyone for speech, but it's not illegal.

3. Yes, I did read what you said. My response was valid.

4. This issue had plenty of attention before Kaepernick. The Michael Brown case was national news and was debated ad nauseam. Same thing for the Eric Garner case. Kaepernick hasn't shed light on anything that isn't already being widely debated.

Your point about the kneeling relating to the DOJ report has no bearing on the discussion. You said the other poster was inaccurate when he said more whites are killed by police than blacks. The DOJ report suggests that assertion is accurate. The reason the other poster brought up the issue is that it calls into question the basis of Kaepernick's claims.

5. This is the entire point. It's very debatable whether or not Kaepernick will make people "unconfortable" enough to fix the problems. It's debatable whether or not he's even making them uncomfortable at all. It looks more like he's making those people more resolute in their opinions and more likely to resist the changes he wants. It's also debatable whether he is even prompting people who do agree with him to act. In plain English, it looks like all Kaepernick is doing is alienating people, rather than prompting any action to solve the problems he sees.

6. Oh no, my quotes are not inaccurate. Kaepernick and BLM aren't basing their opinion on concrete data. That's because the data that supports their position simply doesn't exist.

Regarding the Washington Examiner got its information from a database compiled by the Washington Post. Here is the data. They actually did collect the data scientifically. (Again you can study the link if you wish). It is not a definitive report, and the Post doesn't claim it to be. However, when look at their findings, and compare that with the DOJ figures, it's pretty hard to make the case the data is wrong. And I'll again point out, where are the figures Kaepernick is using? Where are the figures Black Lives Matter is using? Show me what scientific data Kaepernick and BLM have to support their claims.

7. People are writing off Kaepernick because he claims the country is oppressive and the police are racist, without any proof. Then based on these unfounded accusations, he takes an action many people find disrespectful.

Yeah, you do have to have data. You can't claim that the country is "oppressing" minorities, and pass laws under that theory without some proof. You can't claim the police are racist, and then pass laws changing how their departments are run without some sort of proof. Even if Black Lives Matter, for example, filed some sort of lawsuit, the Supreme Court would have to find some cause to find in their favor. You really think the Supreme Court is going to say, "Well, we don't see any actual evidence that the police departments are intentionally killing black, but we will just assume they are"? Of course they won't. This is relevant to the discussion.

I said this:

"So, what is your opinion on the significant number of Veterans who have openly stated that the freedom of expression at issue here is the exact freedom for which they have fought? That they value his freedom above their own desire to agree with his message? They openly state that they don't find this disrespectful."

You respond with this:

"Freedom of speech is not an issue in this case. The First Amendment only protects individuals from censorship by the government. It does not protect individuals from criticism by other people. If Kaepernick has the right to speak his mind, then every other person has the right to speak also, which includes criticizing Kaepernick. If the veterans you mentioned don't support the right of other people to criticize Kaepernick's views, then their support for freedom of speech is not consistent."

That's how you argue. You say what you want, not responding to the other persons point. Where did I say "this is a First Amendment issue?" Show me. Where did I say "the government should be protecting him."? I didn't.

My initial question was "who gets to determine what is respectful?" My point was everybody keeps arguing about how kneeling disrespects the armed forces, and they don't all agree because they view his action as freedon of expression.

You respond "This isn't a First Amendment issue."

You see how you missed my point by a country mile?

You do that throughout your argument to the point that there is zero reason debating with you; you think you get to tell me what the English language means, and that "data" and "evidence" are the same thing.

You counter "Change does not require buy in or consensus from everybody" with "If enough people don't agree with Kaepernick, then there will never be any legislative action." (Again, not really a point, just the simple truth that "enough" means "you don't need any more.")

You're not responding to my argument, you're pretending that you're responding to me.

You even turned "criticism" into "what if the 49'ers fired him?" I don't disagree with you. If he gets to talk, we all get to talk. They can fire him if they want. But, if I point out to you that employment law depends on different factors than free speech, you'll tell me "all symbols are expression even if they are not talking" and tell me I'm arguing semantics.

 

[Walruzz]

Here is my favorite - I say:
"Yes, they posted the Washington Post stats in the middle of the page. They used those in one paragraph.
.....
So, where did all the other numbers come from? And how do they address the issue?"

You respond:

"Regarding the Washington Examiner got its information from a database compiled by the Washington Post."

NO, they got ONE paragraph from the Post. And also include the Bureau of Justice Statistics in the ONE paragraph citing published sources.

"However, when look at their findings, and compare that with the DOJ figures, it's pretty hard to make the case the data is wrong."

Who's findings? The Post? The Reporter?

What ARE their findings? The summary of the studies they won't show you? The data doesn't mean anything without context. You understand that, right?

You're aware of how studies can be manipulated, right? Lies, damned lies, and statistics?

Do you really think that you can look at data and eliminate an ethereal and immeasurable concept like racism? By counting numbers of who is shot without regards for why? Yes, more whites were shot than blacks. What is the significance? Exposure rate, like the Reporter argues, or is there something else at play. What if the whites were all shot by black officers, and the blacks were all shot by white officers? Wouldn't that at least suggest there was a racial component? But you don't know, you assume that is not the case. Swallow the pablum.

Do you really think a police officer is going to say out loud in a self reported study "I'm more likely to shoot a black guy"...? That's what the Houston study was in the Reporter article (you know, the other studies I referred to as unsupported, debatably valid, unsupported by peer review, and based on scientifically insufficient sample size?) If you stopped for a second to question the data you relied on, maybe you'd get my point.

Are you familiar with the mission of these "not-for-profit-think-tanks?" Who do you think pays them to publish studies? Think their boss might dictate the work product? Maybe if the BLM funded one of these things they'd have some "data" to pump you up. I think you'd consider that garbage. Read the Huffington Post article, it points out that compiling data on a subject like this requires sample sizes and complexity that creates an incredibly challenging (and currently unavailable) task for scientific reliability. So yes, I agree, BLM doesn't have what you are demanding, but when they do I suspect you'll move the goalpost.

Or is data always irrefutable to you? Like opinion and agenda. Or do you agree is it sometimes just a collection of pointless non-responsive gathered information, more probative of the author than the underlying facts?

 

[Walruzz]

Damn this is boring. I hope nobody else is reading this. If they are, I apologize.

And Tiger, to be clear, I do appreciate that you take the time to discuss this, and think both sides of any dialogue should always be heard.

 

[topdecktiger]

I said this:

"So, what is your opinion on the significant number of Veterans who have openly stated that the freedom of expression at issue here is the exact freedom for which they have fought? That they value his freedom above their own desire to agree with his message? They openly state that they don't find this disrespectful."

You respond with this:



That's how you argue. You say what you want, not responding to the other persons point. Where did I say "this is a First Amendment issue?" Show me. Where did I say "the government should be protecting him."? I didn't.

My initial question was "who gets to determine what is respectful?" My point was everybody keeps arguing about how kneeling disrespects the armed forces, and they don't all agree because they view his action as freedon of expression.

You respond "This isn't a First Amendment issue."

You see how you missed my point by a country mile?

You do that throughout your argument to the point that there is zero reason debating with you; you think you get to tell me what the English language means, and that "data" and "evidence" are the same thing.

You counter "Change does not require buy in or consensus from everybody" with "If enough people don't agree with Kaepernick, then there will never be any legislative action." (Again, not really a point, just the simple truth that "enough" means "you don't need any more.")

You're not responding to my argument, you're pretending that you're responding to me.

You even turned "criticism" into "what if the 49'ers fired him?" I don't disagree with you. If he gets to talk, we all get to talk. They can fire him if they want. But, if I point out to you that employment law depends on different factors than free speech, you'll tell me "all symbols are expression even if they are not talking" and tell me I'm arguing semantics.

Let me go back to your original post, and sum this up:

"So, what is your opinion on the significant number of Veterans who have openly stated that the freedom of expression at issue here is the exact freedom for which they have fought? That they value his freedom above their own desire to agree with his message? They openly state that they don't find this disrespectful."

You asked me my opinion on the Veterans. Remember, that's how this whole thing started. Well, I gave you my opinion. Part of my opinion, was in response to this part of your question:

"Veterans who have openly stated that the freedom of expression at issue here"

Well, my opinion is that critics have just as much right to express their opinion as Kaepernick has to express his. If critics think Kaepernick is being disrespectful, they have the right to say that, just as much as Kaepernick has the right to say what he said.

My main point, if I didn't make it clear earlier, is this. This business about "freedom of expression" is a circular argument. Both sides have equal right to voice their opinions. You are never going to get to a point where one side "wins". If some Veterans support Kaepernick, that doesn't either validate him or invalidate his critics. Again, it's a circular argument with no final outcome. So in other words, it doesn't matter, because it doesn't prove a point either way.

Now, to the rest of what you said (about me bringing in Freedom of Speech and such), you asked me a question. The reason I framed the debate the way I did was because you asked me something. If you had simply made a statement, I would have responded to you differently, but since you asked me a question, I responded based on my opinion.

Here is my favorite - I say:
"Yes, they posted the Washington Post stats in the middle of the page. They used those in one paragraph.
.....
So, where did all the other numbers come from? And how do they address the issue?"

You respond:

"Regarding the Washington Examiner got its information from a database compiled by the Washington Post."

NO, they got ONE paragraph from the Post. And also include the Bureau of Justice Statistics in the ONE paragraph citing published sources.

"However, when look at their findings, and compare that with the DOJ figures, it's pretty hard to make the case the data is wrong."

Who's findings? The Post? The Reporter?

What ARE their findings? The summary of the studies they won't show you? The data doesn't mean anything without context. You understand that, right?

You're aware of how studies can be manipulated, right? Lies, damned lies, and statistics?

Do you really think that you can look at data and eliminate an ethereal and immeasurable concept like racism? By counting numbers of who is shot without regards for why? Yes, more whites were shot than blacks. What is the significance? Exposure rate, like the Reporter argues, or is there something else at play. What if the whites were all shot by black officers, and the blacks were all shot by white officers? Wouldn't that at least suggest there was a racial component? But you don't know, you assume that is not the case. Swallow the pablum.

Do you really think a police officer is going to say out loud in a self reported study "I'm more likely to shoot a black guy"...? That's what the Houston study was in the Reporter article (you know, the other studies I referred to as unsupported, debatably valid, unsupported by peer review, and based on scientifically insufficient sample size?) If you stopped for a second to question the data you relied on, maybe you'd get my point.

Are you familiar with the mission of these "not-for-profit-think-tanks?" Who do you think pays them to publish studies? Think their boss might dictate the work product? Maybe if the BLM funded one of these things they'd have some "data" to pump you up. I think you'd consider that garbage. Read the Huffington Post article, it points out that compiling data on a subject like this requires sample sizes and complexity that creates an incredibly challenging (and currently unavailable) task for scientific reliability. So yes, I agree, BLM doesn't have what you are demanding, but when they do I suspect you'll move the goalpost.

Or is data always irrefutable to you? Like opinion and agenda. Or do you agree is it sometimes just a collection of pointless non-responsive gathered information, more probative of the author than the underlying facts?

Again, let me try to clarify here. The Washington Examiner doesn't have to fill up the whole article with references and footnotes. They listed the source of the data on which they based their assumptions. Therefore, you can go examine the data and see if it supports their conclusions. It doesn't matter how often they cited their source. As long as you know what the source is, you can examine the data and determine if it is accurate or credible.

Now, you brought up the point that the data I provided is not definitive. You presented some questions about the data, and you are right. It's possible there could be some factors that weren't considered or studied. However, that leads to my other point. THE OTHER SIDE DOESN'T HAVE ANY DATA. You just gloss over that point like it's minor. It is not minor. It is crucial.

Here's the thing. Claims of racism and oppression are serious charges. If somebody tells me that many police departments are racist, that's an extremely serious charge. You damn well bet I better see some concrete evidence of that before I level that charge at an entire group of people. It is completely irresponsible to make such an inflammatory accusation without out some sort of proof. How would you like it if people (who don't know anything about you) came up to you one day and started calling you a racist? You wouldn't like it at all. Especially if that charge got around, and a lot of people started believing it. And more especially if it has serious consequences, like losing your job. Sorry, it is just completely irresponsible to put that label on someone without good reason.

One other point. You said:

"Maybe if the BLM funded one of these things they'd have some "data" to pump you up. I think you'd consider that garbage."

And

"So yes, I agree, BLM doesn't have what you are demanding, but when they do I suspect you'll move the goalpost."

You know what's ironic? You are doing exactly that. I gave two credible sources of data. Instead of looking at that data, and giving it some consideration, what did you do? You automatically tried to find ways to reject or discredit the data. You didn't look at it and say, "You know, these guys (including the other poster) showed me a couple of different sources that showed more white are killed by police that blacks. There might be more to this than simple racism. Maybe I should be a little more critical of people like Kaepernick or Black Lives Matter when they throw out these claims"

Which leads to this:

Do you really think that you can look at data and eliminate an ethereal and immeasurable concept like racism?

Ok, so tell me how it is that Kaepernick and Black Lives Matter can be absolutely positive these shootings are because of racism? Because that's what they claim. You're telling me I can't determine racism from data, because racism is "an ethereal and immeasurable concept." Ok, so how have Kaepernick and Black Lives Matter determined it?

 

[88ND]

You can go back and forth all day long on what the definition of the word is, is. Wtfe

Colin is doing the trendy little thing at the moment. Protesting police shooting black people.

I cited some facts that nobody wants to acknowledge.
9,500 black people are arrested in 24 hours on average in the united states. Even if these shootings were deemed illegal, (which some of them were found a righteous shoot) ..but for his point of protesting let's say they were illegal.
What exactly is he protesting? The police? Because I must tell you the police even if these were illegal (not) has a tremendous success rate of 99.99998% of arresting with no illegal shootings.

We are talking about humans policing here and that kind of success rate is just stunning. Just incredible. Robots could not do a better job.

Let's go one step forward but three back...where is his outreach and plea to the blacks in the first place to STOP BREAKING THE LAW❕❓

It's common knowledge police are not doing drive by assassinations of black people. If you are so terrified of the police why not take the judgment out of the officers hands altogether and STOP BREAKING THE LAW❕

I echo again where is Colin's plea and education to those to quit doing things that get yourself police attention. And just one more...
Should you feel the need to break the law...when the officer says don't move...don't ****ing move. Or quit resisting arrest. Your odds of survival increase amazingly if you listen to a police officer.

I don't hear Colin complaining about any of that...but I guess in a way...a person COULD say he is actually promoting disrespect. Not his stance on sitting during an anthem..if he wants to have no class IMO fine....but the disrespect he's promoting is more of...it's OK to commit crime ...then when the officer arrives you don't have to listen to him or her....matter of fact the police should be kissing your ass once they get there.

I say once more, he knows the words but no clue the meaning.

 

[Walruzz]

After football. I'll be back.