Calls for media freedom during George Floyd protests as Australian news crew assaulted on air

For sure. I grew up with it, but not a fan of the dominating hypocrisy inherent within.

That said, if Bezos isn't

Yeah. Except what about the laws that aren't laws anymore?

Or are you of the mind that all laws are 'Just' because they are laws?

 

you are free to give thieves reparations if theft is an unjust law.

 

they were filming news in the wrong country.

 

Hahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahaha. The fact that you even responded at all is brave. Do you understand how evidence work? How trials work? How crimes work? Do you think all or even most crimes involve "one incident"? Do you think class action lawsuits involve "one incident"? In fact, not only do they NOT involve one incident, by their very nature, they CANNOT involve one incident. Instead, what you have is a collection of anecdotal evidence, which when combined together in a compelling narrative, shows a pattern of behavior. Everything you said is either wrong or shows a fundamental misunderstanding of even the most basic facts about how our court system works.

First of all, you completely ignored this part of my post. "On top of that, I also linked to multiple long term research papers which weren't anecdotal at all. What evidence was presented to the contrary? Lastly, anecdotal evidence SHOULD be taken with a grain of salt, but on the other side there is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL. Anecdotal evidence has its flaws, but it is vastly superior to blind faith and a complete absence of evidence."

Which is unsurprising because you have no evidence to support your position, so you have provided none.

Second of all, your basic argument is that what you are saying is intuitively true. First of all, no it isn't. Secondly, I highly recommend you do some research on the limits of intuition. Search Daniel Kahneman, search human errors that arise from heuristics and biases, and find out why that makes so little sense. Very often things that seem intuitively true to us are in fact not at all true, it is just that our intuitions are flawed. That is why evidence and argument are so important. Your intuition has very little value here. So if you want to present evidence and argument, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, stop wasting both of our time.

 

Wait, do you think you dismantled what I said? You have so far offered no argument, evidence, or any substance at all to support your argument. If you think you "dismantled" what I said, you need to consider how self-aware you are.

 

I watched the video. There is not a single clip where the video starts with the police violence, then ends as soon as it stops. They all show protesters peacefully protesting and then police initiating violence. There are hundreds of clips like that. It is not one isolated incident or an out of context clip. It is a pattern of behavior that has been documented repeatedly across the country.

 

I offered the argument and evidence. You simply dont like to see what you dont want to see. I suggest you consider how self aware YOU are.

 

You did? You didn't cite a single statistic, article, book, video, or anything else of the sort. You simply asserted that something was true. That isn't argument or evidence. If I am wrong, please just quote your previous post.

 

Repeating "haha" just shows your losing your temper. Keep it together. The reality that you dont think your argument has been beaten shows you have a long ways to go to understanding the world. When evidence is used in court for a crime, it is the evidence of that anecdote. The goal is to prove that anecdote occurred, beyond a reasonable doubt. That one crime, and in the cases of multiple crimes they can display multiple anecdotes each for the crime where they prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of that anecdote. They NEVER take a piece of anecdotal evidence and then extrapolate such you are doing, not even in class action lawsuits do they ever extrapolate in the manner you are. They simply collect the anecdotes and determine if they believe they are bad enough and frequent enough to justify the lawsuit. Again, they NEVER extrapolate in the manner you are doing. You are fallaciously attempting to justify your emotional narratives based on anecdotes. You are taking anecdotes and emotionally clinging to them while drawing broad sweeping conclusions. There is nothing rational about that. You simply have a fundamental misunderstanding of law, how its applied, the way the courts work, and your entire notion is based on flawed logic.

First of all, I never completely ignored anything. There are research papers that show black names get hired less and people actually think its true, despite the horrendous manner in which that data was collected. There has yet to be a study done in a proper objective manner to prove what you are claiming.

Second of all, your basic argument is that what you are saying, based on anecdotes, is inherently true. WRONG. Just because you have anecdotes, and YOU claim its a pattern that justifies extrapolating, doesn't make it true. Secondly, I highly recommend you do some research on logic and how its supposed to be applied. I think you should take your own advice about researching biases as well. Your entire basis of how you describe my argument is flawed, you literally arent paying any attention to what I am saying at all. You are seeing what you want to see, creating strawmen, and pretending you made an effective argument. You haven't as of yet.

It is you who is wasting your own time. You have no power over me, Ill do as I please.

 

I referenced the evidence multiple times, i referenced the FBI statistics as well. I will NOT go out of my way to show you something you possess the ability to find yourself. I never do and never will. It is not my job to inform you, it is your job to be an informed citizen. If you dont know about the statistics, its because you haven't taken to time to look. Thats on you.

 

Having to obey a lawful order from a police officer or suffer the consequences is still a law.

No absolutely not. Some laws are unacceptable some become unacceptable.

I don't think the law regarding following a lawful order has been outdated.

 

Here is every post you have made in this thread in this thread.

Not a single citation or piece of evidence was provided. You can't just lie and think no one is going to notice. You have offered no evidence to support any of your assertions. Again, either do so now, or stop wasting our time.

 

Time to bring out the riot gear, tear gas And restore order. Grew up in the sixties. This too shall pass. Do you Aussies know what a flash robbery is and how would you handle it?

 

Looked to me like they were doing a damn fine job. When you want to act like a bunch of thugs, you ought to get treated as such. If you put yourself in harms way siding with the thugs, you get what you get.

 

How did I know you would weigh in on PF when I saw this in the news? I must be psychic.

I don't condone violence but sometimes when people go looking for trouble they find it. Eh?

Look on the bright side. For liberal media, getting beat up by the police is a good way to establish street creds.

 

One solution.

Shut down ALL polices services in these urban cities. Cordon off ALL entry or exit. Wait a week or two. People in these areas will be begging for the police to come back.

 

What??? The police respond to the crimes of criminals. In the case of the riots, looting and arson, they respond after the riots, looting and arson started.

Let me get an honest answer from you: It's 2:00am, you're walking alone and have to decide whether to turn left or a right. To the left are the friendly anitfa thugs and angry blacks. To the right are the police.

Which way are you going to turn?

 

Wonder what the outcry would be if that was a Fox News cameraman?

 

Okay, so media are there 'looking for trouble' to invite violence on themselves? Only in America, maybe.

 

Funny but until now the only countries that have attacked foreign reporters when filming have been dictatorships and totalitarian states

Do you want to go that route?

 

I call BS on your "research papers" from radical leftists. Perhaps if you linked something from a respected scholar like Steven Pinker, Jonathan Haidt (or anybody of that caliber) we could take those "research papers" seriously. Educated people are FULLY aware of the corruption of the social sciences by radical Marxists, Jordan Peterson told us all about it and the information is readily available on the internet.

The cops have 50+million interactions with the public every year. You can name 100 or so that went bad. When you can name a million or so (2%) or provide peer reviewed research indicating that kind of number, then we have a problem.

 

If you're a journalist and you go embed yourself where there's gonna be violence and riots, you really should have expectations that you might get banged up or shot or gassed or hit with an antifa brick.

If an antifa throws a brick at the police but don't have quite enough arm and it hits you in the back of the head and takes out your cerebellum and you're handicapped for life, that's how it goes in a riot.

 

Jonathan Haidt is a moral/social psychologist, Pinker is a cognitive psychologist, and Jordan Peterson is a clinical psychologist. None of them are sociologists, the group of people who study issues like we are talking about. On top of all that, your statistics have literally nothing to do with the topic at hand. The topic being discussed was whether or not escalation by police was an effective strategy. All the evidence shows that it is not.

 

Play stupid games win stupid prises.

Hard knocks for the Aussie camera man. He'll live.

 

For not obeying a lawful command. Same.