The NYT tries its damn hardest to find a speck of positivity in Michael Brown’s life.
Is that all they can come up with?? Oh boy
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
^ source: Sharpton, Al[/quote]
I’d take a link to his site at this point over the garbage trying to get passed of here.
Last time this was tried was under a different name and in a “wage discrimination” thread.
Same old song and dance, same poster, different screen name.
[/quote]
A boy with many names, but one IP address.
FTR, there are laws that constitute “structural racism” - specifically hate crime laws. A black guy punches a white guy = assault: likely suspended sentence. A white guy punches a black guy = hate crime: years in prison.
[quote]Pearsy92 wrote:
The source includes fucking tables and graphs, as do most real sources. What exactly do you think a source is?[/quote]
A link to a webpage not a picture of god knows what attached to a post.
Learn to argue, then come back.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Dude, your pigs aren’t going to fly on this forum.[/quote]
^this.
And almost every time I have read that 1:8 statistic of white to blacks it always completely ignores several variables. Most when accounted for would probably show a little more balancing out. I actually did a lot of digging on this at one time because I was curious but I don’t have the time to do it again. When you take out the black guys who had the same drug charge that also had additional charges stemming from the same incident, whether or not it was a repeat offense, and previous criminal history then it almost totally balances out. Black guys on their 1st offense, having been well behaved during the arrest, with no previous criminal history or not more likely than white guys in the exact same situation to go to prison. Its cherry picked numbers to prop up a tired narrative that doesn’t exist.
Its almost the same as when people complain because half of a workforce is not black. What they fail to realize is that if half a workforce is black then that’s a far more likely indicator that racial bias is present as blacks only make up 13% of the population. So if more than 13% of a workforce is black then white people have far more reason to think that racism is present.
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
And almost every time I have read that 1:8 statistic of white to blacks it always completely ignores several variables. Most when accounted for would probably show a little more balancing out. I actually did a lot of digging on this at one time because I was curious but I don’t have the time to do it again. When you take out the black guys who had the same drug charge that also had additional charges stemming from the same incident, whether or not it was a repeat offense, and previous criminal history then it almost totally balances out. Black guys on their 1st offense, having been well behaved during the arrest, with no previous criminal history or not more likely than white guys in the exact same situation to go to prison. Its cherry picked numbers to prop up a tired narrative that doesn’t exist. [/quote]
^^This. Also, the “source” provided is a radical left-wing activist group renowned for their inaccuracies and selective bias. There’s an entire Wikipedia entry profiling their radicalism.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^This. Also, the “source” provided is a radical left-wing activist group renowned for their inaccuracies and selective bias. There’s an entire Wikipedia entry profiling their radicalism.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watch[/quote]
Human Rights Watch obviously has a bias–just like virtually every person or political organization does–but it generally makes evidence-based arguments and clearly lists the sources of evidence it relies on, whether based on public documents, witness interviews, or whatever. I’ve independently tracked down some source materials for my own professional work and I didn’t find any examples were the actual evidence was misrepresented, at least on the particular issues I was looking at. If you have evidence that HRW actually systemically misrepresents the underlying evidence or source data it cites–as opposed to disagreements over interpretation of the data because of its “radical agenda”–I’d be interested to see that evidence.
I’m also not surprised that an organization that has been critical of the human-rights record of virtually every nation on the globe at one time or another has garnered some critics and attacks on its fairness. Again, however, I’d like to see some actual evidence that its sources materials have been misrepresented or falsified.
For example, here is the obvious “anti-isreal/pro Hamas” bias at work:
http://www.hrw.org/news/2010/01/28/gaza-hamas-report-whitewashes-war-crimes
Also, for example, the HRW “bias” link SexMachine posted lists an “anti-isreal/pro Hamas” bias at work. But HRW is quick to point out HR abuses and laws-of-war violations on all sides of the conflict:
http://www.hrw.org/news/2010/01/28/gaza-hamas-report-whitewashes-war-crimes
Here is a sourced article on political prisoner’s in Iran. Does HRW’s radical agenda appear to have tainted the evidence in the article?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
For example, here is the obvious “anti-isreal/pro Hamas” bias at work:
http://www.hrw.org/news/2010/01/28/gaza-hamas-report-whitewashes-war-crimes
[/quote]
Even a clock…[/quote]
Push, HRW has a pro-human rights agenda–and agree or disagree with their agenda–I think if you fairly look through the cite and the articles they document their claims pretty well and go after pretty much every nation and major political movement on the globe when it comes to these issues.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^This. Also, the “source” provided is a radical left-wing activist group renowned for their inaccuracies and selective bias. There’s an entire Wikipedia entry profiling their radicalism.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watch[/quote]
Human Rights Watch obviously has a bias–just like virtually every person or political organization does–but it generally makes evidence-based arguments and clearly lists the sources of evidence it relies on, whether based on public documents, witness interviews, or whatever. I’ve independently tracked down some source materials for my own professional work and I didn’t find any examples were the actual evidence was misrepresented, at least on the particular issues I was looking at. If you have evidence that HRW actually systemically misrepresents the underlying evidence or source data it cites–as opposed to disagreements over interpretation of the data because of its “radical agenda”–I’d be interested to see that evidence.
I’m also not surprised that an organization that has been critical of the human-rights record of virtually every nation on the globe at one time or another has garnered some critics and attacks on its fairness. Again, however, I’d like to see some actual evidence that its sources materials have been misrepresented or falsified.
[/quote]
You’re not going to like this answer but it’s the only one I’m going to give.
There is no point in discussing HRW and their agenda. Why? Because it relates to something that is beyond the scope of this discussion - namely, the philosophy of law. I’m not a lawyer, and in matters relating to substantive and procedural law I will defer to those who know more than I do - namely, lawyers. However, lawyers in general don’t know shit about the philosophy of law. How do I know this? My brother is a lawyer and when he did his degree I helped him with one particular unit. What did I learn? For one thing, philosophy of law was covered in a single unit called “legal principles and skills.” The textbook was “The New Lawyer” by James and Field. Two or three chapters covered the basics of Hobbesian and Lockean natural law followed by a short discussion of the utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill. To put it bluntly, the authors of the textbook clearly had a limited understanding of the philosophy of law and got several things wrong. In short, law is largely a “trade” - in Australia, there was great resistance to law being taught at university and it was only accepted as such in the late nineteenth century. If you want to discuss the philosophy of law pop over to one of the threads I started - “on ethics” or “on government.”
I’m not claiming to be an expert on philosophy. On the contrary, my knowledge is relatively limited. Two regular posters who seem to have a pretty good philosophical background are kamui and smh. Kamui is from the “far left of the far left” by his own account. Smh is a moderate who leans left on social issues. I have a reputation as a “right-winger” but I reject that label. If I were to be honest regarding my political philosophy my answer would be: “Left? Right? I’m the guy with the gun.” I realise this is not the answer you were expecting but, as I said, it’s the only one I’m going to give.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
For example, here is the obvious “anti-isreal/pro Hamas” bias at work:
http://www.hrw.org/news/2010/01/28/gaza-hamas-report-whitewashes-war-crimes
[/quote]
Even a clock…[/quote]
Push, HRW has a pro-human rights agenda–and agree or disagree with their agenda–I think if you fairly look through the cite and the articles they document their claims pretty well and go after pretty much every nation and major political movement on the globe when it comes to these issues.
[/quote]
Maybe.
But if I started an organization that received 80% of its funding from the KKK, would you, Senor Jack Winchester Krash III, give credence to our “studies and statistics?”[/quote]
I get that the funding sources of an organization are relevant and also provide circumstantial evidence of bias. And my personal biases would certainly lead me to be more skeptical of evidence presented by a KKK funded cite. And I also personally believe in HRW’s stated mission.
So, with all that said, and recognizing my biases, I stand by my assessment that HRW does a pretty good job of making evidence-based arguments and documenting its sources and also disclosing when there is a lack of available evidence. And I also still think it is fair to distinguish between arguing about inferences from evidence and making at least the implied claim that the evidence HRW cites is falsified or fabricated.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
However, lawyers in general don’t know shit about the philosophy of law. How do I know this? My brother is a lawyer and when he did his degree I helped him with one particular unit. What did I learn? For one thing, philosophy of law was covered in a single unit called “legal principles and skills.” The textbook was “The New Lawyer” by James and Field. Two or three chapters covered the basics of Hobbesian and Lockean natural law followed by a short discussion of the utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill. To put it bluntly, the authors of the textbook clearly had a limited understanding of the philosophy of law and got several things wrong. In short, law is largely a “trade” - in Australia, there was great resistance to law being taught at university and it was only accepted as such in the late nineteenth century. If you want to discuss the philosophy of law pop over to one of the threads I started - “on ethics” or “on government.”
[/quote]
I don’t really take issue with any of this, at least on a general level. I’d certainly agree that law school is really a trade school as much as anything and going to and graduating from law school doesn’t mean much beyond that you had good test scores to get in and that you had the ability to put up with a pretty tall stack of bullshit to get through the first year.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
However, lawyers in general don’t know shit about the philosophy of law. How do I know this? My brother is a lawyer and when he did his degree I helped him with one particular unit. What did I learn? For one thing, philosophy of law was covered in a single unit called “legal principles and skills.” The textbook was “The New Lawyer” by James and Field. Two or three chapters covered the basics of Hobbesian and Lockean natural law followed by a short discussion of the utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill. To put it bluntly, the authors of the textbook clearly had a limited understanding of the philosophy of law and got several things wrong. In short, law is largely a “trade” - in Australia, there was great resistance to law being taught at university and it was only accepted as such in the late nineteenth century. If you want to discuss the philosophy of law pop over to one of the threads I started - “on ethics” or “on government.”
[/quote]
I don’t really take issue with any of this, at least on a general level. I’d certainly agree that law school is really a trade school as much as anything and going to and graduating from law school doesn’t mean much beyond that you had good test scores to get in and that you had the ability to put up with a pretty tall stack of bullshit to get through the first year.
[/quote]
In relation to “human rights” and international law, the only NGO I take seriously is Hillel Neuer’s UN Watch.
I’m getting a group of former Marines together to loot West Point, Mississippi in case anyone wants to join…