Printable View
When did it get wrong to stop bad people? Saddam was an existential threat to the lives of millions. He used WMD. One of the few notable differences between Saddam and Hitler is that Saddam wasn't up against a bunch of pacifists like Hitler was with pacifist Britain and France at the time, so Saddam was never able to exterminate at the sheer level Hitler was.
It's a popular narrative that we should battle against injustice by being nice to the offenders. I know I believed that for a long time. But turning the other cheek only sounds noble until you get kicked in the balls. Claiming that the terrorists wouldn't be so terrible if we weren't so mean to them is dangerous rhetoric. Radical islam did not just surface 20 years ago when the first George Bush was being mean to them. It's not a new ideology, it's not a new thing for them to claim land, terrorize infidels and rape women. This has been going on for quite a few centuries.
Ong I have a lot of friends with your mindset on facebook, and that's why I stay far away from facebook after every terror attack, because reading all the retarded apologetic comments eats me up. Claiming that we would be better off leaving totalitarian regimes in power... Immediately trying to turn the argument around with things like... If I hear one more time someone say the line "But the catholic church..." or "Oh, but america..." I'm going to punch them in their dumb mouth. How dare you equate the intervention in iraq with the atrocities of the regime under Hussain.
This is why I don't go on facebook.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpcmfjFN8OIQuote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Preach.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I'm OK with taking out bad guys when doing so aligns with out economic interests. It's sad that it takes economic interest to motivate, but so be it. I'm a big picture kinda guy.
I fucking love America.
Freedom is better than life, right?
American freedom.
I never said we should be nice to these guys, by the way.
I'm just thinking about not killing civillians. That's my level of pacifism. It's not about being nice to bad dudes, it's about doing right for the population.
I was thinking about this while making my morning cuppa.
It's a very sad reflection of the state of the world when "pacifism" has become a dirty word, like it's something to be ashamed of.
People throw the word "terrorist" around like it means something other than "enemy of the west".
Dan say he's a "big picture kinda guy" while utterly failing to see the big picture. It's all rhetoric designed to keep the masses on side. Saddam was no threat to us. Yes he was a piece of shit, but there's many pieces of shit out there running countries all over the world, most of whom we totally ignore, because it's not in our interests to intervene. Not in our interests? Right, so our interest isn't removing bad dudes from power, it's about ensuring they aren't in control of large amounts of oil, and threatening to trade it in currencies other than dollars.
http://thefabweb.com/wp-content/uplo...2/07/fYkyK.jpg
- Jack Handey
Oh so it's all ok then. We should just accept that humans are fucking horrible and just quietly go about our daily lives while our leaders destroy the world we live in.
Because there's a meme of a Jack Handey quote, whoever he is.
The fuck are you blabbering about. You seem to think that "leaders" are magic people. Politicians aren't magic. They're regular people who went into politics.
The 2nd Iraq war wasn't signed off in a day. It was on the table ever since The end of the first Iraq war. There aren't many things that warrant an international intervention to remove a regime from power, but some of them are: use of chemical and biological weapons, attack on neighboring countries, assassination of opposition, sheltering terrorists and genocide. The Ba'ath under Hussain somehow managed all of those. The Iraq liberation act was signed off under Clinton in 98. From 98 to 2003 was the time for outrage. The 2003 invasion was a long way coming and if you think it was necessary to orchestrate 9/11 to invade Iraq you're a fucking idiot, and it's a waste of time and energy debating you.
The feeling is quite mutual, to be honest. You're making assumptions about my position on this that are just that... asumptions. When did I say it was signed off in a day? It's been a long time coming. That doesn't make the lies of our leaders ok, it doesn't excuse the uncountable deaths. How many million Jews died in WWII? Horrifying. Oh but when it's the Muz and we're liberating them from a nasty man, all good.
You seem to have a problem with someone taking an opposing view to you on this, to the point where anyone who dares suggest that Blair and Bush were WAY out of line is a fucking idiot. You should get a job in politics, you'd fit right in.
Use of chemical and biological weapons...Quote:
: use of chemical and biological weapons, attack on neighboring countries, assassination of opposition, sheltering terrorists and genocide.
https://mic.com/articles/62023/10-ch...out#.E873h0EBi
Attacking neighbouring countries...
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/06/...c-war-on-cuba/
Assasination of opposition...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execut...Saddam_Hussein
Sheltering terrorists...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...s-2158071.html
Genocide...
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-uni...ewhere/5352227
America, fuck yeah.
We're the ones writing history. We're the ones judging others by the standards we pretend to have. We're more dangerous than Saddam ever was. We're a global threat, and an unstoppable one at that.
We were talking about Iraq and you're digging up WWII and Vietnam. The only reason I'm even still giving this a shot is because I like you when you're not talking politics. What you're doing is when you're in a corner on the issue at hand you deflect to something completely different. When I take you up on those points, you win, because you can repeat that strategy to infinity.
In what sense is the coalition of the free world more dangerous than Sadam Hussain ever was? Would you prefer a totalitarian dictatorship over a corrupt democracy? Would you prefer to get publicly executed without a trial for criticizing the leader to our current political system? How can you say stuff like that and expect to be taken seriously?
I'd rather live in a corrupt democracy where I can at least say what the fuck I like without having to worry about my sister getting raped. That said, I'd rather live in a non-corrupt democracy where we respect international law. We can all dream though, right?Quote:
Would you prefer a totalitarian dictatorship over a corrupt democracy?
Saddam was a problem for his region. We're a problem for the world. We're trying to enforce our corrupt democracy on whoever has resources that we need. We're responsible for the deaths of millions of people. How are we any better? Because we vote? Because we allow the masses to speak out against corruption and aggression? It doesn't stop it happening.
The world is a worse place post Saddam, because worse people are now in control of large parts or Iraq, people who actually pose a direct threat to us. Try telling me France is a better place thanks to the Iraq war.
I was demonstrating that USA is historically guilty of all the points you argue are legitimate reasons to topple a leader of a sovereign nation. I couldn't be bothered to trawl the internet for the most recent example, although one is from Iraq 2004. The point is, USA is no better, historically speaking. I'm far from convinced that there's been any improvement in American foreign policy over the years.Quote:
We were talking about Iraq and you're digging up WWII and Vietnam.
The argument that Saddam was providing shelter for terrorists is bollocks, fwiw. Maybe he was allied to people who we would call terrorists. But there was no ISIS in Iraq during his reign. The term "terrorist" is grossly misused. Is an Iraqi who lost his family to American bombs a terrorist if he takes up arms against Americans in Iraq? As far as we're concerned, yes. However, if an American took up arms against an invader, he'd be a hero.
Let me tell you what I call a terrorist... someone who attacks civillian targets.
I can't feel Oskar's rage, personally.
Whenever I have allowed myself to be enraged in the past, it was always a folly when I learned more about the situation. It was always an issue of my own personal blindness to the greater picture.
I'm not saying rage is always wrong. I'm saying I'm bad at it. I can't allow myself to feel rage because it makes me 'tarded.
So I feel no rage over this. I feel only a sense that when humans are driven to rage, there's a huge miscommunication going on.
Rage is a funny word to use when talking about internet discussions. I don't think oscar actually experiences rage when he reads my comments. Perhaps contempt, but not rage. If he does feel rage, well that's something he should probably seek to rectify, it's not healthy to get angry with people who you'll never even meet based on words on a screen.
Not rage at comments; I mean rage at terrorism.
Oh. Well, rage at real life things is a different matter. That's not unhealthy per se.
I'm pretty bad at rage, too. If something makes me angry, I smoke a spliff and quickly become unangry. Anger is stressful, and I don't cope well with stress. I prefer to make it go away than to let it take hold.
:) Welcome to the shitQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
How'd you find these links?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-uni...ewhere/5352227
4 real? "The United States of America was built on a foundation of genocide against the Indigenous peoples of North America."
Sure, sure- and the normans fucked up england and the romans fucked up the med, and... multicelled organisms fucked up everything...
Don't be dumb.
Rage is absolutely worthless. Rage destroys. We want to build.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
That's the rub. Be angry within reason.
[QUOTE=OngBonga;2264546]
How do you make this statement with any shred of sincerity? I see this bullshit coming from Blair as he attempts to disregard those who despise his arrogance. Saddam was indeed a cunt, but under his rule there's no way ISIS could thrive in his nation. The fact that what has replaced Saddam is a great deal worse than what was there before shows that this statement of yours that you're parrotting from the right wing media is hollow bullshit.
[QUOTE]
I'm basing my view on the opinions of the Kurds I met through my sister's ex. Many of those Kurds have returned home to Northern Iraq and are enjoying a peaceful life without the very real threat of being murdered. Sadaam was responsible for murdering up to half a million of his own country's residents, plus torture, disappearances and rapes were common, including by Sadaam himself.
The world has to be a better place without that guy, even if the short-term isn't working out perfectly. And yes, the current instability in Iraq has led to terrorist organisations strengthening and attacks outside Iraq. But the life of the persecuted groups in Iraq has become a lot better and I'm pleased for the Kurds that Sadaam has gone. I know that I'd want another country to help remove a dictator if the UK ever went that way.
I'm definitely with you on the motive however. If we were genuinely doing it to prevent innocent people being murdered, then we should have gone after Mugabe and a number of other corrupt African regimes years ago.
Aren't the Kurds fighting ISIS in Iraq? I don't doubt there's regions of Iraq that are indeed better off, for now at least, without Saddam. I'm under no illusions about how much of a piece of shit he was. But ISIS are a serious problem, especially in the Middle East.
I shouldn't have had such a harsh tone with you, I apologise for that, but honestly, I saw Blair saying exactly that, that the "world is a better place without Saddam", and it just irks me. From Blair, I consider it arrogance of the highest order. I don't know if Iraq is a better or worse place right now, what I do know is that ISIS pose a much more serious global threat than Saddam ever could, and they have been able to thrive as a direct consequence of the toppling of Saddam. So the world isn't a better place, that's nothing but empty rhetoric.
A search engine called google.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Honestly, I didn't even read them, I literally cherry picked the most appealing tag line and copied link location. I couldn't give a fuck how inaccurate they are, we all know that USA have been guilty of those charges throughout the years. This isn't a court, I don't need to get my shit in order to make my point.
Removing people like Sadaam from power has to be, on balance, a net positive for the world. If you disagree, the burden of proof is on you. To disagree is to make such an absurd claim that you actually couldn't prove it today-- you would need to look back in 100 years, and if things are still for shit in Iraq, then maybe you have an argument. Sadaam was decades of slow burn genocide and endless terror for millions of people.
I mean, the idea that Sadaam, or any single man is a stabilizing force is nonsense. If a sole person is what is keeping a country or a region from crumbling into a chaotic mess of tribalism, terrorism, and the rise of a death cult capable of holding its own against a combination of multiple nations' military might-- this is the description of an inherently unstable situation.
Look at North Korea. With no apparent Kim heir, if Kim Jong Un should drop dead, and this triggers a nuclear exchange between NK and SK and its allies, would you curse the heart attack that killed him? Would you wish he were still around? It's a band-aid that needs to be yanked off, but not only that, the band aid is the source of a gangrenous infection.
Hell, a cynic would likely say that the resulting chaos is necessary. It's a cathartic release of all the fractious tension that was being artificially held at bay all those decades, and even the most ideal nation building couldn't have been its surrogate. I'm not sure I believe this, but it's not absurd on it's face.
No worries, I like a bit of passion, even if I disagree with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Would be interesting to see an Iraqi death count for pre- and post-Sadaam, plus the number if Iraqi civilians fleeing, but getting reliable data is impossible. You could then add a portion of ISIS-related deaths outside of Iraq, assuming that Sadaam's removal can be attributed to a non-zero percentage of the deaths.
I officially start doing felonies in august. Which is nice.
why advertise your crime spree ahead of times?
For the challenge!
You know somebody doesn't commit felonies when his descriptive choice is "hay guise i shall officially conduct felonies by such n such date. huzzah!"
wuf , he's only officially commiting them in august , his current crimes are unofficial not necessarily non existent
prosecuting or defending?Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
Prosecuting. I'm gonna move up the ranks, maybe cross the aisle, and then become a judge. It's in the stars.
Criminal lawyer, huh?
Speaking of which: Better Call Saul is fantastic. At least on par with Breaking Bad.
Better imo. I can't wait for the third series.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I think it was a Better Call Saul episode that ended in Leonhard Cohen's Everybody Knows, and I looked up his discography because I haven't listened to him in over a decade and I wanted to know what album it was on. So it turns out I know every single Cohen song from 1967 to 2001. That's 10 albums. I was a very special teenager.
Btw trivia: did you know in Take This Waltz when he sang "In Vienna there's 10 pretty women," in the free translation of Garcia Lorca's poem, he was being factual.
Now that we have a lawyer here: what's the opposite of a DNR? Cos I want to sign that. Like the thing where they don't unplug you but where they plug everything in and maybe put your head in a jar or freeze you or whatever they do these days?
Space judge!Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
I mean:
SPAAACE JUUUUDGE!!!
GL, I hope you go far.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
Warning: This guy is a bit preachy at the end, as is his usual.
Also, I felt a fear of death watching this.
You can skip to ~4:14 to get to the central point. Up to then he establishes he's chillin with a NASA astronaut and they're going to do the hypoxia (low oxygen) training. They're in a room that simulates how thin the atmosphere is at 25,000 feet altitude.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUfF2MTnqAw
My friend has a phobia of things that look black but are actually navy blue.
Anyone heard anything weirder than that when it comes to phobias?
Pickup artistry featuring Justin Roiland
lol dick shrinkener. too good.
I always thought triskaidekaphobia (fear of the number 13) was pretty weird.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Why that one number is so scary, I can't suss out.
Chromophobia (fear of colors) must be truly debilitating. You can close your eyes, but you still know THEY'RE EVERYWHERE!!
Then there's most of this list.
This one is pretty good.Quote:
Arachibutyrophobia- Fear of peanut butter sticking to the roof of the mouth.
I must say, I've only got most of the way through A and I've already seen a few which I wouldn't say are "irrational" fears... like pain, insanity and kidney disease... I mean I'd probably go as far to say I'd fear those to one degree or another. Not to the point of obsession, obviously, but it's a fear nonetheless.
How much do you have to love peanut butter if you have a crippling fear of something related to peanut butter, but you still eat peanut butter.
That's a very good point.
Oh my god this peanut butter is amazing but please please please don't get stuck on the roof of my mouth or I'll literally die.
If you're not going to suck my dick, sir, I don't-I don't want to be here.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
-My epitaph
Americans find Chris Morris funny? You guys surprise me.
Doubt they get it really, just find paedophiles in space a funny concept.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It just occured to me that I have absolutely no fucking idea where oscar is from.
Prob cuz manned spaceflight isnt the premise for a joke in americaQuote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Haha! We're closer to the equator than you are.
Suck it!
Oh yeahhhh, stupid northern islanders. Get some real land.
Thought this was pretty intersting:
https://m.reddit.com/r/InternetIsBea...ons_that_will/
Tldr : conservatives / Republicans are more prone to feeling disgust in general, and those with a higher tendency to feel disgust tend to be conservative / Republicans.
Which makes me think something about right wing parties playing on fear to get votes, whilst left wing is about rational thought, but I'm hungover so can't formulate my thoughts properly.
This link disgusts me
Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
FWIW the fearmongering was from the middle and left during Brexit. I was watching British news the entire night, remembering how you said a couple years back how pro-righty your news is. It wasn't this time.
The left-right dichotomy is tricky. Maybe it's not that useful of a thing to use. In Murika, we have a shitload of people who used to be leftists or who are perfect fits for leftism on paper, who have abandoned the left due to the left changing. Ten years ago, our left wanted more freedom (of things like speech) and the right wanted to quash it. Today that's reversed. Our left is full speed ahead restrictive and conformist while our right is open to new ideas.
Lots of issues with that testing methodology, obviously. Neeways my brain is 75% Democrat. Funny how IRL I think the Democratic Party is the most destructive institution in the country and I'd only vote for Crooked and her wife Rapin' Bill if you bribed me with many, many thousands of dollars.
Since you posted this, I've watched all six episodes of Jam.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I get we're a small country in comparison but we don't have one "news", what you were watching/reading makes a huge difference. The right was coming out with ridiculous statements during the campaign (as were the left but the right was built upon them) & since winning they've said they have no exit plan (obviously very important) & that a lot of statements they made were just false.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Whilst lots of things the stay campaign said would happen in the short term have & we've not even left yet.
It's worth noting that for a country that is wanting to do more trade with the rest of the world fucking around Chinese investors over the building of a power plant which will be of great benefit to seemingly everyone is pretty amazing.
It isn't using it on a left right scale it's using it on a liberal/conservative scale causing confusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
liberal - ok with changes
conservative - not ok with changes
It doesn't really factor into left/right. Lots of people on both the left & right would like things to change in drastic ways.
Seemingly everyone? I assume you don't consider the consumer to be part of this "everyone"? The British government were willing to pay EDF double the going rate for electricty per kw/h, who do you suppose will be paying for that? Nuclear energy should be cheaper than oil and gas because of its abundance. When it's going to be more expensive, something is wrong, and that something in this case is debt.Quote:
It's worth noting that for a country that is wanting to do more trade with the rest of the world fucking around Chinese investors over the building of a power plant which will be of great benefit to seemingly everyone is pretty amazing.
There's no reason why a nation of our size needs foreign investment to meet our energy needs. £18b is a lot of money, sure, but if it's spent by the UK government without taking on debt, and reinvested in UK companies, then we can surely afford it because it boosts our economy in the process. If we can't afford it, well don't fucking build it. Nuclear energy is not something I'm comfortable handing over to the Chinese.
If anything, I'm reassured by this delay. I would hope the project collapses, or is paid for by us and us alone.
I'd agree there are lots of bad points about it but it's definitely still a net positive in the form that was being set forward.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Fixed prices over long periods are stupid especially in a field like energy prices where costs can jump massively in very short periods.
I'd have no problem with the government funding it but when you set ridiculous economic goals like the conservatives did you can't be spending large sums of money on things like this even though it'd be a big plus to our society. I have no problem with foreign investment, you shouldn't either. If anything EDF are the major problem in this & the fears about China are mostly unjust.
If it was being halted to fix these points it wouldn't be so much of an issue but in reality May has been against it from the get go and is now throwing he weight around.
As for nuclear being cheeaper than oil/gas you can argue it should be a lot less expensive but due to all the fucking around we've had with it in the past and not making it the backbone of our society it isn't. It never has been either so you can't really argue.
The fact nuclear is not a cheaper option only demonstrates to me that we're doing it wrong.
When I say "cheaper", I'd like to point out I'm thinking long term, like decade to decade, not year on year. Of course initially nuclear is very expensive because of all the hoops we have to jump through just to get a station online, but once it's online and has paid for itself, then it should be significantly cheaper.
My problem with foreign investment is that energy is not something that I believe should be the subject of profit for outside interests. It's not like the consumer has choice, we're not talking about standard market conditions here. For every megawatt hour of electricity that plant uses, EDF and China make money. That means we lose it. If it's proftable for them, why isn't it profitable for us to go it alone? It's not like we need £18b in cold hard cash sitting in the bank to make this work, we need £18b over a period of time in the form of contracts, which, if going to British companies, results in a boosted economy. The money that was profit for EDF and China is now profit for a British company, and thus taxable. If the companies are chosen wisely, they could be contractually obliged to reinvest a large percentage of the profit into expansion, thus further boosting the economy.
It's fine to take on debt, I'm not oblivious to the way the world works, I realise that a contract is debt, but it's the way we go about it that seems all wrong to me. The only reason EDF and China are interested is because they stand to make a shit ton of money out of it. EDF are worried about risk, I noted that, but they still voted it through.
Incidentally, I'm less concerned about France investing than I am China. France are genuine partners, both politically and economically. There is a near zero percent chance of our nations going to war in the next half a century or whatever. China, on the other hand, are a nation that could go either way in terms of the government structure. They already receive a lot of critisism from the West, it's not unreasonable to think that we could drift apart, rather than forge closer ties, over the next few decades. Working with China on such sensetive matters is even more risky than the financial implications that EDF are so worried about.
That said, I'd still much rather this project be a purely British affair, because I don't like the idea of people making a profit out of essential things like energy. At least when it's British profit, the economy gets something back.
Interesting article on the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36940475
Slowmo is the worst. As a rule, if I see something that uses slowmo except in the most exceptional circumstances, I don't watch it.
Explosions in slomo are awesome, wuf talking shit as usual.
Seems like junk.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bean Counter
I've not read the article but what's junk about it? Anyone who watches sport knows that slow motion fucks around with the perception of intent.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
Sometimes those are good. What I don't like is this brand new trend of slomo gifs of things like a bike jump. Shit is retarded. Maybe, maybe show it in slowmo if there is some move that can't be caught with the naked eye that easily, but still only do it after normal speed. Everything "looks better" in slomo. Perhaps that's why dweebs love slomo so much. Their dweeb brains are easily tricked.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Agreed that slomo is overkill when it's inadequate subject matter, but things like fire, explosions, pressure waves from explosions, light, bullets, there's tons of awesome slomo footage on the internet. I'm not gonna let some cunt on a bmx ruin it for me.
12 O'Clock Boys used slow motion to excellent effect in a couple dramatic landscape action shots.
But, yeah, it's mostly used as a cheap trick and over used at that.
I've responded to this at length, because the journal article is somewhat interesting even though the news article is junk.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
The first indication of junk is in the first sentence. It says "slow moition replays ... shown in courtrooms may be distorting the outcomes of trials". Sensationalism sells; the more outlandish the article, the more clicks and views it gets, the more money the site makes. But the article doesnt say "slow motion distorts the outcome of trials", it says "may be distorting". This implies a lack of evidence for the former, as it would be the more outlandish and profitable thing to say. But inaccuracies, and false statements, can lead to lawsuits. It could also damage reputations. So instead of the unsupportable position, the article instead says "may be distorting".
However, the article is nonetheless based off of research in a highly regarded journal. It would appear that their sample size is reasonable as well. So despite the first line, I gave it a read.
Some of the facts in the article go without saying. Video evidence is, of course, important in court. Its also become much more common. I cant fault the study itself either. I take issue with the conclusions.
Lets take a look at the article. The inspiration of their research comes from Com v. Jordan, http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20...%20v.%20JORDAN. The prosecutor showed at trial that the defendant committed 6 armed robberies of retail food shops in North Philadelphia. He robbed 3 Dunkin Donuts shops at gunpoint. 2 Pizza shops at gunpoint. Then a fourth and final Dunkin donuts, again at gunpoint. You dont need a video to say the 12th robbery was intentional. But, thats not the article's argument. The case continues tragically, because an officer entered the store while the last robbery was in progress. The Defendant turned to the officer, took two steps towards him, pointed his gun, and shot him in the forehead at close range. He then fled, but not before stopping to take the officer's revolver.
At trial, the prosecutor showed the jury a video of the shooting. Because the defense argued that the shooting was a "panicky, reflexive action", the prosecutor showed the video in slow motion. By seeing it in slow-mo, you have more time to observe the two steps forward, the direction of travel, the position of the gun before and after aiming, and can better appreciate the distance between the two individuals. It is incredibly easy to miss details in what could be a split-second confrontation.
Legally speaking, the shot was clearly intentional. What else could he have intended when he moved the gun and pointed it at the officer? When his finger moved from the grip to the trigger? When he took two steps towards him, saw the white of his eyes, and fired at his forehead?
Note: the news article takes a different take on this defendant. They seem to believe hes innocent, and end their discussion of him with "Lewis remains on death row". This is likely appealing to the BLM crowd, or other popular justice reform narratives, in spite of the fact that "Lewis" committed 12 armed robberies, threatened the lives of over 12 people with a gun, killed a cop, and then took the cop's weapon as a trophy. Yeah, he should be on death row.
But enough of that. Lets talk about the article's study.
Study 1: They put jurors in a room, and have em watch a video of an attempted robbery resulting in the murder of a clerk. Its a 5 second video of the shot, and the jurors were split into two groups. 1 watching at regular speed, and 1 at slow mo. The article then states "as predicted, participants who saw the slow motion video felt the action was performed with more of a willful, deliberate, and premeditated intent to kill, and were more likely to conclude that the person with the gun shot with the intention to kill".
Alright, stop. Imagine you are about to watch a 5 second video. You have 5 seconds to grasp everything about it. Now imagine you had 10 seconds instead. Would you capture more, or less, details? Obviously more. It goes without saying that by watching the video in slow motion, you would catch more details than in regular time. Especially considering this was a 5 second video, and the jurors saw it just once.
Does that mean the jurors are manufacturing intent where none was? No. In fact, the opposite could be true. It could easily be that the regular speed jurors minimized intent. Play a guessing game. I'm thinking of a number. You guess 2, another guesses 10. Which value is closer to the number I thought of? Theres not enough information to answer that question. Likewise, without knowing the truth (is there intent?), there isnt enough information to conclude which estimate of intent is more reliable.
Still, the difficult question of how you accidentally bring a gun to a robbery and then accidentally point and shoot is unanswered.
The remaining studies dont help answer these questions. So you've got data saying slow-mo = more intent, but what does that mean? Does that mean it is distorting criminal trials? Eh. The study doesnt show that.
One note is that the journal article puts a quote from the court in their introduction and conclusion. That "in a sense, all slow motion and freeze frame video distorts reality". Of course, thats true. Reality is distorted is because it got slowed down or frozen. That doesnt mean that the faith of convictions built upon slowmotion videos is suddenly undermined.
First of all thanks for the in depth reply.
Sounds like a nonsense story then. The journal article shows an effect which makes sense & I agree that that needs more context like you said. I would argue that it's much safer to assume it distorts it in a way which makes it worse at deciding all of those factors because we make all our decisions & view our lives in real time. Though I don't think for a second that a jury is good at those types of call period.
Yeah, I posted the link for you to comment on as I expected it to be missing a ton of important info/context. The implication was that slow motion makes the accused looked more suspicious and would potentially distort the prosecution process, which seems like BS.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
Pros and cons with privatisation and nationalisation, which no doubt have been done to death here. I can't believe that there is 5% VAT on energy bills however.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
One thing about the UK investing in nuclear power. We really don't have enough nuclear engineering brains or experience to do this ourselves. It's always going to be a project that needs the UK to bring in worldwide brain power, but it would definitely be good to see as much as possible stay with UK registered companies.
There's a difference between employing foreign brains and allowing foreign nations to build nuclear generators on the outskirts of London.
We can only enter into such an agreement with a nation we are confident we are not going to go to war with. Can you really say that you think China meets this criteria? I wish I could say I had more faith, but I don't. We might not want to go to war with China, but USA might, and China know only too well how strongly we are allied to USA. We would not be able to stay neutral in such an event.
If we were only talking to France about this, then it would be less of a problem, it would purely be an issue of privatisation. I really don't see us ever going to war with France again.
England and France bestfrens5evuh! No takesies backsies.
I dunno about best friends. I think our relationship is like that of siblings. Everything he does get on your nerves, but he's your brother and you look out for him, right? Do you guys not have a similar relationship with Canada?
We hate the French...Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
We hardly recognize the existence of America's hat (Canada).
I hate my brother.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Plenty of worn out VHS tapes would confirm this. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
This seems to be real, and no matter where you may fall politically or on this issue in particular, you've gotta respect the gamesmanship on display here: http://www.publicdefender.mo.gov/New...esentation.PDF
:clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
WP.
EDIT: it's def. legit. The St Louis Post Dispatch ran an article about it in yesterday's paper.
Was in a book shop today and saw a copy of "Thinking, Fast and Slow". Decided to pick it up due to the rave reviews some of you on here give it. Will post my thoughts after reading.
Hope you enjoy it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVLAAMZeraQ
It's in times like these, when the world comes together, that we see the true beauty of humanity
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CpONMhHWcAMobF-.jpg
I identify as an Apache helicopter and I am disappointed by the unrealistic expectations people have of Apache helicopters through their overly helicoptery depcition in the media.
#outraged
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8vnaRiF_-U
Found this on my facebook feed. Would it be acceptable to point out that the bitch is still fat at the bodybuilding competition?
Not in polite circles, no.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Saying the woman is still overweight at the competition is fine, though.
Social norms and all that.
**
Man.. I bet spoony just popped a random stiffy and doesn't know why.
Fat people should be shamed.
Yeah, but insults are so childish.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
If we're not willing to shame them with a pillory, then I'm not into it.
Does shame act as a strong force for change? Does this effect differ, in what is considered shameful & how much shame influences people, throughout social classes?Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
I'm fairly sure that fat is a much more lower class problem and either in those social circles being fat isn't as big of an issue or the effect of shame doesn't make as much of a difference. In which case shaming isn't an effective tool for solving the problem & all it does is act as a social barrier.
Homosexual people should be shamed.