You can make a utilitarian argument that weighs the material loss of large companies (like Target) against the gain of systemic change that reduces levels of violence by security forces against minorities. And you can make an inferential argument that draws a chain of causation from injury to powerful interests to political change. Now you can attack this attempted justification for some level of material violence by pointing to more effective less violent means of change, but I don't think you can attack it ethically if you accept its effectiveness. That's to say, I don't think considerations of corporate finances outweigh those of social justice. (And by the way, none of this argument relies on the idea of the overthrow of capitalism). — Baden

Speaking of speculating...

What will happen is that the American capitalist machinery will continue operating as before other than the now vacant, burned, and uninsurable buildings in the already struggling part of town.

Those like our good mayor will move forward making sure such murders happen with lesser frequency in the future, and the rioters efforts will have added nothing positive to the mix.

only thing extreme is the utter shitness of the a society in which George Floyds happen regularly and when all people like you can moan about are property. — StreetlightX

Is it not possible to object to both the unjust murder and the riots? Why must we choose only one injustice to notice?

Non sequitur. What else is a public official supposed to say? Make pronouncements against her office's interests? :roll: — 180 Proof

I think as a black Democrat female mayor and mother, she had full license to speak freely without real fear of political repercussion regardless of what she said. And your non-sequitur objection was incorrect, as her comments went directly to yours. Instead of responding to her comments, you hand waved them away, suggesting without any evidence whatsoever that her political bias forced her to take an impassioned position she entirely disagreed with.

your "suspicious white man" invalidates the uprising and what communities of color and communities of conscience are struggling for? The only 'provocation' that matters is the fact that the four lynchers have not been arrested and charged with George Floyd's murder yet despite many eye-witnesses and video recordings from several perspectives. Probable fuckin' cause easily established and the authorities still dither. "Suspicious white man"? IDGAF because I don't have the luxury or priviledge, unenlightened, to miss the forest fire for the wormwood trees. — 180 Proof

Another take on the validity of this uprising, from the mayor of Atlanta:https://www.fox5atlanta.com/video/689455

any case, this is mostly an excuse to pimp out the article, and induce some discussion about the role of thought experiments in philosophy more generally. — StreetlightX

I'm not terribly troubled by thought experiments. If one offers an opinion based upon a principle, it's appropriate to hypothesize the application of that principle in novel situations. If it's apparent that the principle fails to provide an adequate solution in those hypothesized situations, you're faced with the choice of reconsidering the principles upon which you rely or in accepting that the principle works only to a point and then delineating those limits.

The observation that many thought experiments are invalid because of hidden distinctions contained within them is true, but that just means the proper way to combat argument by analogy is by pointing out the distinctions that make the analogy disanalagous. The debate will then center on whether those distinctions are relevant to the broader point.

What we're discussing here has real world application and is not limited to the philosopher's armchair. Anglo oriented legal systems rely heavily upon analogy of precedent, deriving principles from prior judicial opinions and applying them to novel situations. In the legal context, the prior and the novel situations are all actual (as opposed to hypothetical), and it's also logically appropriate to ask how the principle enunciated might apply in hypothesized situations (reductio ad adsurdem considerations worked out as well).

The clever lawyer does exactly as the author indicates the informed medical provider does in the article you cited: he explains why the analogy doesn't apply, he points out distinctions, and he explains why the deciphered principle has narrow implications to only very particular situations.

The fact that argument from analogy results in eternal bickering over which facts matter and why yesterday's decision shouldn't apply to today's facts is the nature of the beast, but that doesn't make it useless, especially in the legal context, where we defer to the court as the arbiter of who has got the analogy correct and how it shall be applied. Of course, even then, we fully expect those rulings to be rethought and reconsidered by later courts. I see this way of reasoning productive though, taking full advantage of human's capacity to think deeply into issues and in giving deference to those opinions most well thought out, especially those that have satisfied the most pressing hypothetical thought experiments.

1) science is founded on taking random samples — Gregory

Obtaining representative cross-sections in order to validate results isn't equivalent to "random" in a metaphysical sense.

) if compatabilism is true, you can never know if you have a random sample — Gregory

I don't follow this.

If so, we're forced to infer either that true AI and p-zombies are conscious or that there is no such thing as consciousness. — TheMadFool

If Bob shoots Joe and it in every way appears motivated by jealousy, does there still remain a possibility that it was not? If you concede there is such a possibility, then you are conceding that behavior is not a perfect reflection of intent, and more importantly, that intent is unobservable.

The point being that behavior does not tell us exactly what the internal state is, which means it's possible that one have a behavior and not have an internal state and it's possible that one have an internal state and have no behavior.

A real question. There's been much talk about false negatives in covid testing, saying it's up to 30%. I've read false positives are very rare.

How do you know you have a false negative or false positive? If symptomatology is the gold standard, why have testing?

I've said all I'm going to say on this by the way. If you don't get it now, so be it. — Baden

You draw no distinction here between refutation and dismissal, but you instead are just pointing out that in my original link to some quackery group of doctors they provided no basis for their position, so you are not in a position to refute that which was never properly presented.

That then should be your response, not the long winded path you took. You should simply have stated that my link was lacking in substance and therefore not something worthy of discussion. Instead, you presented an ad hom attack, which remains a fallacy. Contrariwise, if my link was to the world's most renowned doctors, it still would have been of no value because the opinions asserted were without basis.

Now I offer you two challenges: (1) to fight off your OCD tendencies and actually not speak additionally on the subject as you've said you wouldn't, and (2) to find a better use of the word "contrariwise," which I have now introduced in the discussion and which will likely become a staple word in my vocabulary from here on out.

For example, for medical claims, scientific evidence, should be required, such as the studies or supported statements of reputable scientists or medical professionals. Needless to say, scientists or medical professionals who are known to make pseudoscientific claims cannot be considered to be reputable and it is legitimate to dismiss their claims on this basis. Note that dismissing a claim is not the same as refuting a claim. You cannot refute a claim on the basis of its source. You need either a good argument of your own or counterbalancing evidence from a reputable source to do so. And it's this conflation of dismissing claims with refuting claims that those who would accuse you of an ad hom when you question the credibility of their authority play on in order to support their accusation. — Baden

What is the distinction you wish to draw between the two other than "refutation" entails offering a meaningful and detailed response and a "dismissal" means offering a cursory and summary response? In either event, your objective is to defeat the claim, and the latter doesn't seem a way to defeat the claim. It's just a way to express your disdain for it and to wash your hands of it.

If the way you attempt to defeat a claim is by attacking the legitimacy of the speaker, you have committed an ad hom fallacy, regardless of whether you describe your attempt as a "refutation" or a "dismissal."

So, if 600 surgeons sign a petition indicating the response to covid-19 is more harmful than helpful to the health of the nation, that claim can only be defeated by actually looking at the outcomes of differing types of responses to the pandemic. If, on the other hand, you summarily dismiss the claim because those surgeons are found to be part of a conservative group that holds various disproved pseudoscientific claims, then you have committed an ad hom fallacy.

I will concede that if a doctor tells me that the covid response has been detrimental and I then learn that same doctor believes the world to be flat, I will be naturally skeptical of his claims about covid, but that skepticism isn't logically supported by the fact that the doctor is a nut case.

The weighing of credibility, I'd submit, becomes relevant when the speaker is offering information that is dependent upon his credibility. A case of that would be if I told you that I saw Bob murder Joe, and it is then learned that I am schizophrenic, that I hate Bob, or that I have claimed to witness thousands of murders in the past week. Those things would rightly cause someone to question what I said based upon who I am. That would not be an ad hom fallacy.

But, when you have a bunch of doctors whose claims are independently provable, there's no reason to insert ad hom objections into the mix. It is true that those doctors attempted to bolster their claims by alerting us to the fact they were bona fide doctors, which is a form of the ad hom fallacy in reverse. However, it is very possible that their use of the reverse ad hom (i.e. bolstering based upon who the speaker is) had some value to the extent it made those who relied upon speaker credentials alone to now start questioning those opinions..

I had momentarily been interested many many years ago in an MS in AI at UGA. https://www.ai.uga.edu/ms-artificial-intelligence

It's where philosophy, computer science, and linguistics meet. I went to law school instead, but I did talk to a professor there, and he was very encouraging, and felt like my background in philosophy would give me a leg up.

If someone here has gone down that road, I'd be interested in hearing what sort of work you do.

Would you be happier representing the little man? — frank

No.

Totally get it now. We stay at least 6 feet away from each other because most can't pee that far. My record is far greater than that, but I get that most don't have my hose strength.

was just concerned that after putting forth great effort to defend a drug dealer you might find yourself without payment because you breathed your virus on her and now she's dead. — frank

I don't represent criminals. I represent defendants in civil suits, protecting the insurance companies' money. I don't represent the little man. I represent the man.

Since you can carry the critter with no symptoms and spread it just by talking, you will potentially protect people in your community by wearing one. — frank

You cannot get the virus through your skin, but can only get it through your mucus membranes. That would include your eyes, nose, and mouth, and your exposed vagina. So, I would think that if you wore a mask that ought be enough to protect you, plus my lack of a mask is open and obvious, which should lead you and your exposed vagina to remain at a distance.

Where I live, everyone is out and about, and the malls have even opened up. We've beaten this disease. I suggest you do the same and stop going on and on about masks and what ought be done with them.

Are you wearing a mask inside, and why? — Bitter Crank

I don't wear a mask and don't own one. I've never worn one that I can recall. Mask use frequency is directly related to the number of miles one is from the center of downtown. As I am 35 miles north of the city in the suburbs, mask use is spotty at best. As you move farther north, it's not clear there is a pandemic.

I'm not sure I signal anything from lack of mask usage because I'm pretty much like those around me.

I'm not convinced my lack of a mask has any effect on those with masks, so I don't need to make a show of wearing a mask to let them know I care. They can care about themselves by wearing a mask and letting me die like I deserve.

On the other hand, I do wear pants as a showing of virtue, but, when I don't, I do wear a condom, just to be sure I don't get pregnant or otherwise spread my brand of germ warfare. I'm a good citizen like that.

Lol! It's a matter of credibility not logical argumentation. Any doctor who advises that HIV doesn't cause AIDS should not be considered a reliable font of medical advice. But I suppose when we ban people here for pseudoscience we're ad homming them? (Of course because a discredited authority says something is true, it doesn't mean the opposite is necessarily true. That was a humorous rhetorical flourish on my part). — Baden

You wouldn't ban someone for holding to a pseudo-scientific belief they didn't advance here though. If I believed that HIV did not cause AIDS but I did believe that we needed to more diligently quarantine to protect ourselves from the coronavirus, would you discount my beliefs about the coronavirus? The world does not become flat because Hitler said it's round.

If a group of doctors who think HIV doesn't cause AIDS say we should end the shutdown, I say that's an excellent reason to keep it going. Thanks Hanover. — Baden

Ad hom.

These doctors say the shutdown or worse than the disease. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doctors-raise-alarm-about-health-effects-of-continued-coronavirus-shutdown

There was no crime committed, therefore no citizen's arrest to be made. He was not there to make a citizen's arrest. He was there with the intent of killing that man. — Metaphysician Undercover

You'll acknowledge that is your assessment. Others may assess differently.

. But Hanover appears to think it's his own fault he's dead because the racist was just standing there threatening him with a gun without actually waving it in his face (though actually we don't know he didn't do — Baden

Some questions. Answer, ignore, or ridicule as you see fit:

If Arbery could have avoided the altercation, do you believe he was required to, or do you believe he had the right to stand his ground?

Do you believe If Arbery was not threatened by the gun, but just went to grab it because he was pissed off at Billy bad ass with his gun, do you think the shooter should still be prosecuted?

Do you believe Arbery is guilty of trespassing even if he didn't steal anything and even if others entered that site without permission from time to time?

Do you think hate is a protected right and should not add to or subtract from the seriousness of a crime?

Threatening someone with a gun is brandishment. It's illegal, right? — frank

You're trying to impart legal significance to "brandishment," a term not used in the Georgia statute of aggravated assault. An assault is threatening to do imminent harm and it's aggravated if with a deadly weapon. Carrying a gun is not a assault. Threatening is. That's the question for the jury. It's a fact question (as opposed to a legal one) they'll have to decide by looking at the evidence and considering whatever defenses are brought up.

Did McMichaels brandish a firearm? Isnt that a felony — frank

The question is whether he assaulted him with a weapon. Carrying a gun is not an assault, which is why the allegation by Baden he was "waving the gun in his face" isn't a quibble, but is a critical distinction.

Is motivation not a factor in criminal law in the US? Malice aforethought and stuff? In the UK being a piece of shit is the difference between murder and manslaughter. — unenlightened

Motive.is distinct from intent, and intent must be proved, but not motive. If I kill my wife because she cheated on me, that's my motive and the jury can consider that, but all that is required is that you show I intended to kill her, even if you can't prove my motive was that she cheated on me.

But yes, if you can show intent and you can show the imotivation was to kill all the blacks (or some deeper motivation) that would be evidence of a more deliberate intent and greater depravity, which world result in a higher level of crime and more severe penalty.

My point was if the evidence shows lack of intent due to self defense, his motivation for being there becomes irrelevant. Assiming (and I will) he was there because he's an idiot racist motivated to make a citizen's arrest, he's not guilty of murder unless he had the intent to murder, absent a legal defense (I.e. self defense).

White perps clearly do so with impunity and are Profiled, Arrested, Prosecuted & Convicted far less often than Black perps. Especially in the south, a legacy of jim crow, etc ... — 180 Proof

You make 2 comments: (1) whites are prosecuted less, and (2) it's due to racism. Neither comment is addressed by the cite.

My comment was that whites were killed at higher rates by blacks than blacks by whites. Why do you state that is not the result of racisn, but you do if reversed?

Is this what it's going to come down to in the court? Whether or not he was a kamikaze? — Baden

You do realize that you're now arguing for the controversial "stand your ground" law instead of the law you must retreat if possible

But Georgia does have a stand your ground law, so you've arrived at your defense. I still maintain that he didn't stand his ground but that he pursued a guy with a gun in the street, but that's my interpretation of the evidence, not the law.

Well, according to Hanover, it's apparently fine to threaten people with guns and then blow them away when they try to neutralize the threat. I would say that's a bit of a problem with the law right there. — Baden

That's not the way it looked, so I don't know why you say this. He came toward the threat that was not being waved at him.

Anyway, answer the question.If he was in fear of his life, could he legally defend himself or not? — Baden

Of course he could. I think he was pissed and kamikazed toward the shotgun. That's what it looked like to me.

Why is it illegal for me to defend myself against someone threatening me with a gun by taking that gun from them? — Baden

That didn't look like self defense to me. You think he was in reasonable fear for his life at the time he ran around the truck toward the gun? I'd say his fear of death likely increased with each step toward the end of the barrel.

Y'all were just sitting in an echo chamber hearing your own voices bounce out of each other's mouths. — Hanover

Nice imagery! You do have a way with words.

Sometimes gotta take a compliment from who'll ever give it

See, here's how it works, when posters ask me questions I answer them (usually). You can ask me questions too, but you're not required to care about their questions — Baden

Y'all weren't actually responding to questions. Y'all were just sitting in an echo chamber hearing your own voices bounce out of each other's mouths.

Banno, I presume. As he asked me the question, originally. Why can't you keep up? Pay attention! — Baden

Sorry to interrupt your convo with the gentleman from down under. Carry on.

you doubt that racism was involved — Banno

Sure seemed like it, but we don't convict people for being pieces of shit. If we did, few would avoid conviction.

said "some" for a reason. I'm guessing something like that may have applied in this case. Although there are other less charitable explanations that are also plausible. — Baden

Yeah, but who cares what psychoanalytic musings you arrive at? It's not like it's based on anything. We Americans are as varied as the next bunch, just better.

Do you think you have an absolute right to wave your shotgun in someone's face — Baden

That's not what happened. But, hypothetically, no.

So, no, he didn't deserve to be shot. The vigilantes should not have been there. — Baden

This is a legal question, not a moral one. They.were not in violation of the law to be there. They were there because they were racist morons. So, the question is whether a racist moron is in violation of the law when someone tries to wrestle his loaded shotgun from him and the guy gets shot? I say not if he has reason to believe the cuckoo wrestler man intended less than a kind gesture after he got the gun in his possession.

think guns act as a substitute for some American's lack of power over their own lives. They're weak, confused, and somebody out there (probably a brown dude or at least not of their ilk) is doing it to them. — Baden

Prolly right. Let's stereotype while trying to figure out why people stereotype.

don't seriously doubt that racism was involved. — Banno

The question was whether you'd convict, not whether they were racist. If a racist is having his shotgun wrestled from him, does that change his right to fire it?

wasn't referring to any specific shooting. — Baden

You were referring to a hypothetical shooting?

Relevance? — Baden

If my post were irrelevant, then why spend several more posts responding to it?

Quote me where I claimed that. Or even mentioned you. — Baden

And yet the next several posts of yours express your disbelief that I'd say what I said as if I'm missing your sense of conscience.

Unbelievable by the way that you would compare unarmed protesters risking their lives for the cause of racial equality to a bunch of spoilt bitches with huge guns fighting for the right to spread a deadly virus to the old and vulnerable. — Baden

And you've pointed out irrelevant distinctions, as you could expect I'm likely capable of recognizing the distinctions you've pointed out without your pointing them out.

As to your point that nonviolent protests end in violence disproportionately by race, you have no evidence of that unless you go back many decades, and even then not always.

Let's try that with Black Lives Matter and see what happens. — Baden

Are we now talking about a real event or a hypothetical one? I hypothesize the same result as if they were white.

But we're making no headway now, so back to the OP. With all the video evidence we have, do you convict for murder or not? If the races reversed, do you convict? If they're all the same race, do you convict?

I answer I'm not sure yet for all those questions.

Yep. Dumb white liberty freaks can literally take over government buildings while armed with assault rifles and the police do nothing. A black guy with a foil wrapped sandwich on the other hand, immediate threat, gun him down. — Baden

The sandwich shooting: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/oct/09/st-louis-police-officer-shoots-dead-black-teenager-off-duty

The ballistics test showed the unarmed man fired several rounds at the officer.

The famous Woolworth sit ins in the 60s by those fighting for liberty did result in some arrests - of white counterprotestors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensboro_sit-ins

Is the unnuanced view just easier, so you take it?

Racism is crushing, horrible, and evil. You don't better understand it than me and your sense of compassion is not more advanced than mine. But you're seeing it as the cause of any bad thing that comes the way of any minority is just blind bias.

As a Black, native New Yorker, now living in Georgia (formerly resident of Arizona, Minnesota, Washington DC, Virginia & California), I've observed since coming of age in the 1970s that summary executions (i.e. lynchings, or murders-with-impunity) of unarmed Black men, women & children is TOO COMMON in Georgia as well as in the US as whole. Centuries of structural inequalities and institutionalized racial discrimination make what amounts to customary-normative 'domestic white terrorism' a (seemingly) intractable, clear and present danger, not only to American Blacks, but to all of our fellow citizens of color. The current pandemic exposes - as the HIV scourge of the 1980s, etc had exposed - these US Constitution-established civic & social pathologies. — 180 Proof

The numbers don't support this claim. More whites are killed by blacks than are blacks killed by whites and more blacks are killed by blacks than either. https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-29/race-and-homicide-in-america-by-the-numbers

Don't get me wrong, as there is something particularly heinous of any murder that is motivated by race (and that number we don't know). I liken this to the 9/11 deaths. Those number of deaths pale in comparison to the number of Americans killing Americans, but what makes it heinous is that the attack is seen as an attack on America, a value system, a way of life, and an identity. I completely agree that race based murderers deserve a special place in hell and that their murders carry the added weight of terrorism, but I disagree that it's pandemic, common, or a true existential threat.