Keep looking. Take a few days. — James Riley

Here, you can have this as an "LOOK! This guy cannot be bothered!" statement. Here it comes ...

I googled and found nothing substantial. You said there is a 'metric shit ton' of evidence. I have asked for links and cannot find anything substantial. I have also asked what exactly I should type into the search engine to get the results you won't tell me about.

I spent time (hours) watching the accounts of the persons mentioned above (both now more than twice, but admittedly not in there entirety - you can cry out about that if it serves you). I am not going to spend time looking for evidence you say exists but are not willing to share. Apparently you are referring to the 'transcripts' so you will understand that if I watched the live recording of their accounts I will have heard what the judge protested about. If there were details NOT recorded what was said, what evidence was omitted and why would it change the outcome of the trial?

I understand that it is easier to paint me as ignorant and unwilling if you wish to but that isn't likely to hold up if you yourself are willing to point to some items, from an apparent 'metric shit ton,' that should cause me to review the acts played out as they did.

I remember the prosecution trying to show 'threat' and make out Rittenhouse was pointing his gun at people to intimidate them. There are claims and tenuous evidence that he did point his gun at some people. That is literally the only thing I can see that you might be referring to from the searches? Let's say he did briefly point his weapon at some people. It that a justifiable reason to run at him and try and wrestle the gun from him and say you want to kill him. Provocation? Something there slightly at best. It would be more substantial if there was some dialogue involved and action (walking towards someone with gun and/or stopping to exchange words). But I haven't seen this shown in the evidence. Was there some evidence that didn't make it into the trial that showed this explicitly or otherwise?

Still only finding what I said above about use of excessive force:

"I definitely believe the prosecutors could have made different choices that would have resulted in some convictions. I think that the way that the prosecution presented their case, forced the jury to either say 'self-defense is real or self-defense is not'. I just don't think that's the right way to approach it," says Martinez.

Many fear the verdict will embolden so-called vigilantes to come armed to protests or even kill more people at protests.

Martinez explains, "To the extent to which right wing believers are going to be emboldened by this, I think is up in the air right now. I can tell you that from what I've seen online It's definitely the case that they take this as a total victory and a total vindication of their position."

https://www.wuwm.com/2021-11-22/discussing-the-implications-of-rittenhouse-trial

and this:

The defence rested its case Thursday, but not before arguing with prosecutors about whether an enlarged image taken from a drone video could be admitted into evidence. Schroeder, following arguments held without the jury present, said he would allow the image, while admitting he didn't understand the technology used by a state crime lab employee to enlarge it.

"With all due respect to your honour, I think the defence is trying to take advantage of your lack of knowledge about technology," Kenosha County Assistant District Attorney James Kraus said.

Kraus argued that the way the images were enlarged was the "industry standard" and for the defence to "then try to pretend this is all voodoo magic is preposterous." He said the defence attempt to get the evidence tossed out because it shows "their client is lying ... they are stooping to this level to try to keep it out."

Prosecutors wanted to use the image to rebut Rittenhouse's testimony that he didn't point his gun at protesters just before he was chased by Joseph Rosenbaum, whom Rittenhouse shot and killed. Rittenhouse argues he shot him in self-defence.

Wisconsin crime lab employee James Armstrong testified, under questioning from defence attorney Corey Chirafisi, that the software program adds pixels to the image and he cannot say with certainty what colour the added pixels are.

"If it is not the same as the original and colours were added to that, that is a distortion of what, in fact, the original photograph was," Chirafisi said in arguing to keep out the image.

Kraus called that a "canard" and a "dishonest argument."

"This is just not the age we're in," Kraus argued. "We are in an age where software is able to enlarge and do things."

Schroeder used a magnifying glass to examine the image in question and also walked right up to a large screen to get a better look. He ultimately allowed the image to be admitted, but Rittenhouse's defence attorney was also permitted to question the crime lab analyst about the software used to enlarge it with the jury present.


The judge said he was leaving it up to the jury to decide how much weight to give the image.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/blow-up-at-rittenhouse-trial-over-enlarging-photos-and-video-1.5663622

Which I did actually know about having watched the live recording of the trial. I watched practically all of Rittenhouse's account and Gauge's account. If I missed something else where feel free to tell me exactly what. I'd like to know.

The 'transcripts'? I watched large segments of the live recording. If you cannot say what you are referring to then what am I meant to do?

If there is so much evidence then just point some out for me. Is that too much to ask? You asked me to google search so what words do I need to put in to find what you are referring to?

I'll trying with 'evidence omitted from Rittenhouse trial' now ...

I googled this: "evidence not used in rittenhouse trial"

I found something that basically agreed with what I said about 'unreasonable force':

“I think the prosecution could have just charged that second-degree homicide with the mitigating factor that he thought he was entitled to use self-defense, but that his use of force was unreasonable,” Gross continued. “Ultimately, that was the prosecution’s burden and they could not meet that burden.”
https://nypost.com/2021/11/19/experts-on-what-went-wrong-for-prosecution-in-rittenhouse-trial/

I cannot see anything yet that immediately refers to evidence that would've changed the outcome of the trial in favour of the prosecution but there are items in favour of the defence.

No links? Nothing? If there is a 'metric shit ton' I guess I can find something, so I'll look.

The law has it's own agenda. There is a metric shit ton of facts and video that did not make it before the jury. If you are interested in facts, then you'd have to be really myopic to limit your review to the scope permitted by that judge. — James Riley

Relative myopia. Show me this evidence then. Maybe I made a mistake in assuming that the trial offered up a large enough body of evidence relevant enough. I'm happy to listen and learn about other sources that would've changed the outcome of the trial.

In the short term, probably. — baker

What else could act out better in the short term? What alternatives weak/strong are there you can muster?

Meaning if you don't have the time to review the evidence it is okay to rely on second or third hand accounts of what the trial offered in terms of evidence?

Often such accounts have agendas as people usually have agendas to push especially when the topic involves controversial items such as firearms in the US and protests.

My agenda is to curb the extreme points of view and simply make clear what happened. I think people carrying guns around is ridiculous but that is the law and the US is nothing like where I live or where I am from. I've stated this already as a point that clouds my judgement when reviewing things that happen in the US that would never happen where I am from in the same way due to the laws being different and people not really seeing carrying a gun as a matter of 'personal safety'.

My dad use dot visit the US regularly and one of the people he meet up with regularly asked him how he could feel safe NOT carrying a gun. The interesting thing is some people do carry guns because it makes them feel safe - strange as that may seem to others (including myself). What is more they find it incredible that others don't feel the way they feel.

Humans are weird.

To add I actually gave a balanced account that included claims from Gauge. You have, on the other hand, gone out of your way to paint the picture you believe in.

Anything and everything you say here I cannot trust and I don’t think anyone else should either if they are trying to view this case with balance and reason.

Instances:

First off, R was running away from the group chasing him, and stopped running to shoot one of them. So they chased him again. The person he shot was unarmed. — Kenosha Kid

Well, no. I was referring to the instance of Gauge because that was what was specifically being talked about.

Yes, he was being chased. Why? He slowly and pointed his gun to deter the first person. They kept on coming at him. In fact they got right up to him before he fired. There was also a gunshot fired from behind the guy running at him before Rittenhouse fired.

Yes, the guy was unarmed. Also, he was threatening to kill Rittenhouse and charging him without any indication that he was going to stop. To repeat he didn’t fire until he was directly upon him. Given his state of mind. Running headlong at someone armed with a rifle during a protest (a protest where a small minority of people were throwing rocks at the police and setting fire to dumpsters and smashing property: added to show the potential volatility of the situation). It doesn’t take much to view - in R’s situation - the actions of someone running directly at him, vocally threatening to kill him, not ceasing to pursue after he had had a gun pointed at him, and getting to within reach of the rifle as an immanent threat to his life.

We can certainly question if the guy threatening to kill him meant it. In rage and adrenaline fuelled situations where a complete stranger is involved and openly threatens to kill you, runs at you, and follows when you run away, it isn’t a massive stretch to think that if such a person got hold of your gun he’d turn it on you. Maybe he wouldn’t have, perhaps the chances that he would’ve shot Rittenhouse or ‘craniumed’ him were small. Who really put themselves into an extremely dangerous and fatal situation? Rittenhouse by simply ‘being there’ like many others or someone, unarmed, running after someone with a gun and openly threatening to kill them?

If Rittenhouse had been shot and killed it would’ve been murder. The reason Rittenhouse wasn’t charged with murder is because it wasn’t murder in the eyes of the law. Nor was it against the law for him to openly carry the weapon he was carrying. Nor was it against the law for him to walk around in the street practically alone in those circumstances (it was damn stupid though).

If we look at this as someone willingly running into an situation were their life was in immediate and severe danger and were to ask which person was doing this in this situation it is a no brainer. Was the force used excessive? There is certainly a case there as firing four shots a point blank range clearly sounds excessive. The only real defence here is that he was fearing for his life and panicked.

Excessive force is a point to argue here as far as I can see. The fact that he shot the guy in self defence would be much stronger if he’d merely fired one shot.

Maybe Rittenhouse and fellows had planned this out? Seems unlikely. Maybe they had talked about it and wanted to shoot some people they viewed as reprehensible? Speculation is mere speculation though. When speculation is cast as ‘evidence’ there is a problem.

Next part of the ‘false narrative’ I gained from actually watching the trial.

R ran into a crowd but word spread that he'd murdered someone, and he was chased by another unarmed man who struck him to the ground. R murdered that unarmed guy too. — Kenosha Kid

You’re omitting what you referred to as a ‘false narrative’. If you actually listen to Gauge’s account - and his phone recording - Gauge asks Rittenhouse where he is going (after he had shot the first person). Rittenhouse said he was going to the police and ran towards the police as a ‘mob’ was beginning to form and people were starting to shout “get him!” and someone said “Cranium him!” (Gauge himself heard the ‘get him threats and said this on the stand as well as saying that after reviewing recordings he had also heard ‘cranium him’ shouted). In the video played in caught you can hear while Rittenhouse is on the ground someone shout “you’re gonna die!”.

You’re also making this sound like it was one or two people pursuing him by saying ‘he was chased by another unarmed man who struck him to the ground’ which doesn’t account for the group of people pursuing him and he wasn’t ‘struck to the ground’ by the unarmed man. This is just wrong.

What happened - and what was actually shown in court - was a group was pursuing him, throwing rocks and had hit him to the point where he fell down. Gauge from 30 feet away (by his estimation) then said he wanted to help Rittenhouse so he took his gun out of his belt and ran to catch up with Rittenhouse with gun in hand. Gauge saw Jump-kick man but didn’t see the actual jump kick only this person ‘going over Rittenhouse’ is how he put it I think?

The only armed person who confronted R was the paramedic trying to attend to his second victim, who correctly believed R to be an active shooter. — Kenosha Kid

He wasn’t trying to get to the second person who was shot. That is simply wrong. Gauge said he was concerned for Rittenhouse’s safety due to head trauma (as he had been hit in the head with rock/s and a skateboard). As I said before once he was close to Rittenhouse with his gun in hand he raised his hands when Rittenhouse pointed his rifle at him. Now here is where Gauge believed Rittenhouse had tried to shoot him even when he’d raised his hands as he then tried to reload his weapon. Gauge says he viewed this as he had pulled the trigger and nothing happened so he then reloaded. Gauge then says this is the reason he closed the space between himself and Rittenhouse. As Gauge moved towards Rittenhouse he ended up in a position where his gun was pointing at Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse fired when Gauge’s gun was pointed at him (and Gauge confirmed this openly in court).

All in all it is quite quite silly to say:

No point addressing this to you particularly, just for the record, but your timeline of events was a work of fiction. — Kenosha Kid

I did actually go back and review Gauge’s account to see if I’d made some error. Other than not being explicit that I was talking about Gauge (who didn’t know what had happened with the first four shots fired and says so in court) I think it is untrue to say my brief remarks are a ‘fiction’ when you then go on to say things yourself that are misguided in terms of giving a clear account of what happened.

To repeat, the evidence is available online. Anyone can watch the trial and the actual account of the witnesses on the stand. I have a feeling, like many others, you haven’t done this and are relying on secondhand accounts of people who say they have reviewed the trial. I have not watched it all, but I have watched enough to know that what I have said and what I am saying now isn’t a ‘fiction’.

Some things I do not know about are the accounts of rocks being thrown and hitting Rittenhouse. I also unsure about accounts of Rittenhouse being hit by the skateboard prior to being on the ground? Both Gauge and Rittenhouse said things in the heat of the moment they don’t fully recall - not surprising given the situation.

That Rittenhouse said the first person he shot had a gun (to Gauge And/or other/s) was clearly untrue, possibly a lie, but he said he didn’t recall saying this and admitted he never saw a gun nor thought he saw a gun. My memory is hazy here (watched Rittenhouse’s account not long after he gave it) as he may have said he suspected he had a hand gun? I don’t believe he did though but the prosecution or defence had posed this question?

How does this tie into my first account posted here? You can look back and tell me if you wish. My first brief account (the one Proof responded to) was a very brief account that I posted just to make sure people knew what had happened and to see who hadn’t bothered to watch witnesses accounts or listen the evidence.

I hope the gun laws in the US are reviewed and changed. I don’t think they will be before the country splits though. I do think the US will split and I hope it does in some form or another and in a peaceful manner. If that happens it will be a glorious thing as the age old paradigm of revolution=war will hold less weight and perhaps other nations will follow suit and the common folk of the world will actually gain more control over their lives in terms of their relationship with governing bodies.

No doubt you are probably asking why I am interested in this trial. It is because I believe what I said in the previous paragraph will happen within my life time and that I expecting a parade of extreme and counterproductive views to be espoused so it would be useful to actually know what the case involved and what evidence there was.

You answered for me directly below. My was to do with the root of an ‘opinion’ so it doesn’t matter that one expresses it with ‘anger’/‘annoyance’ only that the point from which it was originally crafted was.

Like I said anyone can choose to watch the account given by Gauge. It is easily accessible. If you wish to omit certain points to suit your own version not my problem. I was just commenting on what Frank said and telling him what I saw and heard by watching the Gauge on the stand.

:grin:

It is not like it is hard to listen to Gauge answering questions and look at the evidence presented. It is all there for anyone to view.

It is. One mistake is he had his gun out already then rushed into a dangerous situation with gun in hand looking to help Rittenhouse.

I meant they were the same in that they both contributed to the potential for disaster in the same way: rushing toward a volatile situation with a firearm. — frank

Not in every instance. Rittenhouse was running away danger and going to the police (in this specific instance a mob actively trying to stop him - someone shouting "you're gonna die!"). The other took out his gun and rushed in. He was apparently concerned for Rittenhouse and knew he was going to he police - maybe he was. I wouldn't call going to the protest in the first place 'rushing toward a volatile situation'.

Gauge also admits that Rittenhouse didn't shoot until he had his handgun pointed at him. He also states that he pointed his gun at him before Rittenhouse fired. He claims that he thought Rittenhouse tried to shoot him when he had his hands raised but then needed to reload. Maybe he did think that.

But I don't mostly post out of a feeling of anger or annoyance — Janus

I don't think anyone does. My proposition was not that all 'opinion' is expressed in 'anger'/'annoyance' it was that the root of this 'opinion' can be found in 'anger/'annoyance'.

Anyway, I partially got what I wanted from this thread so I just need to mull over new thoughts I've found and refine how I word my next thread on this topic.

I think it's simply racist to think that some people (unlike others) would be incapable of having a democracy. It's the above mentioned things that have to work. — ssu

?

Decartes point was that you can always doubt what you believe reality to be. You cannot doubt that you are doubting though as you'd be doubting by doing so.

A doubting thing is thinking. A thinking thing exists. I am a thing that doubts therefore I am a thinking thing. So I exist.

Our memories are plastic so we cannot rely on them. We can doubt our memories.

Ironically I think Decartes may have gotten this kind of backwards in terms of 'knowledge'. It seems the kind of knowledge framed is abstract only whereas Intentionality is necessarily experienced due to being incomplete/unfulfilled 'knowledge' as compared to pure abstractions.

Where the rules and limits are set (abstract) absolute knowledge exists - but we may still make errors within these bounds as we're no bound by them ourselves. Given that the limits and rules of 'reality' are not known (or may not exist) we are not able to form 'absolute knowledge' about Intentionality other than to say there is Intentionality - 'directed doubt' (to a proposed thing be it abstract or otherwise).

Zizek is quite funny sometimes

It's clearly incorrect in cases where opinions aren't conflicting. — Cheshire

That has nothing to do with what I was saying.

So, do you intend to isolate a particular scenario for discussion? Or not? — Cheshire

Probably in a new thread. I managed to open up some new thoughts in my head about this but I’ll let them be for a while.

Yeah, I could’ve done a much better job with the original post. I did think about editing but thought it would be messy.

Sorry, the guy who didn’t die. It was recorded on his phone.

He had also asked Rittenhouse where he was going and Rittenhouse told him he was going to the police.

I see. You just want a pointless argument.

No thanks. bye bye

You cannot reproduce if you're dead. Not dying is paramount. Avoiding death, or causes of death, is paramount. I am not, and have not been, saying that life is merely all about avoiding death above and beyond anything else. I have been saying that anything else life might have to offer only matters if you are not dead.

This is quite simple yet maybe too obvious.

I said

I frame this 'desire' as 'maximally efficient fear avoidance'. — I like sushi

Meaning a balance between too much novelty and too little, between staying within a 'comfortable' boundary and exploring the unknown. Going to one extreme or the other would be suboptimal (as I went on to explain).

To completely avoid any fears is not optimal. We have to 'cope' with them sometimes as we cannot avoid them all.

Let's look at this then it might help:

- If we avoid desires it is due to fear/danger.
- If we avoid fear/danger it is due to desires.

At this simple level I don't see how desires can be met free of charge. What is the cost? I think we can certainly desire something enough to overcome fears and/or ignore fears. This might look like a good argument but I can only repeat that we have to account for where the desire comes from. I respond by saying 'desire' comes due to 'fear'/'danger' and that 'fear'/'danger' does not magically appear once we have formed desires.

Rather it is typically trying to sustain life long enough to be able to reproduce. — Olivier5

One thing come before another. Being alive is necessary for life activities. Being dead doesn't do much. Ergo not being dead means other things can happen so it probably makes reasonable sense that organisms are primarily coded to not instantly die due to environmental pressures. Be they hungry predators or noxious gases.

You keep avoiding the point I am making.

Why focus only on fear, at the exclusion of all other emotions? — Olivier5

I answered. I said because sustaining life is generally paramount so not dying is the first thing an organism aims for. Primarily avoiding immanent death is the go to.

No, it does not make sense. But to define desire as avoidance of fear is equally ridiculous — Olivier5

That is not what I said.

They do exist — Olivier5

That is a different debate. Not everyone would agree that they 'exist' rather that they are created.

But we don’t come to the opinions we care about by ‘desiring’ we come to desire by way of maximally efficient fear avoidance.
— I like sushi

Would you have any evidence for that, or it is just the way it looks like on your end? Why attribute to fear (or anger, in other posts) a sort of privileged place at the top of all emotions? — Olivier5

I'm not sure I understand your point? There are explicit dangers in the world that we are fearful of because we generally are trying to stay alive. I hope you can agree with that. So 'fear' is the means of warning/recognising dangers (harm/hurt/death). We are not filled with joy when faced with a hungry tiger lunging towards us (the reaction is physiological and out of our control). We seek to 'avoid' extreme danger (mortal danger) more often than not. Yet, we also seek out novelty but also understand that something completely alien to us is an unknown and therefore may or may not pose a mortal threat to us. We do not run headlong into the darkness screaming and flailing our arms around. We move with caution and a degree of 'fear' but we also are impelled to do so because we seek out novelty (intrigue/curiosity/exploration) which are also helpful for more long term survival due to 'learning'.

So why not refer to 'desire' as a seeking out something 'better' but within limitations (which are bound by 'fear'). We would eventually die if we just ran headlong into the future without any 'fear'. I frame this 'desire' as 'maximally efficient fear avoidance'. You seem to be asking why I wouldn't frame this in terms of desire. This is quite simple. Does it make sense to view 'fear' as 'maximally efficient avoidance of desire'? If it does to you then I'd have to call you the negative ninny :)

Do I need to offer evidence for choosing to define 'desire' in terms of 'fear'? I'm not sure what that evidence would look like other than what I've offered already.

An 'opinion' about something we care about is formed - at base - by something that that is at odds with us. This is just necessary by definition. If we are not at odds with something why would we show any care or concern about it? Certainly down the line we can just be curious for curiosities sake (bring in the cat if you must). I am saying regardless of some intrigue further down the line the point remains that 'opinions' we care about necessarily sprout from a root in reaction to 'fear' (dangers - harm/hurt/death) because we're animals trying to stay alive rather than trying to die.

If you can take that in then let's go back to the reaction to 'fear'. Again, I am looking at 'fight or flight'. Flight is the avoidance of this dangerous and perhaps 'novel' experience. Fight is to face it. As I think I noted earlier (?) the physiological associations with 'anger' and 'excitement' are quite similar (I've convinced myself to switch from one to the other quite quickly several times in my life). We are primed and ready to react the overtly novel situation (dangerous or otherwise). For the sake of life preservation 'anger' takes precedence over 'excitement' and 'flight' (avoidance of 'novelty'/'potential death') you could choose to frame as 'desire not to die' if you wanted to. I would argue that a 'desire' not to die is an avoidance of death/fear not a target in and of itself.

Abstracting this to cognitive thought is quite a leap you might not even be bothered getting into. Fair enough. That is how I got to where I got. The minimal conclusion further on from this is that acting irrationally is merely helpful it is our primary mode of being and the reason rationality can come to be. I do not see how this is contrary as it would be harder to swallow that we're primarily rational beings and that irrational behavior arises from our rational behavior.

In term of 'expressing an opinion' the model we've developed to do this is based on reactions to 'fear'. On top of that I am saying that 'anger'/'annoyance' with problems/questions we play with is how we come to do philosophy - to explore knowledge and our existence. If you will The 'desire' to beat down fears and face reality as starkly as we can manage to. Maybe Hobbes would say it isn't 'courageous' as that is just a convenient mask for 'anger'/'annoyance' that sits well with us in the silly childish world of 'civil behavior' and 'good manners'. This isn't about having a 'positive' or 'negative' mindset. It is about looking at how and why things happen in the manner they do an dhow else we can look at them.

Democracy is more of an idea than a reality. The reality of a true full democracy would be horrific probably.

Without a doubt the closest country to having an actual ‘democracy’ on Earth is Switzerland. The thought of that system on a global scale fills me with dread not hope. I simply don’t believe a global vote would result in something ‘good’ for humanity’s long term development. Smaller isolated governments concerned with a limited population size would be okay … somewhere along the way we missed that boat though.

Looks like another stage of feudalism and then an eventually power struggle leading with a stable population size followed by centuries of wrangling before we settle on a reasonable body of people to be held within a governed system where each individual has enough of a voice to matter. Decentralised power can only make sense if nations effectively split up and act as a community of peoples rather than as a disassociated body called ‘nation’ where the power is both unregulated, inefficient and short-armed in reach and scope due to the sprawling population.

“Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind.”
― Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason

I think you can probably change a few terms in this quote to say something like ‘information’ is ‘empty’ without ‘the physical’ and ‘the physical’ is ‘blind’ without ‘information’.

Indeed, a desire is rather an attraction for pleasure, confort or happiness. — Olivier5

But we don’t come to the opinions we care about by ‘desiring’ we come to desire by way of maximally efficient fear avoidance. This is neither a negative nor a positive view of human existence. It is just how things are in terms of how we are driven to live another second rather than die. Living in a constant heightened sense fear would cause both mental (cognitive thought) and physical death prematurely as would locking oneself in a room of ‘comfort’ free from anything likely to over stimulate and cause fear. Although I would admit the body might survive longer but the mental (cognitive thought) part of us would be dead just as quick if not quicker. Thankfully we all seem to live at least long enough to learn to crawl, then walk and eventually talk and question how and why we function the way we function.

Of course. I have no choice. We are neurologically biased to believe in what suits our view of the world and are not prone to adjust it (edit: as much as we would evidence that supports our belief) to suit counterfactual evidence - we actively deny it and we’re ‘hard-wired’ this way.

It could be anger, or it could be disgust, revulsion, righteous indignation, strategizing, or just plain disagreement. — baker

In terms of this thread I was categorising ‘anger’/‘annoyance’ as something that encompasses precisely those kinds of attitudes. It is perhaps easier to see what I mean by looking at an extreme example like slavery (in today’s perspective).

The fault in the position I’ve posed lies in showing that a strong emotional feeling towards something we’re at odds with can be met with anything other than the terms you’ve outlined. The other problem would be delineating between what is an ‘opinion we care about’ and a ‘mere opinion that carries no significant weight/concern’.

Fear is a negative tropism, while desire is positive one. — Olivier5

Good :)

In terms cognition and the realm of ‘opinions’ and such ‘fear’ is not something we can avoid. Stimulus can be attractive or repulsive, but we cannot avoid something we don’t know about. A baby will put its hand in a fire and learn to fear fire. Clearly the heat attracts us and the beauty too. We’re curious about the physical appearance of something and stick our hand out to investigate. We do not merely ‘fear’ fire we discover a reason to fear fire. Our immediate reaction is not to ‘desire’ this ‘fear’ though.

To put this concisely. A fear is in place to avoid harm/hurt/death. A desire is not necessarily about avoiding harm/hurt/death. I am sure you can argue against this too so go ahead and assume I can counter either way (even id I cannot!) and proceed …

Looking at the unknown in general we can say something here that touches more on what I think you’re saying. The unknown is laden with intrigue and fear. I am not denying that intrigue guides us too (the need to explore and discover) but I am saying ‘fear’ is a stronger force that needs to be overcome. We fear something because it hurts us or we perceive it as being able to hurt us. The stronger the fear the less likely we are willing to face it. Regardless we are attentive to harm as harm can kill us whereas intrigue and investigation are also helpful they are not to do with an immediate avoidance of harm/hurt they are about overcoming fear though. The strong interest/curiosity in some item that is feared may certainly be a reason to dispute ‘anger’/‘annoyance’ as the primary motivator - this was the only other reason I could come up with myself.

From there I asked what is more likely? This can also be framed as what is the most efficient way to deal with a fear. Efficient would be a way to deal with fear immediately - our reactions.

As a quick aside: to be clear I am thinking of still in terms of human evolution and how the physical world and physical harm translate into psychological harm and a cognitive world. No doubt humans are (as Sapolsky puts it) ‘confused apes’ as we’re neither one thing nor another. We are an ‘in between’ species where our sex distinction is minimal (compared to other apes) and our ‘weltanschuaang’ (world view) is not merely about physical presence and preservation. We are ‘hurt’ thoughts not merely physical abrasion.

Anyway enough. Will reply to comment just posted which may help finish off what I wanted to say to you:

But you still have an opinion about it! — Alkis Piskas

I have an ‘opinion’ I care about in terms of caring about how you’re framing ‘opinion’. ;)

There's a huge distance between being "serene" (which is something very difficult to achieve anyway) and being annoyed, angry and in distress, that you are talking about at the start of your topic. — Alkis Piskas

Yes there is. My counter to this is that ‘fear’ has a stronger impact upon our behavior than (as framed above) ‘desire’. Meaning attraction as opposed to repulsion. We repulse from something dangerous to stay alive whereas we are attracted to something else and somewhere else that has less unknowns and therefore less ‘fear’/‘danger’ but still some. Note: talking about cognition here not merely chemical interactions.

An example might help here. Let us say that some evidence comes to light that your opposite sex is superior in every way and that they’ve been repressed due to some random circumstances. The education system is changed and your opposite sex is elevated in status far above you (every member of this sex). If you voice any opposition to this new educational scheme that will effectively turn you into someone with vastly diminished rights and powers would you do so with fear in your heart or not? I would say you would be fearful as it is something that is potentially going to cause you harm/hurt/death. You would clearly care about this too so your opinion would matter to you. Is your initial reaction one of serenity and calm or are you confounded by such news and instantly opposed to it? For myself I would most certainly be instantly opposed to such a thing as it threatens my immediate life. If considered in a broader scope I may bring myself to look at it in a different light and rather than face the fear I may just move into something else beyond ‘anger’/‘annoyance’ and adjust my attitudes.

My point is this. My concern is absolutely embedded in the proposition of harm/hurt/death to me though not in investigation. Even if we’re talking about ‘intrigue’/‘curiosity’/‘exploration’ we are treading on ‘feared’ ground in that it is a journey into the unknown. The higher the cognitive appreciation of how ‘unknown’ said ground is the more ‘fear’ there is present. We will choose the lesser ‘fears’ and tell ourselves they are ‘voyages of discovery’ rather than admit they merely contain just the right amount of fear to make life seem bearable.

The serene logical and emotionally void stance is perhaps worse than the raging, wrathful defiance in opposition to something truly horrific. The serene path is denial, passivity and avoidance, the ‘anger’/‘annoyance’ path is denial and confrontation.

The most intriguing thought I find from this (if it holds up at all!) is that maybe it is our denial and stubborn optimism that allows us to fight the losing fight and somehow (beyond previous knowhow and logic) prevail and persist. The ‘serene’ mind will just unwittingly wither away.

I admit the middle ground is unclear. There is a spectrum. Extremes may act in utterly different ways and adhere to different rules than more fuzzy areas.

Maybe this entire thread is a fearful reaction to ‘wokeism’? I don’t pretend to know where it came from only that ‘fear’ has a habit of defining the paths we walk down and so I am looking at things considered more ‘negatively’ and reframing them as useful ways to understand how and why ‘opinions’ are expressed.

I kind of agree with the sentiment but it doesn’t seem at all simple.

Someone with a rifle is clearly carrying a rifle whereas someone with a hand gun can conceal it easily enough. There is the imbedded problem of transporting firearms from one place to another without displaying them in any manner. Such nuances make establishing laws like these difficult. For hunting/sports what constitutes ‘public place’.

I think it makes more sense to allow people to bring firearms to protests but NOT to actively carry them during protests unless the police officers around are also armed. That is why I would first suggest police in general to not carry firearms unless they are clearly and visibly distinctive from other officers whom don’t carry firearms.

If such a law can be implemented solely for protests and marches without any need to bring in armed police officers then it could start a steady progression towards something that doesn’t take away rights some wish to protect yet it will reduce the perceived need to carry firearms in other circumstances.

As an aside an interesting trick that reduces the chances of crime is to place cardboard cutouts of police officers in areas of concern. These basically function as a psychological deterrent not because people view the inanimate object as a police simply because it triggers a reminder about what is and isn’t lawful - we’re all just genius apes really so don’t take offence to being so easily manipulated by mere visual prompt.

As a response to 'fear' how exactly does 'love' (whatever that means in this case) impact? Is 'desire' an emotion?

It is clear enough what 'anger'/'annoyance' is and how this makes us act in opposition to a problem. I don't really see how 'love' or 'desire' is a natural response to 'fear'. I want you to argue the point in more depth if you can as I am sure there is weight to it.

If you're using 'love' then I think it would help to outline how this works in the initial stages where fear has a grip of us.

I don't care enough about TPF to express a serious opinion about it :)

Apparently no one cares to admit that they are anything but curiously serene about practically any thought they've ever had about anything that matters to them.

Maybe I am one in a million with whom it takes more then passive serenity to get anywhere with any meaning. I doubt it I am that abnormal though :D

As you seem to be one here who didn't grab the wrong end of the stick anything to offer?

So what is your anger telling you about the kind of exchanges that happen here on TPF? — Olivier5

What anger?

Are you just angry at a mere disagreement, eg like a believer faced with incredulity? You seem to be saying so in your OP, but surely you must know that philosophy, like politics or religion, is a domain where disagreements are always a plenty, and where disagreement is to be expected, not agreement. — Olivier5

I am not angry I am talking about 'anger'/'annoyance' and saying (but not being heard) that when we (we humans) express an 'opinion' we care about we are doing so as a result of something that has initiated 'anger'/'annoyance'. I am NOT saying (and I want to be clear about this again) that EVERY 'opinion' cast about something we care about is done with anger/annoyance. I am saying that the root from which the opinion sprang is from an instance of 'anger'/'annoyance' (which could be anything internal or external).

I am actively seeking disagreement not psychotherapy. Although one could argue they have some similarities ;)

So why are you angry, really? — Olivier5

I'm not. Again, I am talking about 'anger'/'annoyance' which is not the same as 'being angry'.

I furthered my proposition by stating that 'fear' is the core and that 'anger'/'annoyance' is how we deal with fear in a 'progressive' manner (as in productive rather than curly up in a ball and dying). Something akin to cognitive flight or fight; as an analogy.

The problem the guy had above was to repeat that evidence that someone doesn't feel 'angry'/annoyed' when they express an opinion about something they care about is evidence enough to dismiss that they were led to that point by something other than 'anger'/'annoyance' from which I am saying is the birth place from which we eventually come to express an 'opinion'.

Think of it like this ... we exist. We are at odds with many things around us. Our understanding and capacities are limited. We face problems and we are fearful. We 'cope' with fear by avoiding it or combating it. I am saying 'anger'/annoyance' is certainly a way to combat fear, and I am also putting a bold foot forward and saying it is the only real way.

The floor is yours. What is another way to combat fear? You will know what I mean if you have put some thought into some really dark topics and found things you didn't want to find. Think Jungian Shadow is that helps to get to grips with what I am saying.

Note: Just because I am saying it is the ONLY good way I am not saying I believe it is the only good way. Tell me something else if you can.

Yes, I guess so. I have focused on anger/annoyance in particular.

Extrapolating from 'fear' as a primary drive there are ways to 'cope' with fear. I am putting forward that 'anger'/'annoyance' is the point from which we build, or directly express, our 'opinions' (items that we care about).

If not 'anger'/'annoyance' what are the other progressive mechanisms at work (progressive as helping us move onward and expand our understanding).

I won't ask you again to explain. — Kenosha Kid

Good. Bye.