Joe Newman
Active Member
I guess sometimes, the plural of anecdote really IS data
An epidemic of "isolated events"?
Wow. Just wow.
http://www.cato.org/raidmap
An epidemic of "isolated events"?
Wow. Just wow.
http://www.cato.org/raidmap
It is the militarization of the police and overkill to the nth degree... 10 or so 'para military' with essentially a tank and military grade weapons busting down peoples doors to issue a warrant on some teenager, (and that's if they get the right house)... who actually wants to live in such a society? It is insane.Sounds more like a consequence of the failed "War on Drugs". And that's not a conspiracy, it's just short-sightedness on the part of politicians.
It is the militarization of the police and overkill to the nth degree... 10 or so 'para military' with essentially a tank and military grade weapons busting down peoples doors to issue a warrant on some teenager, (and that's if they get the right house)... who actually wants to live in such a society? It is insane.
But is it a conspiracy, a slippery slope to fascism, or just a bit messed up?
Perhaps you are just hearing more about this type of thing because there are a lot more video cameras now?
And why do they have dash cams?
You can't extrapolate from individual events like this. The cop made a bad call. That does not seem like evidence of a conspiracy. How would authorization come from the top. Do they get a memo says "just shoot the bad guys if you feel like it, we'll get you off any charges".
I guess sometimes, the plural of anecdote really IS data
Like with Abu Ghraib etc...There are 800,000 cops/LEOs in the US. I hate to be cliched, but why has nobody talked? Even if it's just subtle encouragement, you'd think someone would have noticed.
But Abu Ghraib is/was a small detention centre but one of a much larger complex and history tells us that Abu Ghraib is simply an example of the much wider and systemic problem.No, not like Abu Ghraib. That was a relatively small number of people, and it still leaked.
Lots of different type of people are cops, or ex-cops, or know cops.
Perhaps you are just hearing more about this type of thing because there are a lot more video cameras now?
You can't extrapolate from individual events like this.
An Epidemic of "Isolated Incidents"
"If a widespread pattern of [knock-and-announce] violations were shown . . . there would be reason for grave concern."
—Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, in Hudson v. Michigan, June 15, 2006.
The issue here, however, is at what point does the plural of anecdote become data? Is there one and how is it determined?
Sounds more like a consequence of the failed "War on Drugs". And that's not a conspiracy, it's just short-sightedness on the part of politicians.
What's the real question here?
The one I asked in response to your assertion that "you can't extrapolate from individual events like this."
When can you extrapolate from individual events?
There's certainly corruption. Saying "short sighted" was admittedly rather an oversimplification. I meant they were focussed on short term goals (often for themselves) rather than long term goals (for the country). But even when they are genuinely trying to make things better, some of them are just rather stupid about it - thinking that putting more people in jail will bring down crime. I does in the short run, but then just builds a divided culture of incarceration.Seems a little charitable to characterize politicians as 'short-sighted', 'corrupt', surely? - 'oh, those poor myopicists haven't a clue, ha ha ha' etc etc. So short-sighted they can't even see their future bank balances? Or perhaps it's a 'myopicist theory'? (Dunno what it means, but we can think of something later).
There's sloppy language here - a lot of it around the word 'conspiracy'. Can it be explained how 'The War on Drugs' is not a conspiracy (preferably taking into account the actual meaning of the word)?
So there's a synopsis of sorts on an issue being raised right here on this site at the moment; not the first time, though. Mostly in another thread. The stating of an absolute opinion as fact (and in short order, too). That politicians are merely incompetent rather than complicit. There is no conspiracy (whatever that means). That analysis seems overly naive for a skeptic.
Yes, I was surprised that was lacking. I'll add it to the list - at least the indicator.Mick, when someone's banned, like I've been for the last week, I think you should have some indication on the avatar, or summat? I suggest a skull with a dagger through one eye overlaid on the avatar - and maybe dripping red letters stamped over that, saying 'BANNED'? And....sorry, know it's a drag, but what about a countdown clock for when they get released from the MB Gulag? I know you can do it!
Also, I'm totally confused about the 'politeness policy', because I got a week ban for inferring that someone was 'thick' - and yet (irony?) that same person inferred (very clearly) that another contributor was a liar - and that they 'pull stuff out of their arse'. I can't help feeling that my reading of the policy is wrong - as hard as I've tried to never exceed the rudeness 'boundary' implied by everyone else posting here....
Can it be explained how 'The War on Drugs' is not a conspiracy (preferably taking into account the actual meaning of the word)?
There is no conspiracy (whatever that means). That analysis seems overly naive for a skeptic.
Anecdotes are observations. Generally though they are not very good ones. It depends.Surely anecdotes are data. Observation, empiricism etc. Ooh...me paradoleia's playing up again.
Missed a bit -
And another -
Immediately. The question is how do you determine the accuracy of the extrapolation?
Anecdotes are observations. Generally though they are not very good ones. It depends.
Sure, if you want to go by the dictionary definition. You can always frame the description of anything as a conspiracy. The questions you should be asking are just how hidden the conspiracy is, is it illegal, and what is the intent?
What was the intent of the War on Drugs? Just to put people in jail? Bring about a New World Order? Seem tough on crime so they get re-elected? Something that just happened because nobody stopped it?
Anecdotes are observations. Generally though they are not very good ones. It depends.
Sure, if you want to go by the dictionary definition
You can always frame the description of anything as a conspiracy
The questions you should be asking are just how hidden the conspiracy is, is it illegal, and what is the intent?
What was the intent of the War on Drugs? Just to put people in jail? Bring about a New World Order? Seem tough on crime so they get re-elected? Something that just happened because nobody stopped it?
(I've been meaning to mention Oswald, your avatar is a macabre work of genius.
Your posts still read like the rhetoric of a really snarky lawyer however)
I was referring to you saying "Can it be explained how 'The War on Drugs' is not a conspiracy (preferably taking into account the actual meaning of the word)?". Sure you can't reasonably frame your decision to take a shower as a conspiracy, but you can certainly frame anything that government or any organizations does as a conspiracy
You say you are only familiar with the dictionary definition, but which one?
Why even both with the word? Why not get to the actual issues? Is there evidence of something illegal and/or evil going on with these raids?
Does your usage here require illegal acts, evil, or simply people acting in harmony?
Sure, if you want to go by the dictionary definition
Why even both[er] with the word? Why not get to the actual issues? Is there evidence of something illegal and/or evil going on with these raids?
There's sloppy language here - a lot of it around the word 'conspiracy'. Can it be explained how 'The War on Drugs' is not a conspiracy (preferably taking into account the actual meaning of the word)?
Why don't you just explain what you meant by this:
lee h oswald said: ↑
There's sloppy language here - a lot of it around the word 'conspiracy'. Can it be explained how 'The War on Drugs' is not a conspiracy (preferably taking into account the actual meaning of the word)?
Sure, if you want to go by the dictionary definition
Sounds more like a consequence of the failed "War on Drugs". And that's not a conspiracy
When I said the War on Drugs was not a "conspiracy", I meant it in the sense that's usually understood around here, and is one of the dictionary definitions:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiring
You seemed to be suggesting it was a more general "conspiracy", as in the second definition:
Hence I'm trying to figure out what you mean. What do you mean?
I quoted both of them, so you could say which you were referring to.Hence? Amazing! Plumb away; there's always somewhere deeper.
Don't understand what I mean? I don't believe it. And please stop quoting selected dictionary definitions at me, it's embarrassing.
I quoted both of them, so you could say which you were referring to.
I'd much rather you explain what you mean though.
Sounds more like a consequence of the failed "War on Drugs". And that's not a conspiracy
Can it be explained how 'The War on Drugs' is not a conspiracy (preferably taking into account the actual meaning of the word)?
Sure, if you want to go by the dictionary definition
[Then] it appears we are in agreement that it is a conspiracy, if we 'go by the dictionary definition'
When I said the War on Drugs was not a "conspiracy", I meant it in the sense that's usually understood around here, and is one of the dictionary definitions [usually understood around here?]... Hence I'm trying to figure out what you mean. What do you mean?
Sure, if you want to go by the dictionary definition
that's usually understood around here