I’m stating my opinions just as you are.

Nobody is putting words into your mouth. I’m responding to the words you have said.

I’ve been trying to understand how you could hold such opinions in the face of both facts and your own stated understatings.

Seems willful ignorance is where we landed.

From your other responses elsewhere in the thread it seems this isn’t isolated to just this exchange.

For the record, I do not appreciate your opinion on this as it lacks merit or substance.

If you are unwilling or unable to defend your opinions, a public forum is unlikely to be a good experience for you.

I’d suggest a blog, with the comments turned off.

Do you think anyone (regardless of race) should have received that level of response in that situation ? As with any dispute, both parties can always strive for more, but I try to put myself in the cop’s situation. How long is long enough before you have to pull somebody who is clearly not cooperating from their car? Not following a lawful order during a traffic stop is a misdemeanor, which means you may be exiting your vehicle whether you like it or not.

That’s not an answer to the question, that’s a reiteration of your previous stance.

Do you think anyone (regardless of race) would have received that level of response in that situation ? I am positive racism plays a part in policing. But I didn’t see anything in this that leads me to believe Tyreek’s skin color affected his outcome.

Given that answer i go back to my previous question of :

If you understand racism plays a part in policing, what makes you think this is the exception ?

I’m a white dude and I easily see this happening to me if I did what he did.

You are entitled to your opinion, but the overall statistics disagree with you.

Not in an individual instance sense, but in an overall sense. You might very well have this same thing happen, but it’s statistically much less likely.

I’d personally view that as two opposing viewpoints, either you think he had it coming or you’re sorry it happened.

They are not opposing or mutually exclusive viewpoints. I can be sorry for someone for the outcome they have been dealt based on their own actions. I can be sorry for him but also unsurprised.

Now this is interesting, i wouldn’t consider “they had it coming” to be the same as “I’m unsurprised this happened” , one is very much assigning blame and the other is more neutral.

If you meant the latter, then sure, not mutually exclusive.

“I can be sorry for someone for the outcome they have been dealt based on their own actions.” can easily be interpreted the same way as “I’m sorry he made the officer drag him out of his car but he totally deserved it”.

Yes, I truly feel this way in these circumstances. Perhaps I’m a naive idiot, but I just didn’t sense that he was treated that unfairly given his actions.

The point the article was making wasn’t that he was treated unfairly based on his actions, it was that the treatment he received was different (read: worse) because of his race.

That the treatment he received could be considered unfair for the situation isn’t the point.

A boy and a girl both steal an apple, they both get grounded, the boy is also banned from the shop.

“Well the girl still got grounded” doesn’t negate that the punishment wasn’t equal.

Same as “The boy deserved punishment” doesn’t negate that the punishment wasn’t equal.

If you truly understand that racism is a large problem in all aspects of policing, that isn’t naivety that’s wilful ignorance.

It’s more the latter. I don’t argue that race disparity exists. I’m only arguing that Tyreek did not do any kind of favor to himself in how he handled the situation.

Agreed, but “didn’t do the most optimal thing in a given situation” isn’t the same as “deserved to be dragged out of his car”

Especially in a situation where it is known to be significantly more dangerous, regardless of behaviour, for someone of a more melanin-rich persuasion.

This confusion is easily resolved though, let’s clarify with a couple questions.

Do you think anyone (regardless of race) should have received that level of response in that situation ?

Do you think anyone (regardless of race) would have received that level of response in that situation ?

I’m sorry he got pulled from his car and cuffed, but my reaction to the video was that he had this coming.

I’d personally view that as two opposing viewpoints, either you think he had it coming or you’re sorry it happened.

Blatantly disobeying an officer’s requests and in a way that can lead the officer to feel unsure over his/her safety and perceived control of the situation is going to end poorly.

And this is the crux of the issue, officers feeling unsafe and their level of perceived control is known to have a direct correlation to how reflective your skin is.

That doesn’t even account for the officers with a blatant racial bias.

So you can argue that point, but the threshold for where actions end up in poor outcomes is intrinsically linked to race, any argument you make is going need to account for that or it’s going to be perceived as missing a large chunk of the context.

Which is what is happening here.

This could easily happen to a white person.

That’s subjective but again, let’s clarify :

In these exact same circumstances, you’d expect a white person to be treated in the exact same way ?

I don’t have any studies to hand, but isn’t the disparity between police responses to non-white vs white suspects a given at this point, in the US at least?

But lets look at your argument both ways.

On the one hand you’d be arguing that race disparity in police responses doesn’t exist at all and so wouldn’t apply here.

Or

Race disparity exists, but in this specific situation it doesn’t apply for some reason.

If that’s the case , id be interested in hearing why you think it doesn’t apply in this specific circumstance?

Neither of those sound plausible to me but i could be missing what your actual argument is entirely, in which case, would you mind explaining why it doesn’t fall in to the above categories?

Another indication you haven’t actually read any of the papers, even the titles

3/5 of the papers are for both dogs and cats.

I’m aware the title of the post you linked to was exclusivity about cats, the content of the majority of papers was not.

No goalposts were moved i was responding to the information you posted, if you aren’t going to actually read them yourself your opinion on what constitutes goalposts means nothing.

Other than the final line, nothing in my response even mentions dogs.

However, lets say we only apply what i said to cats, every single point still stands.

I’m assuming you don’t have any actual arguments or you would have mentioned them instead of picking up on a single word that doesn’t actually change the content of the response.

Feel free to surprise me though.

TL;DR;

Posting a link to a bunch of other links you don’t seem to have actually read isn’t a good basis for an argument

Scientific evidence, sure, but if you’d actually read them you’d see they aren’t as inline with your argument as you seem to think.

Do you mean the one behind a paywall

Perhaps the one consisting almost entirely of owner reported (and thus inherently bias) results

Maybe the meta-study that specifically calls out how little quality and volume there is in this areas of study, comments on how self-reported studies are bias and in conclusion basically says:

“It doesn’t seem to immediately kill your pets in the limited studies that have been done, we have even seen some benefits, but we don’t have enough quality data to be that confident about anything”

How about this one which is again largely based on self-reported results.

You should actually read the “Study Limitations” section for this one.

Or the last one which is about vegetarian diets, again goes out of it’s way to specifically call out the lack of current research and that the majority of current research supporting these diets is “rarely conducted in accordance with the highest standards of evidence-based medicine”

I’m aware i’m cherry picking quotes and points here, but only to illustrate that these papers aren’t the silver bullet you seem to think.

Not to say there is no validity to the argument that these diets can be beneficial but it’s a far cry from vegan diets are scientifically proven safe for cats and dogs.

Hey did we just have a productive disscussion with differing opinions without devolving into a shouting match.

Thats the one same difference

Not really, one has religious connotations the other doesn’t.

We society and depends on how u look at history and ur interpretation of the purpose of government itself

My interpretation is different, but not any less subjective than yours, so fair enough.

What do u think?

I think that your argument implies that your right to smoke in the smokers section is greater than someone else’s right to not have to ingest second hand smoke from you smoking in the smokers section.

U cant just proclaim something to be true.

That’s fair and i worded my argument somewhat poorly, I’ll clarify what i meant in the next sections.

You dont have to go to the pub and expose yourself to the risks associated alcohol, drunk idiots, dumb cunts, covid riddled mouse breathers, adverse political opinions, suspiciously sticky floors etc.

This is true for all.

In the context of the original statement, what i meant to say was the argument “but they don’t have to be near the smokers” holds about as much weight as people saying “well they can just smoke when they get home”, technically yes but we are talking about situations where both parties are in attendance.

Whats the level of acceptable risk i would imagine that smoke distributes in accordance with the inverse square law so perhaps simply requiring a little extra “buffer space” would reduce said risk within acceptable tolerances.

That is also my understanding, but that assumes a completely neutral space with no directional blowing, no obstacles etc, also a lot of smoking areas aren’t exactly as “outside” as they could be.

I’m not arguing the level of acceptable risk either way , i have no idea and i’d imagine its heavily subjective.

Look i see where ya coming from but i definatly feel this is the slightly thicker than last time end of the wedge that the nany state is never gonna stop hammering.

Oh absolutely, even if it wasn’t bullshit posturing and political grandstanding it’s a far cry from the most effective thing they could be doing to alleviate the “huge burden” on the NHS.

God given rights comes from the American Constitution

It does not, purposely so.

It was purposely put there because it is undeniable for all people that it applies equally (Well, except for the whole slavery thing, but the Americans aren’t that bright).

Perhaps you mean unalienable rights (which was in the declaration of independence iirc), but yes afaik it was supposed to apply to all people equally.

We decided that it was better for the society to take away some liberties to increase the total amount of liberties for all people.

Who’s we and when was this decided ?

If we are to take away someone’s liberty without increasing the total liberty for all people, then we have reduced the total amount of liberty in the world, which I would argue is backwards of the ultimate goal.

That is logically incorrect (reduce one persons liberty points by 10, add 5 liberty points each to 2 people and liberty equilibrium is maintained) but i think i know what you are getting at.

Assuming everyone’s idea of the ultimate goal is “liberty for all” is also a stretch.

That’s an entirely different conversation though.

The smokers zones were a result of the original crackdown on smoking in public places, the government decided and it sounds like you followed along.

That this new change goes further than you are personally comfortable with doesn’t make the previous change any less a governmental decree.

Let’s assume however that you do have some universal right to smoke in the smokers section:

Is this the only universal right that exists ?

Do other people not have a right to not be forcibly exposed to known carcinogens ?

To pre-empt the “but they don’t have to be near the smokers” argument, yes, they do.

A pub garden isn’t magically warded to keep the smoke out of the air of non-smokers.

God-given? That’s your go to?

Fuck the authorities because god says I can do what I like?

Also where is it you think the smokers section comes from?

I’m not saying what they are doing isn’t bullshit, it very much is, but “who are they to tell me to do this new thing, I can continue to do this other thing they told me I can do, because I don’t have to listen to them” is some Olympian level mental gymnastics

That is a good question, I know where the button is for the website (it’s in the sidebar, in my UI it’s green) but the app im using doesn’t have an obvious button

You don’t need to suspect you can check for yourself, modlog exists.

/r/onetruegod would like to know if you have some time to discuss …well…the aforementioned one true god

That’s also a logical fallacy.

You are conflating lack of effective choice with active support.

In an effectively two party race, where both arguably are supporting a position (through action if not through ideology) there is no option where you aren’t effectively contributing to said position.

Vote either way or not at all , you are contributing to the overall success of one party or the other.

“Our genocide guy is better” is really the only option when there is no other practical choice.

Even voting independent just supports whoever happens to be winning from the two main parties.

What are you proposing is the practical option for people who don’t want to be “in support of parties involved in committing genocide”?

To be clear i have no good answer to this either, just wondering if you do.

I don’t see the appeal of watching her win only because she is allowed to compete against women with much lower levels of testosterone than she has.

Let’s try adding your first argument to your second and see how it sounds.

“I don’t see the appeal of watching them win only because they are allowed to compete against people much shorter than they are.”

A genetic predisposition to success in a particular sport is either a problem for all sports or none of them.

If you are arguing that the current categories are what they are then testosterone shouldn’t be a factor unless you are positing that testosterone level has a threshold past which you are male.

The whole point of having a women’s competition is to prevent that.

The whole point of having a women’s competition is to separate “men” from “women”, if the point was to prevent unbalanced categories we’d be basing the categories on things that were important to the perceived integrity of the sport.

You could also argue that historically ( in the west at the very least ) it was partially to stop “women” from competing in “men’s” competitions, not because of a difference in physicality but because of a difference in societal expectations.

it makes no sense to allow a person with the specific set of innate physical advantages that men have over women to compete in the women’s competition.

Again, lets switch the subject of your phrase

“it makes no sense to allow a person with the specific set of innate physical advantages that tall people have over short people to compete in the short peoples competition.”

This is not a good argument.

As you said the theoretical solution to this is to based the brackets/categories on things other than biological sex, something that can be measured reliably and precisely, but also as you said , good luck convincing the public/advertisers to switch at this point.

It doesn’t escape me, but what part of what I’ve said has invited confrontation or dismissal? I’m asking honestly.

In this case i can’t see any big red flags.

The tone is a possibility, as i said, being correct isn’t an absolute defence against being considered an arsehole.

To be clear, I’m not implying you were incorrect, or the tone was incorrect, just that that kind of certainty (evidence based or not) gets some people’s backs up.

It’s grating that it keeps happening and I keep telling people to stop.

I don’t think it’s what you actually meant but this could be interpreted as “Somebody didn’t accept my answer and argued, so i told them to stop, they didn’t even though i was clearly correct, this is grating”

Hyperbole aside, it’s frequent enough that I can see a pattern of people starting petty arguments trying to win and throwing low punches instead of clarifying what is being said and why.

Firstly, welcome to public internet forums in general, this is common behaviour.

That aside, there are numerous trolls and bad faith “debaters” around, but just because you consider something petty doesn’t mean the other person does.

This is what i was trying to convey in my reply earlier, if almost all interactions end up with what you consider petty behaviour it’s worth considering the possibility that you are contributing to that outcome somehow.

Like, I don’t even want to argue.

So don’t, if you don’t want to continue the interaction then don’t reply.

Meaning what, it’s also me?

Possibly, yes.

lol If I’m the one telling people to stop and act like adults and that gets 180° turns in behaviour, what does that say to you?

Honestly, it says to me that your communication skills might need some work.

Again, to be clear i don’t mean your communication of facts and information, i mean your ability to understand how phrasing something in a certain way might illicit a certain kind of response.

“Stop acting like a child” is a very good way to build enmity and confrontation, which is useful in some cases, if you intend to illicit that response.

However, saying something like that and then being confused/frustrated when people get confrontational and dismissive suggests a lack of understanding about the impact of tone and phrasing.

Because stoners are basically a cult at this point, and refuse anything even as remotely negative as “it’s not good for your cats?”

I mean, i specifically stated it wasn’t related to the actual topic being discussed, but i can address this anyway i suppose.

Possibly culty i suppose, about the same amount as alcohol consumers, smokers, people who see chiropractors etc.

Less than people in organised religion ( big cults ), actual cults and MLM schemes.

If all of the stoners you know are your definition of culty ( except you of course ), perhaps consider that it’s your choice in acquaintances rather than an entire demographic.

Can’t say i care either way, but i’d be interested in any studies you might have on the subject ( belief systems of stoners in general, not specifically the ones you know ofc, that would be unlikely )

To be clear, I smoke most nights… but god damn do I hate people who feel the need to defend weed against everything.

If that personal preference works for you, who am i to tell you you’re wrong.

It’s a drug, y’all. It’s not good for you.

Drug doesn’t automatically imply harm, but i think i know what you mean.

So, two things unrelated to the actual topic being discussed.

I’ll pretend your choice of words isn’t low-key confrontational and dismissive like every other comment on this site

It’s entirely possible to be correct and do it in such a way that invites confrontation and dismissal.

If it seems like everyone apart from you is confrontational and dismissive, perhaps it’s time to consider additional perspectives on why that might be happening.

Do you have an example of this ?

Randidly Ghosthound, from the series with the same name.