(06-19-2019 05:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 04:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 03:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 03:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 03:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  They both involve getting information from foreigners.

Explain how that is materially different in terms of the election law.

In terms of campaign law, because one is receiving something of value directly from a foreign entity without paying for it and making that information public, and the other is not. One is a contribution and the other is a purchase.

You could literally drill down far enough to every contribution made to a campaign and find that it came from a foreign country - which is why the difference above matters. That sign donated to Trump - well it was made in China. What about those shirts that were donated - made in Vietnam. How about those hard earned dollars Bob in Minneapolis donated - well he works for a company based in Ireland.

I actually found this article after I typed out the above response, and amazingly it said almost the same thing:

Quote:Experts told me that when it comes to campaign finance law, hiring or contracting a foreigner to do services for a campaign is allowed. “You can pay a foreign national to provide you with services, so a campaign, for instance, could have a campaign attorney who is a Canadian citizen,” Levinson said. “As long as you pay fair market rates for those services, that’s not what the federal campaign act says is prohibited. That’s just a fair exchange of money for services.”

If this kind of seems like a loophole, experts pointed out that it would be really hard to run a campaign otherwise. It would mean having to worry if the campaign signs you printed came from a foreign company, or if the catering firm you hired had foreign workers.

https://www.vox.com/2019/6/14/18677631/t...llegal-fbi

So, hiring Steele to make coffee or hand out flyers is legal.

So, I guess in your mind, hiring him to did up dirt from Russians is the same.

BTW, was the crap the Russians fed him gratis, or did he pay for it?

In the eyes of campaign finance law, which is what you are asking about, yes, hiring a foreign national to do work for you is legal because you are paying for it and reporting it. It is therefore not a contribution.

I don't know campaign finance law well enough to know whether or not him paying for information himself would be of concern.

The acquisition of information is not impacted by election laws. The appellate rulings on point have specifically and explicitly limited the rulings on the term 'thing of value' re: foreigners to tangible items and cash.

Much to the great consternation of the Maddow-ites. Actually non-consternation since that cow doesnt (nor Vox, or any of the other leftie rags) bother to tell them that in their spittle-fests.

It is not nearly as clear cut as you make it out to be. If it was, you wouldn't have the FEC chairwoman wading into the debate, reminding people that accepting things of value from foreign nationals is illegal.

"Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election. This is not a novel concept. Electoral intervention from foreign governments has been considered unacceptable since the beginnings of our nation. Our Founding Fathers sounded the alarm about 'foreign Interference, Intrigue, and Influence.' They knew that when foreign governments seek to influence American politics, it is always to advance their own interests, not America's. Anyone who solicits or accepts foreign assistance risks being on the wrong end of a federal investigation. Any political campaign that receives an offer of a prohibited donation from a foreign source should report that offer to the Federal Bureau of Investigation."

(06-19-2019 05:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 02:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 01:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 12:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 11:11 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  4th amendment applies to the government, not citizens. It's not gray to me at all... and 2 centuries of examples make it clear



Which is why I brought up that Germany is sometimes an adversary

93, answer me this....

Suppose that the Russians had evidence that the Koch brothers had completely rigged the voting booths in key counties that lead to 'stealing' the election. Who is our enemy here? The Russians? or the Koch brothers? Of course you'd turn it over to the authorities, but you'd also use it.

Second supposition, what if instead of that, 'what they had' was a video of Trump speaking at a Klan rally... which isn't illegal, but could certainly impact voters? Would you inform authorities of this and why? Of course you would use it.

And again, would Russia be our adversary here?



If you want to argue that because it's Russia, we should just ignore them, I'm wondering why Obama severely chastised Romney for suggesting that, and then indicated to Russia that he'd have 'much more flexibility after the election'. Why are we being flexible with our enemies?

I think the base supposition that Russia is the devil is where the argument starts to fail. As Bill Clinton famously said, it depends on what the definition of 'Is' is.

In all instances you inform the FBI that you have been contacted by representatives of the Russian government and pass this off to them. You don't use the info for personal gain in an election in either instance, as you don't know (i) the veracity of the information or (ii) the motivations of the people sending you that information.

How hard is that?

I fail to see how this accounts for the usage of the dossier...

Has it been verified YET?

The veracity is important. The motivations are not.

The dossier was being investigated by the FBI because, shocker, it was turned over to the FBI...

Motivations ARE important! They're so important that our legal system takes them into consideration when judging guilt!

Well laddie, you left out that it is being investigated not because 'shocker, it was turned over to the FBI' but because of the fing misuse of it in sparking the investigation. Just a lil bit of difference between the two scenarios there lad.

We're talking about two different things here, Tanqie-poo.

In this thread you referenced, we were talking about the veracity of the dossier. The claims in the dossier were being investigated to see if it could be verified.

Now, the dossier itself and whether or not it was used improperly is also being investigated.

Try to keep up.

(06-19-2019 05:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We're talking about two different things here, Tanqie-poo.
In this thread you referenced, we were talking about the veracity of the dossier. The claims in the dossier were being investigated to see if it could be verified.
Now, the dossier itself and whether or not it was used improperly is also being investigated.
Try to keep up.

What you don't seem to comprehend is that if "the claims in the dossier were being investigated to see if it could be verified," then the use of the dossier was improper.

(06-19-2019 05:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 05:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We're talking about two different things here, Tanqie-poo.
In this thread you referenced, we were talking about the veracity of the dossier. The claims in the dossier were being investigated to see if it could be verified.
Now, the dossier itself and whether or not it was used improperly is also being investigated.
Try to keep up.

What you don't seem to comprehend is that if "the claims in the dossier were being investigated to see if it could be verified," then the use of the dossier was improper.

That's a whole other topic. We're talking about like 20 different things here - we discussed the intricacies of the FISA warrant process in passing. And we don't know how much of the dossier was used in the application, and how much information was provided regarding the veracity of the dossier, and so on.

(06-19-2019 05:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 05:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 02:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 01:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 12:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  In all instances you inform the FBI that you have been contacted by representatives of the Russian government and pass this off to them. You don't use the info for personal gain in an election in either instance, as you don't know (i) the veracity of the information or (ii) the motivations of the people sending you that information.

How hard is that?

I fail to see how this accounts for the usage of the dossier...

Has it been verified YET?

The veracity is important. The motivations are not.

The dossier was being investigated by the FBI because, shocker, it was turned over to the FBI...

Motivations ARE important! They're so important that our legal system takes them into consideration when judging guilt!

Well laddie, you left out that it is being investigated not because 'shocker, it was turned over to the FBI' but because of the fing misuse of it in sparking the investigation. Just a lil bit of difference between the two scenarios there lad.

We're talking about two different things here, Tanqie-poo.

In this thread you referenced, we were talking about the veracity of the dossier. The claims in the dossier were being investigated to see if it could be verified.

Now, the dossier itself and whether or not it was used improperly is also being investigated.

Try to keep up.

Unfortunately we are not lad. You just simply 'chopped it off' where it was convenient for you.

Please pontificate moar about the absolute need for [moses voice mode on] 'the veracity' of foreign sourced info [/end moses voice] and the [moses voice on] need to know the motivations of the foreign sources [/end moses voice] all the while utterly ignoring those grave pontifications on the foreign sourced Bible of Orange Man Bad.

It is about as funny as you gravely intoning the [moses voice on] grave issues of 4th amendment misuse of [double moses voice on] foreign sourced information [/end *all* moses voice mode] when you omit the parties and fun stuff that emanated from the Steel National Inquirer data.

Kind of like a 'Homer Simpson extolling a vegetarian lifestyle-style' funny. Odd that you dont see that.

(06-19-2019 06:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 05:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 05:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 02:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 01:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I fail to see how this accounts for the usage of the dossier...

Has it been verified YET?

The veracity is important. The motivations are not.

The dossier was being investigated by the FBI because, shocker, it was turned over to the FBI...

Motivations ARE important! They're so important that our legal system takes them into consideration when judging guilt!

Well laddie, you left out that it is being investigated not because 'shocker, it was turned over to the FBI' but because of the fing misuse of it in sparking the investigation. Just a lil bit of difference between the two scenarios there lad.

We're talking about two different things here, Tanqie-poo.

In this thread you referenced, we were talking about the veracity of the dossier. The claims in the dossier were being investigated to see if it could be verified.

Now, the dossier itself and whether or not it was used improperly is also being investigated.

Try to keep up.

Unfortunately we are not lad. You just simply 'chopped it off' where it was convenient for you.

Please pontificate moar about the absolute need for [moses voice mode on] 'the veracity' of foreign sourced info [/end moses voice] and the [moses voice on] need to know the motivations of the foreign sources [/end moses voice] all the while utterly ignoring those grave pontifications on the foreign sourced Bible of Orange Man Bad.

It is about as funny as you gravely intoning the [moses voice on] grave issues of 4th amendment misuse of [double moses voice on] foreign sourced information [/end *all* moses voice mode] when you omit the parties and fun stuff that emanated from the Steel National Inquirer data.

Kind of like a 'Homer Simpson extolling a vegetarian lifestyle-style' funny. Odd that you dont see that.

Have I once complained or said that the Steele dossier, and its role, shouldn't be investigated?

Well it appears the left is quite happy with their campaign paying for a fake dossier so they could use it against the opposition. That is fine and proper.

But they are all up in arms because a member of the Trump campaign took a meeting with the person hired to entrap him and then walked out of the trap without springing it. That is not proper at all. Why go to the trouble to try and entrap them if they won’t bite?

Film-flam men had a saying - you can’t cheat an honest man.

I guess Trump Jr. was too damn honest to be scammed by the film-flamers hired by the Clinton Campaign to find or create dirt on Trump.

The crooks and unethical behavior from 2015 to date have been heavily on the side of the Clinton Campaign and the DNC.
Just wish at least one lefty would admit that.

(06-19-2019 06:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 05:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 05:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We're talking about two different things here, Tanqie-poo.
In this thread you referenced, we were talking about the veracity of the dossier. The claims in the dossier were being investigated to see if it could be verified.
Now, the dossier itself and whether or not it was used improperly is also being investigated.
Try to keep up.

What you don't seem to comprehend is that if "the claims in the dossier were being investigated to see if it could be verified," then the use of the dossier was improper.

That's a whole other topic. We're talking about like 20 different things here - we discussed the intricacies of the FISA warrant process in passing. And we don't know how much of the dossier was used in the application, and how much information was provided regarding the veracity of the dossier, and so on.

Umm, you were trying to distinguish between the verification of the dossier and its use in the FISA hearings. I was pointing out that there is no distinction there. If it was in the process of being verified, as you state, then its use in the FISA proceeding was improper and should invalidate anything resulting from that proceeding.

And your "how much" issues are equally irrelevant. It's like being a little bit pregnant. If it's tainted, then it and everything resulting from it are fruit of the poisonous tree. I guess my question is, if you knew it was tainted, and if you didn't need it, then why was it included in the first place?

So let me get this straight.... if we PAY for foreigners help with dirt on our political opponents, we're good? So if Trump had paid Putin $1mm and accounted for it correctly for his campaign, this would have been a non-event? I'm just doing a smell test on this concept.

My other question is... Isn't there a difference between say Russia having video evidence of Trump getting a golden shower... and Russia having evidence of Trump offering CBS $1mm for the debate questions?

I still haven't seen whatever 'dirt' (the stuff of value we're talking about here) was offered on Hillary.

concept 1 by the way flies in the face of the original claim which was quid pro quo. So giving Putin $1mm would be okay, but giving him a penthouse in Trump Tower Russia wouldn't be.

(06-10-2019 05:52 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-10-2019 04:32 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2019 04:14 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-10-2019 04:07 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2019 04:02 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  But are you sure you would be willing to recognize it? Again, my own experience is that when leftists who engage in overtly racist behavior are questioned about it, the response by themselves and many of their fellow leftists is denial, excuse-making, deflection, sometimes name-calling, and ultimately a claim that leftists BY DEFINITION cannot be racist -- a retreat to tautology. It's hard to have much confidence in the observational ability of judgment of people who act like that.

There has been nothing obvious. We all have biases that will affect our perception of situations and I am clearly no different than the next person in this regard. I am open to the possibility that I missed subtle instances somebody with a different set of biases would have picked up on.

Are you open to the possibility that you might be different from the next person in a relevant respect -- e.g. that your biases might be stronger than average, or that your observational powers might be weaker than average?

I am open to the possibility. Do I think that my observational powers are weaker than average? My experience doesn't suggest that, however I am certainly biased when it comes to that question as well.

You haven't ever observed any racist behavior from a conservative while you have from liberals. Are you open to the same possibilities?

I think I have the same degree of openness as you do, and the same degree of confidence in my own abilities. But two data parameters that might be relevant are:

- I know a whole lot of people-- my wife and others often tell me that the number of people I know is astonishing. And of the people I know, the overwhelming majority (by an integral multiple) are on the left. That in itself may explain why I've seen more racist behavior from leftists whom I know than from conservatives whom I know, and more than you've seen from leftists whom you know.

- As I mentioned a while ago, my social circle is extraordinarily loaded with advanced degrees, even by Rice alumni standards. That doesn't make it "better", but it is demographically unusual by any objective measure. It is possible that as they pile on degrees, any latent racist tendencies of conservatives tend to decline or at least be suppressed, while latent racist tendencies of leftists tend to increase or at least are given freer reign. That hypothesis may fit not only yours and my observational data, but also some of the other topics cited in this thread.

Yesterday I unfortunately experienced an anecdotal example that is consistent with the theory that leftists may become more noxious the more degrees they pile on. A leftist who I thought was a friend posted the following comment on the Supreme Court's 7-2 decision on the Maryland war memorial cross:
- He posted: "It's a terrible day for the Constitution . . . The Supreme Court must have run out of toilet paper, because they just wiped their arse with the Bill of Rights."
- I thought this was rhetorical overkill, so I replied: "It's a fine day, your scatological whine notwithstanding. Get a grip!"
- He responded by posting a doctored picture of my father's grave.

This guy is a Rice alum with a PhD and is a college professor.

This particular incident is not racism, and one is not much of a sample. But it is inconceivable to me that any conservative I know would even consider such a move, much less decide to act on it (which took time and deliberate effort, both to find the photo and then to doctor it). Yet this guy, in the certainty of his righteousness, felt justified in making one of the trashiest moves I have ever seen in my life, on social media or otherwise. And not to a stranger, but to someone who has sat with him at games and has bought him lunch.

(06-22-2019 12:38 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-10-2019 05:52 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-10-2019 04:32 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2019 04:14 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-10-2019 04:07 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  There has been nothing obvious. We all have biases that will affect our perception of situations and I am clearly no different than the next person in this regard. I am open to the possibility that I missed subtle instances somebody with a different set of biases would have picked up on.

Are you open to the possibility that you might be different from the next person in a relevant respect -- e.g. that your biases might be stronger than average, or that your observational powers might be weaker than average?

I am open to the possibility. Do I think that my observational powers are weaker than average? My experience doesn't suggest that, however I am certainly biased when it comes to that question as well.

You haven't ever observed any racist behavior from a conservative while you have from liberals. Are you open to the same possibilities?

I think I have the same degree of openness as you do, and the same degree of confidence in my own abilities. But two data parameters that might be relevant are:

- I know a whole lot of people-- my wife and others often tell me that the number of people I know is astonishing. And of the people I know, the overwhelming majority (by an integral multiple) are on the left. That in itself may explain why I've seen more racist behavior from leftists whom I know than from conservatives whom I know, and more than you've seen from leftists whom you know.

- As I mentioned a while ago, my social circle is extraordinarily loaded with advanced degrees, even by Rice alumni standards. That doesn't make it "better", but it is demographically unusual by any objective measure. It is possible that as they pile on degrees, any latent racist tendencies of conservatives tend to decline or at least be suppressed, while latent racist tendencies of leftists tend to increase or at least are given freer reign. That hypothesis may fit not only yours and my observational data, but also some of the other topics cited in this thread.

Yesterday I unfortunately experienced an anecdotal example that is consistent with the theory that leftists may become more noxious the more degrees they pile on. A leftist who I thought was a friend posted the following comment on the Supreme Court's 7-2 decision on the Maryland war memorial cross:
- He posted: "It's a terrible day for the Constitution . . . The Supreme Court must have run out of toilet paper, because they just wiped their arse with the Bill of Rights."
- I thought this was rhetorical overkill, so I replied: "It's a fine day, your scatological whine notwithstanding. Get a grip!"
- He responded by posting a doctored picture of my father's grave.

This guy is a Rice alum with a PhD and is a college professor.

This particular incident is not racism, and one is not much of a sample. But it is inconceivable to me that any conservative I know would even consider such a move, much less decide to act on it (which took time and deliberate effort, both to find the photo and then to doctor it). Yet this guy, in the certainty of his righteousness, felt justified in making one of the trashiest moves I have ever seen in my life, on social media or otherwise. And not to a stranger, but to someone who has sat with him at games and has bought him lunch.

He has kind of gone off the deep end lately. I’ve gotten some similar responses from him, as I think you have noted. He is one of the most fervent anti-Christians I have ever known.

(06-22-2019 12:38 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-10-2019 05:52 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-10-2019 04:32 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2019 04:14 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-10-2019 04:07 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  There has been nothing obvious. We all have biases that will affect our perception of situations and I am clearly no different than the next person in this regard. I am open to the possibility that I missed subtle instances somebody with a different set of biases would have picked up on.

Are you open to the possibility that you might be different from the next person in a relevant respect -- e.g. that your biases might be stronger than average, or that your observational powers might be weaker than average?

I am open to the possibility. Do I think that my observational powers are weaker than average? My experience doesn't suggest that, however I am certainly biased when it comes to that question as well.

You haven't ever observed any racist behavior from a conservative while you have from liberals. Are you open to the same possibilities?

I think I have the same degree of openness as you do, and the same degree of confidence in my own abilities. But two data parameters that might be relevant are:

- I know a whole lot of people-- my wife and others often tell me that the number of people I know is astonishing. And of the people I know, the overwhelming majority (by an integral multiple) are on the left. That in itself may explain why I've seen more racist behavior from leftists whom I know than from conservatives whom I know, and more than you've seen from leftists whom you know.

- As I mentioned a while ago, my social circle is extraordinarily loaded with advanced degrees, even by Rice alumni standards. That doesn't make it "better", but it is demographically unusual by any objective measure. It is possible that as they pile on degrees, any latent racist tendencies of conservatives tend to decline or at least be suppressed, while latent racist tendencies of leftists tend to increase or at least are given freer reign. That hypothesis may fit not only yours and my observational data, but also some of the other topics cited in this thread.

Yesterday I unfortunately experienced an anecdotal example that is consistent with the theory that leftists may become more noxious the more degrees they pile on. A leftist who I thought was a friend posted the following comment on the Supreme Court's 7-2 decision on the Maryland war memorial cross:
- He posted: "It's a terrible day for the Constitution . . . The Supreme Court must have run out of toilet paper, because they just wiped their arse with the Bill of Rights."
- I thought this was rhetorical overkill, so I replied: "It's a fine day, your scatological whine notwithstanding. Get a grip!"
- He responded by posting a doctored picture of my father's grave.

This guy is a Rice alum with a PhD and is a college professor.

This particular incident is not racism, and one is not much of a sample. But it is inconceivable to me that any conservative I know would even consider such a move, much less decide to act on it (which took time and deliberate effort, both to find the photo and then to doctor it). Yet this guy, in the certainty of his righteousness, felt justified in making one of the trashiest moves I have ever seen in my life, on social media or otherwise. And not to a stranger, but to someone who has sat with him at games and has bought him lunch.

That is terrible and I'm sorry that he did that (and that you had to see that).

Perhaps this awful act was inherent in this guy's personality or even in response to something going on in his life? Why does this become a leftist thing? Without knowing any details, it seems that the type of person who would do this has really gone off the deep end.

Both leftists and far-righters do horrible things on a daily basis. Do you really think one side can claim righteousness over the other? Especially in light of the fact that you have let us know that your circle is mainly composed of leftists with advanced degrees? Do you think that you are, therefore, in a position to evaluate the behavior of one group versus the other?

Again... not trying to be combative in light of a really lousy thing that happened to you.

These are the key words to me:

"...in the certainty of his righteousness, felt justified..."

Yes, all sorts of people get this attitude: devout Christians sometimes do, for example. That's why some will bomb abortion clinics. when was the last bombing, anyway?

But to me it screams left wing. It screams Antifa, who in the certainty of their righteousness, feel justified in attacking people and property. It screams of the people who feel justified in shouting down/shutting out campus speakers who are right wing. It screams of PETA and the eco-terrorists, of Greenpeace, of the sanctuary city movement, of BLS, of ... all of it.

It explains "deplorables', it explains MSNBC. It explains the Steele dossier and the usage of same.

"We are right, you are horrible, and we will and should do anything to prevent you from ... whatever."

(06-22-2019 02:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  These are the key words to me:

"...in the certainty of his righteousness, felt justified..."

Yes, all sorts of people get this attitude: devout Christians sometimes do, for example. That's why some will bomb abortion clinics. when was the last bombing, anyway?

You came up with a prime example when it comes to devout Christians. There was that recent police detective in Tennessee that lost his job recently after videos surfaced where he was giving sermons during which he stated that gay people should receive the death penalty. Talk about "certainty of his righteousness"!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c-arO79hjo

(06-22-2019 03:30 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-22-2019 02:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  These are the key words to me:

"...in the certainty of his righteousness, felt justified..."

Yes, all sorts of people get this attitude: devout Christians sometimes do, for example. That's why some will bomb abortion clinics. when was the last bombing, anyway?

You came up with a prime example when it comes to devout Christians. There was that recent police detective in Tennessee that lost his job recently after videos surfaced where he was giving sermons during which he stated that gay people should receive the death penalty. Talk about "certainty of his righteousness"!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c-arO79hjo

So, a lone detective vs. Antifa and the shouting down of right wing speakers? Yep, equal.

Kind of points out what I believe to be true - most (90%?) of the people who feel justified by the righteousness of their beliefs and the certainty in them are...on the left.

Saying there are people on both sides who demonstrate this is not the same as saying it is 50/50.

Who was so certain of their righteousness in the Kavanaugh hearings? The ladies in the elevator? The Democrat committee members? The demonstrators outside?

Who was so certain of the righteousness of the Trump-Russia witch hunt? The right? Noooooo...

Yes, there are people on both sides - but not equal numbers, and not equal, not even proportionate, actions. When WAS the last clinic bombing?

(06-22-2019 04:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-22-2019 03:30 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-22-2019 02:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  These are the key words to me:

"...in the certainty of his righteousness, felt justified..."

Yes, all sorts of people get this attitude: devout Christians sometimes do, for example. That's why some will bomb abortion clinics. when was the last bombing, anyway?

You came up with a prime example when it comes to devout Christians. There was that recent police detective in Tennessee that lost his job recently after videos surfaced where he was giving sermons during which he stated that gay people should receive the death penalty. Talk about "certainty of his righteousness"!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c-arO79hjo

So, a lone detective vs. Antifa and the shouting down of right wing speakers? Yep, equal.

Kind of points out what I believe to be true - most (90%?) of the people who feel justified by the righteousness of their beliefs and the certainty in them are...on the left.

I'd be interested to hear exactly how you came to that conclusion based on what I posted. Can you expand on that?

A "lone" detective... how many parishioners were listening to that detective's sermon? How many agreed with it? How many similar churches are there out there that might have similar beliefs? Maybe the death penalty for homosexuals is extreme... how many believe that gay people should be condemned to eternal torture in hell for their "life choices"? Isn't that being quite "certain of their righteousness"? Does that number on the right start to get near the number of antifa out there?

Quote:Saying there are people on both sides who demonstrate this is not the same as saying it is 50/50.

Who was so certain of their righteousness in the Kavanaugh hearings? The ladies in the elevator? The Democrat committee members? The demonstrators outside?

Pretty sure it was Brett Kavanaugh.

Quote:Who was so certain of the righteousness of the Trump-Russia witch hunt? The right? Noooooo...

Yes, there are people on both sides - but not equal numbers, and not equal, not even proportionate, actions. When WAS the last clinic bombing?

What does the timing of the last clinic bombing have to do with this? When was the last time a police officer used unjustified force against a person of color? Were those police officers "certain of their righteousness"? When was the last time a state told a woman pregnant by rape that she had to carry the baby to term? Were those lawmakers "certain in their righteousness"?

(06-22-2019 05:13 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

Quote:Saying there are people on both sides who demonstrate this is not the same as saying it is 50/50.

Who was so certain of their righteousness in the Kavanaugh hearings? The ladies in the elevator? The Democrat committee members? The demonstrators outside?

Pretty sure it was Brett Kavanaugh.

I think most rational people can see the difference between a 'righteous action' when it is one who is being attacked and being pretty upset about it and 'the ladies in the elevator', 'the Democratic committee members', and the 'demonstrators outside'.

I guess offensive use of righteousness directly equates to a purely defensive manifestation of the same for some. I think there is a boatload of difference between the offensive use of that character trait and one that is defensive in nature.

To be blunt, if I was accused of attempted rape in what really grew to be a political hit job, I can truly understand and sympathize with the righteous reaction from him during the hearing. I think it just a tad warped to compare that reaction to the purely witch hunter actions that stoked it.

If you really believe it fair to directly compare the 'righteousness' of Kavanaugh to that of 'the ladies in the elevator', 'the Democratic committee members', and the 'demonstrators outside' who are pretty much calling for his professional demise, then there probably are very few moral or societal based issues that we will agree on.

(06-22-2019 02:37 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-22-2019 12:38 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-10-2019 05:52 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-10-2019 04:32 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2019 04:14 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Are you open to the possibility that you might be different from the next person in a relevant respect -- e.g. that your biases might be stronger than average, or that your observational powers might be weaker than average?

I am open to the possibility. Do I think that my observational powers are weaker than average? My experience doesn't suggest that, however I am certainly biased when it comes to that question as well.

You haven't ever observed any racist behavior from a conservative while you have from liberals. Are you open to the same possibilities?

I think I have the same degree of openness as you do, and the same degree of confidence in my own abilities. But two data parameters that might be relevant are:

- I know a whole lot of people-- my wife and others often tell me that the number of people I know is astonishing. And of the people I know, the overwhelming majority (by an integral multiple) are on the left. That in itself may explain why I've seen more racist behavior from leftists whom I know than from conservatives whom I know, and more than you've seen from leftists whom you know.

- As I mentioned a while ago, my social circle is extraordinarily loaded with advanced degrees, even by Rice alumni standards. That doesn't make it "better", but it is demographically unusual by any objective measure. It is possible that as they pile on degrees, any latent racist tendencies of conservatives tend to decline or at least be suppressed, while latent racist tendencies of leftists tend to increase or at least are given freer reign. That hypothesis may fit not only yours and my observational data, but also some of the other topics cited in this thread.

Yesterday I unfortunately experienced an anecdotal example that is consistent with the theory that leftists may become more noxious the more degrees they pile on. A leftist who I thought was a friend posted the following comment on the Supreme Court's 7-2 decision on the Maryland war memorial cross:
- He posted: "It's a terrible day for the Constitution . . . The Supreme Court must have run out of toilet paper, because they just wiped their arse with the Bill of Rights."
- I thought this was rhetorical overkill, so I replied: "It's a fine day, your scatological whine notwithstanding. Get a grip!"
- He responded by posting a doctored picture of my father's grave.

This guy is a Rice alum with a PhD and is a college professor.

This particular incident is not racism, and one is not much of a sample. But it is inconceivable to me that any conservative I know would even consider such a move, much less decide to act on it (which took time and deliberate effort, both to find the photo and then to doctor it). Yet this guy, in the certainty of his righteousness, felt justified in making one of the trashiest moves I have ever seen in my life, on social media or otherwise. And not to a stranger, but to someone who has sat with him at games and has bought him lunch.

That is terrible and I'm sorry that he did that (and that you had to see that).

Perhaps this awful act was inherent in this guy's personality or even in response to something going on in his life? Why does this become a leftist thing? Without knowing any details, it seems that the type of person who would do this has really gone off the deep end.

Both leftists and far-righters do horrible things on a daily basis. Do you really think one side can claim righteousness over the other? Especially in light of the fact that you have let us know that your circle is mainly composed of leftists with advanced degrees? Do you think that you are, therefore, in a position to evaluate the behavior of one group versus the other?

Again... not trying to be combative in light of a really lousy thing that happened to you.

Thanks. Those are all fair questions. In fact, the whole thing raises questions more than anything else. I certainly don't know the answers.

Also, to be clear, I'm not really all that hurt by it, but I am stupefied.

(06-22-2019 05:58 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-22-2019 05:13 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

Quote:Saying there are people on both sides who demonstrate this is not the same as saying it is 50/50.

Who was so certain of their righteousness in the Kavanaugh hearings? The ladies in the elevator? The Democrat committee members? The demonstrators outside?

Pretty sure it was Brett Kavanaugh.

I think most rational people can see the difference between a 'righteous action' when it is one who is being attacked and being pretty upset about it and 'the ladies in the elevator', 'the Democratic committee members', and the 'demonstrators outside'.

I guess offensive use of righteousness directly equates to a purely defensive manifestation of the same for some. I think there is a boatload of difference between the offensive use of that character trait and one that is defensive in nature.

To be blunt, if I was accused of attempted rape in what really grew to be a political hit job, I can truly understand and sympathize with the righteous reaction from him during the hearing. I think it just a tad warped to compare that reaction to the purely witch hunter actions that stoked it.

I believe his accuser and you don't. Hence our different reactions to Kavanaugh, the trial and its accompanying circus.

Quote:If you really believe it fair to directly compare the 'righteousness' of Kavanaugh to that of 'the ladies in the elevator', 'the Democratic committee members', and the 'demonstrators outside' who are pretty much calling for his professional demise, then there probably are very few moral or societal based issues that we will agree on.

See above. If you believed his accuser you would probably feel like I do. If I thought she was lying I would feel like you do.

(06-22-2019 06:01 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-22-2019 02:37 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-22-2019 12:38 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-10-2019 05:52 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-10-2019 04:32 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I am open to the possibility. Do I think that my observational powers are weaker than average? My experience doesn't suggest that, however I am certainly biased when it comes to that question as well.

You haven't ever observed any racist behavior from a conservative while you have from liberals. Are you open to the same possibilities?

I think I have the same degree of openness as you do, and the same degree of confidence in my own abilities. But two data parameters that might be relevant are:

- I know a whole lot of people-- my wife and others often tell me that the number of people I know is astonishing. And of the people I know, the overwhelming majority (by an integral multiple) are on the left. That in itself may explain why I've seen more racist behavior from leftists whom I know than from conservatives whom I know, and more than you've seen from leftists whom you know.

- As I mentioned a while ago, my social circle is extraordinarily loaded with advanced degrees, even by Rice alumni standards. That doesn't make it "better", but it is demographically unusual by any objective measure. It is possible that as they pile on degrees, any latent racist tendencies of conservatives tend to decline or at least be suppressed, while latent racist tendencies of leftists tend to increase or at least are given freer reign. That hypothesis may fit not only yours and my observational data, but also some of the other topics cited in this thread.

Yesterday I unfortunately experienced an anecdotal example that is consistent with the theory that leftists may become more noxious the more degrees they pile on. A leftist who I thought was a friend posted the following comment on the Supreme Court's 7-2 decision on the Maryland war memorial cross:
- He posted: "It's a terrible day for the Constitution . . . The Supreme Court must have run out of toilet paper, because they just wiped their arse with the Bill of Rights."
- I thought this was rhetorical overkill, so I replied: "It's a fine day, your scatological whine notwithstanding. Get a grip!"
- He responded by posting a doctored picture of my father's grave.

This guy is a Rice alum with a PhD and is a college professor.

This particular incident is not racism, and one is not much of a sample. But it is inconceivable to me that any conservative I know would even consider such a move, much less decide to act on it (which took time and deliberate effort, both to find the photo and then to doctor it). Yet this guy, in the certainty of his righteousness, felt justified in making one of the trashiest moves I have ever seen in my life, on social media or otherwise. And not to a stranger, but to someone who has sat with him at games and has bought him lunch.

That is terrible and I'm sorry that he did that (and that you had to see that).

Perhaps this awful act was inherent in this guy's personality or even in response to something going on in his life? Why does this become a leftist thing? Without knowing any details, it seems that the type of person who would do this has really gone off the deep end.

Both leftists and far-righters do horrible things on a daily basis. Do you really think one side can claim righteousness over the other? Especially in light of the fact that you have let us know that your circle is mainly composed of leftists with advanced degrees? Do you think that you are, therefore, in a position to evaluate the behavior of one group versus the other?

Again... not trying to be combative in light of a really lousy thing that happened to you.

Thanks. Those are all fair questions. In fact, the whole thing raises questions more than anything else. I certainly don't know the answers.

Also, to be clear, I'm not really all that hurt by it, but I am stupefied.

As well you should be. That is a shocking story.