Great, so putting aside the former "implication" which I'm less interested in... please explain the latter "larger one about George Floyd, protesters, and "protesters".That has some interesting implications on the discussion, however. Both the one about arbitrary property valuation and the larger one about George Floyd, protesters, and "protesters".
Right. We've established that there needs to be basis for opinions to be held in higher regard than other opinions. The law in this case fails to possess such basis.
And one of these opinions will be more accurate in a particular situation...namely how much "stuff" a person can get using a bag of yellow bricks. For whatever method you use to value property in the form of physical objects, it will eventually look something like ranking it in terms of monetary value.
Now, we need to establish a coherent legal basis to weight things differently than the already established legal basis of financial value, despite that the damage is still financial in the given example (assuming nobody is in the burned building).
I believe that certain constructs and organizations have value greater than its monetary value is coherently based uponconsensus, legal precedents, and history.Nobody has established a coherent basis for claiming property "transcends pure monetary analysis", however.
"I consider your position patently absurd", and the fact that it's ignoring inconvenient arguments against it that have already been made to be a mark against its validity.
If you want to claim value beyond accepted monetary value with regards to property, there needs to be some way to demonstrate that value. When people try, this tends to keep looking like money. So special money? Or do you have something that demonstrates something beyond that?
A statue does not generally serve any function in community, and thus does not contribute to function of society aside from as a decorative fixture. A church holds services and engages in other valuable community activities.Destruction of property with no due reason endangers the continuation of society. Committing either act could be and should be considered felony. No need to play pretend with value propositions.
Actually, you're damaging a building, and with some difficulty perhaps some harm can be traced beyond that building and factored.
Statues can and usually do represent something also. Perhaps repeated destruction of statues can be construed as an attack on either what they represent or their respective communities. Why not? It's as solid a basis as is being presented in the quote.
And thus it is not clear that there is "necessity for harsher penalty".
I guess the community decided otherwise
I still have yet to hear a good explanation as to (a.) what the motivations are of a cabal of closet neo-Nazis putting in secret codes (that aren't even secret since they get reported on each time they're "found") and (b.) what the numerologists think when they likely fail to find whatever it is they're looking for since not every ad or message gets reported on as having these secret codes.
The two possibilities as I see it are:
First, there is an underground network of neo-Nazis covertly operating in the Republican Party, sending hidden messages to neo-Nazis which accomplish... something, I guess? Again, I'm lost as to what's actually supposed to happen.
Or, people ascribe significance to coincidence, which is something that happens a lot and life is just mundane with people looking for something to do.
I'm going with the second.
Said the whites who burned down the black church.
It's not arbitrary.
I just don't understand where people are seeing armed police shooting peaceful protesters and reporters dead in the streets, with the entire political establishment agreeing this is OK, and deciding that we need to talk about statues.
please explain the latter "larger one about George Floyd, protesters, and "protesters".
law in this case succeeds to possess such basis.
Hence why we have common laws and consensus based reality.
Questioning a validity of an argument by noting its positions are absurd have been a valid logical debating technique since the times of Ancient Greece.
If I were to base my argument upon the hypothesis that the color of the sky is hot pink, you would be correct to call me out for my absurdity. Likewise if the conclusion of my argument is that death is actually life or that the law does not apply to us, i would consider such a conclusion an absurd one requiring an enormously large burden of proof.
As all value including monetary exists as a matter of consensus opinion, I argue that as you keep looking, it keeps looking like an opinion rather than money. “When people try, this tends to look like money” is an unproven assertion from your end. As such, I am not compelled to prove your point by arguing demonstrable value similar to monetary value.
I am not substantiating a position. I’m pointing out that you have failed to substantiate yours.
A statue does not generally serve any function in community, and thus does not contribute to function of society aside from as a decorative fixture.
A church holds services and engages in other valuable community activities.
good thing we have laws founded upon consensus which spells out exactly why burning a building is bad and why it should be punished in this and such manner
It could represent something of such nature, yes. You could consider that maybe when statues of racist slave owners get vandalized, it is a systemic attack on racist slave owners or their ilk.
We have agreed upon by consensus that racism is a problem and slave owning is illegal, and thus, destruction of these statues for these reasons do not constitute a violation aside from property destruction and is not an attack on our community.
on that same token if statues or busts of civil rights movements or minorities get destroyed or defaced I could entertain the possibility that this constitutes a systemic effort to terrorize said minority groups, and thus constitute a hate crime. This would necessitate a harsher penalty than simple vandalism.
As such the logic would still remain consistent.
lol
Not all of the protestors are peaceful, and not all of the police actions are justified or unjustified. Who is at fault depends on the specific sequence of events in each case.
Similarly, protests over the Atlanta shooting do not share the same credible basis as protests of the Floyd murder. Those incidents aren't even close to each other.
Let me say this up front so it's clear: the people who are actually peacefully assembling and do nothing but shout/hold up signs are not guilty of what is described below. I will disrespect claims that I'm saying otherwise in future posts.
~~~
What the "community" (in quotes because it does not represent everyone living there) decided was to break the law outright and commit arson, among numerous other serious crimes. The same arson that a moment ago was condemned by multiple posters here because it might kill people (outside of the context of the property discussion). The "protesters" who are less than peaceful have also forced a reduction in access to food and basic public services...exactly the kind of "hate actions" implied by the destruction of a church above...only on a much larger and more directly measurable scale. Given the heavy usage rate of places like Target imply that they could reasonably claim to be "community centers" also with similarly credible basis as any church.
Now we have cities/areas where truckers rightly refuse to deliver more stuff to them, businesses canceling plans to enter or pulling out of the areas entirely (creating more food deserts and less law enforcement of any variety...something these communities once demanded rather than decried in general).
The implication is therefore that those in favor of "hate crimes" as defined for protected groups must define rioters as committing hate crimes, the criminals that burn things like police buildings as terrorists.
Show it.
"consensus based reality" << objective reality. We use the former when the latter isn't known/knowable. You can't have a self-inconsistent/incoherent "consensus based reality", however. Reality in the constraints of macroscopic scales that we observe doesn't work that way.
With the caveat that doing so requires a demonstration of why the argument is absurd.
Yet despite saying this, your apparent proposition seems close to the above. Let's set property = P, non-property value as X, and another non-property value as Y. Your apparent proposition is:
P + X > P + Y
What you're not doing, however, is creating any clear basis to evaluate or even establish X / Y. Property damage that goes unenforced will damage a community regardless of its nature (so that should be X on either side of the equation). Your assertions of the "community" boil down to another measurable P, rather than a variable that actually transcends P. That means we could still better operate in a model of:
P = P, and simply calculate P in each instance.
Coherent valuation implies a consistent utility function.
I assert that there is no coherent basis to support P > P, which is an apparent assertion. Proving a negative in this context isn't feasible. In contrast, my argument could be defeated by simply providing some self-consistent basis. Which if the rationale for the law were sound, we would expect to be trivial.
A decorative fixture is a function.
Actually churches mostly just sit there. People in the churches might provide valuable services in addition to the building's value, but we had ruled out damage to them directly as part of the hypothetical.
Similarly, police structures do not enforce law by themselves. The way you argue about churches, however, we should presume that they do and thus treat the rioters as hate criminals with a greater penalty.
Yep, and what law is cited when someone sets fire to other, non-building property?
Hmmm, still arson.
Far from the only statues that get attacked, but my argumentative perspective doesn't affix this kind of arbitrary conclusions favoring or disfavoring things based on personal preference so that doesn't really matter to me.
Statues don't commit racist acts or own slaves, fortunately. But we agree, this is property destruction, just like destroying a church with nobody in it is property destruction.
This has actually happened, as noted earlier in this thread. People weren't falling over themselves to label the perps as hate criminals though, despite that internal consistency would demand it.
And no, it would not "necessitate" a harsher penalty. You are advocating for one (potentially), that is not what necessity means.
Except it isn't, because you are selectively favoring minorities and civil rights movements.
We're operating in a hypothetical.
Start a new thread with your racist hot takes tyvm.
I suggest the title "White Statues vs Black Churches"
KKK terrorism is not hypothetical. Church arson happened. Including deaths and injuries and some had no casualties. Statue vandalism is real too. We don't have to imagine anything to make the argument that one is more serious crime than the other. It's literally written in law.
Calling my takes "racist" while I argue against arguments/assertions that intentionally discriminate against people based on race is comical.
Consistency of the law and behavior of the protestors and "protestors" are directly related issues to this thread, so I won't listen to your attempt to shout me down.
Derp
If you want more than that, please address the previous response.
. But cops are risking their lives for us so most people will give them some leeway
Denying race and their implications on policy decisions is racist.
Having a multi page discussion about the legality of burning churches vs tearing down statues is a distraction. It was fine for a bit but has turned into its own thing.
Note: I do not consider your take even worthy of response other than its gone on too long.
I didn't do this.
Unfortunately.
In my defense I have tried to relate this back to how it relates to rioters and burning police buildings to illustrate where I was going with it. However, I continue to get responses about that specific line of discussion. If you extend your request to focus back on the Floyd protests and the questionably charged "protesting while black" title topic to the rest of the posters as well, I can honor that and concentrate on why specifically these preferential laws are detrimental rather than beneficial to the issues that prompted the protests.
No worries, when I see posts like this I don't respect the person making them at the time either so it's mutual. No hard feelings.
I get it. You have the supreme enlightenment of reason and logick on your side. Now that we have established your perfect Platonic ideal of society, can we go to objective reality, much of which is objectively unknowable, such as property value, which is roughly 300% arbitrary, and discuss how things are in the real world?Calling my takes "racist" while I argue against arguments/assertions that intentionally discriminate against people based on race is comical.
Consistency of the law and behavior of the protestors and "protestors" are directly related issues to this thread, so I won't listen to your attempt to shout me down.
Derp
If you want more than that, please address the previous response.
What the "community" (in quotes because it does not represent everyone living there) decided was to break the law outright and commit arson, among numerous other serious crimes. The same arson that a moment ago was condemned by multiple posters here because it might kill people (outside of the context of the property discussion). The "protesters" who are less than peaceful have also forced a reduction in access to food and basic public services...exactly the kind of "hate actions" implied by the destruction of a church above...only on a much larger and more directly measurable scale. Given the heavy usage rate of places like Target imply that they could reasonably claim to be "community centers" also with similarly credible basis as any church.
This of course, sucks, but the strength of the protests nationwide as well as polling averages indicate that most people agree the goals of the protest are more important than temporary economic hardships.Now we have cities/areas where truckers rightly refuse to deliver more stuff to them, businesses canceling plans to enter or pulling out of the areas entirely (creating more food deserts and less law enforcement of any variety...something these communities once demanded rather than decried in general).
This of course, is a ridiculous conclusion requiring a large burden of proof.The implication is therefore that those in favor of "hate crimes" as defined for protected groups must define rioters as committing hate crimes, the criminals that burn things like police buildings as terrorists.
Show it.
"consensus based reality" << objective reality. We use the former when the latter isn't known/knowable. You can't have a self-inconsistent/incoherent "consensus based reality", however. Reality in the constraints of macroscopic scales that we observe doesn't work that way.
With the caveat that doing so requires a demonstration of why the argument is absurd.
Yet despite saying this, your apparent proposition seems close to the above. Let's set property = P, non-property value as X, and another non-property value as Y. Your apparent proposition is:
P + X > P + Y
What you're not doing, however, is creating any clear basis to evaluate or even establish X / Y. Property damage that goes unenforced will damage a community regardless of its nature (so that should be X on either side of the equation). Your assertions of the "community" boil down to another measurable P, rather than a variable that actually transcends P. That means we could still better operate in a model of:
P = P, and simply calculate P in each instance.
Coherent valuation implies a consistent utility function.
Rationale for the law are sound in that a church is naturally more valuable for a community than a statue.I assert that there is no coherent basis to support P > P, which is an apparent assertion. Proving a negative in this context isn't feasible. In contrast, my argument could be defeated by simply providing some self-consistent basis. Which if the rationale for the law were sound, we would expect to be trivial.
A decorative fixture is a function.
Actually churches mostly just sit there. People in the churches might provide valuable services in addition to the building's value, but we had ruled out damage to them directly as part of the hypothetical.
Similarly, police structures do not enforce law by themselves. The way you argue about churches, however, we should presume that they do and thus treat the rioters as hate criminals with a greater penalty.
Yep, and what law is cited when someone sets fire to other, non-building property?
Hmmm, still arson.
Far from the only statues that get attacked, but my argumentative perspective doesn't affix this kind of arbitrary conclusions favoring or disfavoring things based on personal preference so that doesn't really matter to me.
Statues don't commit racist acts or own slaves, fortunately. But we agree, this is property destruction, just like destroying a church with nobody in it is property destruction.
This has actually happened, as noted earlier in this thread. People weren't falling over themselves to label the perps as hate criminals though, despite that internal consistency would demand it.
And no, it would not "necessitate" a harsher penalty. You are advocating for one (potentially), that is not what necessity means.
Except it isn't, because you are selectively favoring minorities and civil rights movements.
It shouldn’t take a big brain legal genius to figure out that this is a violation of first amendment rights and dangerous to our very concept of democracy.Phoenix PD decide peaceful protest is unlawful assembly
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/poli...t-unlawful-assembly/ar-BB15Tsk8?ocid=msedgdhp