The Derek Chauvin Trial

@engineer,

You’re such a champion of the oppressed, aren’t you?

@snood,

Always something to disagree with, eh snood?

@roger,

Not sure what you mean. If you have a problem with me, speak plainly.

Yes, I speak my mind when I disagree with something.

I’ll take my own advice and speak plainly.

Where I stand about Oralloy is that he brings the “pile on” on himself. He spams threads relentlessly with mindless racism and insane conspiracies. If you ignore him it takes up pages just in ‘user ignored’ spaces. So we confront him - which is just as ineffectual as ignoring him.

What would remedy it is if the moderators with any power over what’s allowed here stopped the mindless spamming and racist garbage.

But that’s evidently too much to ask for. Instead, what we get is “just ignore him”. If it was a public space being trolled by a drunken skinhead, at least the cops could be called to get rid of him.

2 Replies

@snood,

I like the Ignore User feature! I'd rather have pages of "user ignored" spaces than read some of what's on here. I see I've been accused of being nasty, but I only know that from others' responses. Saved myself some aggro.

1 Reply

@Mame,

Mame wrote:

I like the Ignore User feature! I'd rather have pages of "user ignored" spaces than read some of what's on here. I see I've been accused of being nasty, but I only know that from others' responses. Saved myself some aggro.

Thanks for sharing

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

Always something to disagree with, eh snood?

Say what you mean plainly. Don’t throw stones and run away like a little sissy.

0 Replies

@engineer,

Regarding 'ignore' - I differ from some on this - I think that for everyone, their individual statements should be treated on their own merits. Often enough, oralloy says things I agree with or have no issue with. Numerous times, he says things that cause logical or moral/ethical dramas (and frequently enough to form a pattern) - whether he sees it or not.

You are right though - it does add nothing of value to the thread. The previous page proved that. And yet, as snood said - problems should be able to be confronted./ discussed.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Something has been bugging me for a long time, and I think I just understood a small part of it. This isn't a criticism, but rather an explanation - Oralloy doesn't understand inferance. He's alread said he sees the world in black & white. He doesn't understand why:
- if he agrees with the conviction of Chauvin, while saying that Floyd was actively resisting
-and refuses to say that during the period that Floyd was killed he was not actively resisting
...he doesn't understnd why people would accuse him of 'blaming Floyd for his own death', nor accuse him of lying, nor why people would accuse him of being racist. To him, this isn't logical, because he can't grasp that there is inferred meaning of such a position.

The same goes for Arbery/McMichaels - he agreed with the lawful reason for charging the McMichaels (even though he said it should be changed so they wouldn't have been charged)...and thinks this is support for the victim...even while every subjective word and statement he issued inferred he McMichaels were 99% doing the right thing and that Arbery was to blame for his own death...but he can't translate the inferance, and so thinks it's an illogical conclusion that he is displaying racism.

There are other issues I think, but I think this is where much of the problem arises. Everyone talks about the obvious inferred meaning...and oralloy thinks their lying because he can't/doesn't process inferred meanings. It may be why patterns of behaviour appear meaningless to him (this last is still in the guess stage for me)

2 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

Where I stand about Oralloy is that he brings the “pile on” on himself.

Bullies always blame other people for their bullying. It's always entirely BS.

You are responsible for your own acts.

snood wrote:

He spams threads relentlessly with mindless racism and insane conspiracies.

That's a lie. I do no such thing.

Your real complaint is merely that I do not agree with you.

Like most progressives, you hate anyone who doesn't agree with you.

snood wrote:

So we confront him - which is just as ineffectual as ignoring him.

Confronting me is ineffectual because you are not capable of using facts or logic.

Had you been capable of using facts and logic, you would be capable of confronting me effectively.

snood wrote:

What would remedy it is if the moderators with any power over what’s allowed here stopped the mindless spamming and racist garbage.

Again, no such racism. You are lying about me.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Something has been bugging me for a long time, and I think I just understood a small part of it. This isn't a criticism, but rather an explanation - Oralloy doesn't understand inferance.

Just to be sure, I started off this reply by looking it up so I could work from an official explanation.

Infer: To conclude or decide from something known or assumed; derive by reasoning; draw as a conclusion.

I do know what that is. I do it quite often.

I am of the firm opinion that people with low IQs should not be allowed to do things like this. They are not capable of thinking.

vikorr wrote:

He's alread said he sees the world in black & white.

No. The world IS black and white. I merely see the world.

vikorr wrote:

He doesn't understand why:
- if he agrees with the conviction of Chauvin, while saying that Floyd was actively resisting
-and refuses to say that during the period that Floyd was killed he was not actively resisting
...he doesn't understnd why people would accuse him of 'blaming Floyd for his own death', nor accuse him of lying, nor why people would accuse him of being racist.

I understand completely.

Those people use lies and name-calling to fill the void left by their inability to make intelligent arguments.

vikorr wrote:

To him, this isn't logical, because he can't grasp that there is inferred meaning of such a position.

Correct.

And I'm right.

vikorr wrote:

The same goes for Arbery/McMichaels - he agreed with the lawful reason for charging the McMichaels (even though he said it should be changed so they wouldn't have been charged)

Nonsense. What I said was that I thought it was manslaughter not murder.

I referred to an effort to change the law so that such an act would be charged as manslaughter and not murder. I do not recall taking a position on that effort, either for or against.

vikorr wrote:

...and thinks this is support for the victim...even while every subjective word and statement he issued inferred he McMichaels were 99% doing the right thing

Nonsense again. Before Amy Cooper I said the McMichaels were entirely in the wrong. I merely said it was manslaughter not murder until MJ posted the additional evidence.

After Amy Cooper things are entirely different of course.

vikorr wrote:

and that Arbery was to blame for his own death

I have never, ever, said anything like that.

vikorr wrote:

...but he can't translate the inferance, and so thinks it's an illogical conclusion that he is displaying racism.

Well it is true that there would be no such logical conclusion.

But let's be clear. This is not an illogical conclusion. It is a lie by someone who is using personal attacks to fill in for their inability to make intelligent arguments.

vikorr wrote:

There are other issues I think, but I think this is where much of the problem arises. Everyone talks about the obvious inferred meaning...and oralloy thinks their lying because he can't/doesn't process inferred meanings.

It is the exact opposite. I'm about the only one here who is smart enough to process inferred meanings.

The rest of you should not be trying to think for yourselves.

vikorr wrote:

It may be why patterns of behaviour appear meaningless to him (this last is still in the guess stage for me)

I have no idea what you are even talking about.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

I am of the firm opinion that people with low IQs should not be allowed to do things like this. They are not capable of thinking.

But... a lot of them own guns. How does that work for you?

1 Reply

@Mame,

People should of course exercise proper gun safety. Otherwise what's the problem? Civil liberties apply to everyone regardless of their intelligence.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

But, if they don't have the right IQ or sense of how and when they should use them... do you think they should still be able to own a gun?

1 Reply

@Mame,

I think most people are able to understand proper gun safety.

But if someone proves to be utterly unsafe with a gun, that could justify restricting their access to guns.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

So how would you go about judging who's unsafe to have a gun and how to restrict them?

1 Reply

@snood,

snood wrote:

Thanks for sharing

LOL Any time

0 Replies

@vikorr,

Oralloys reply quite clearly illustrated what I was saying...

...And after writing my previous post, I realised that the same issue goes in the other direction. The human mind automatically creates inferences from the information available (this is a survival trait bread into our DNA so that we can act to survive even with limited information). But oralloy doesn't know that this is what his mind does for him when he is putting 2 & 2 together, and because his mind is so strongly geared to see things in black and white for him - he believes the inference he arrives at to be the logical conclusion (ie fact), which is why he can't tell his opinion from fact.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

You really are in no position to speculate about the workings of a mind that is nearly infinitely superior to your own mind.

Inferences and logical conclusions are indeed quite similar to each other when smart people are doing the thinking, but no. They are both quite different from facts. Facts are what intelligent people start with, and then inferences are drawn from those facts.

You cannot provide a single example of me confusing my opinion with fact. You are lying about me (yet again) when you say that I do any such thing.

I do wish you'd stop lying about me all the time.

1 Reply

@Mame,

Mame wrote:

So how would you go about judging who's unsafe to have a gun and how to restrict them?

I would have gun owners periodically pass a gun safety training course.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

There's no point providing what you cannot see and/or cannot understand - People providing very obvious examples have found this to be the case with you over and over and over again.

1 Reply

The Derek Chauvin Trial

Quick Links

My Account

able2know