The Derek Chauvin Trial

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

You making perfect statements of him being a rapist/murderer is you trying to associate him more strongly with a rapist/murderer (ie. demonise him)

Maybe so. But luckily for me I don't say anything like that.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

You don't even comprehend what you are saying do you?

Sure I do. I am pointing out that white people have an expanded right to open fire in self defense whenever they reasonably perceive that a minority is a threat to them.

vikorr wrote:

- Christian Cooper obviously meant nothing hostile to her dog (giving a dog a treat is not hostile towards the dog). Likely Interpretation of 'you won't like the outcome' (ie. perception) - in line with the lack of hostile intent towards her dog: Showing a person that a dog off leash will go for treats (or birds) is also not hostile. It showing a person the consequences of a dog being off leash. Some people don't like being shown how poor/wrong their decisions are. I would imagine the % of people who don't like such displays are those arrogant enough to have been asked to put a lead on their dog and telling the other person they won't.[/i]

He threatened her, and then tried to lure her pet away from her. That is factually hostile. That is justification enough to open fire in self defense.

vikorr wrote:

- Christian Cooper said some words that Amy Cooper had to perceive, in order to 'understand' them (ie. form a perception of what they meant).
- The hostile context you talk about only could be a perceived context on on the part of Amy Cooper. Her perception is not fact.

Her perception doesn't have to be fact. If she reasonably perceives that he means to murder or rape her, that is justification enough to open fire in self defense.

vikorr wrote:

- Christian Cooper engaged in no violence, remained calm, and asked her multiple times not to come near him. This is fact.

His attack on her dog could be considered violence.

vikorr wrote:

Sorry, but it is you who said everything you said is factual. When you say that - then whether or not what you say is factual is all that matters.

That is incorrect. There are other things that matter too.

But I do agree that it is an important point that everything I've said is true.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Yup. Otherwise people could make up any excuse they like, and (according to you-know-who) shoot, shovel and shut up.

You don't quite get the concept.

That last step "shut up" does not involve communicating any excuses to any authorities, and it does not result in any release of cell phone video.

Those Georgia guys releasing video of their attack on the jogger guy were a classic example of "doing it wrong".

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

But I do agree that it is an important point that everything I've said is true.

If you are backtracking from "That's another lie. Everything I've said is entirely factual. That's why you have to lie about me instead of addressing the subject of the thread." that is fine - as very obviously, everything you said wasn't factual.

As for what you say being true - you are just guessing it's true, as knowing it's true would require minding reading abilities. Yes, yes, I know, you actually can read other peoples minds, so it must be true. Which is strange because virtually no one agrees with your interpretations (ie. almost no one thinks like you...but you can actually speak for them... how you can read another persons mind is truly amazing). If you can't read minds then it becomes even more astounding...as again, virtually no one thinks like you.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

No backtracking. The words "true" and "factual" are interchangeable.

All of my facts are 100% correct. You cannot point out any untrue statements in my posts.

I have never claimed to be able to read people's minds. You continue to make false accusations against me.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Dude, for a person with a self-alleged IQ of 170, you can be quite dense, as we've already had a discussion on perception vs fact.

- Fact = what is (without perception involved)
- Truth = what is perceived to be correct (which can be incorrect, and so no fact)

- Fact is based on the existance of thing
- Truth is based on perception/belief that X is correct

- truth is often be about interpretation (you can believe your perception / interpretation / conclusions / deductions of events to be true)
- Fact is never about interpretation / perception

I may believe my perception that a frog is a human prince, and to me, that is true. That doesn't make it fact. I may believe that Person A intended X when saying Y. That doesn't make it fact.

Fact & Truth are only interchangable when a person is stating a fact (which is then a truth)

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Nonsense. Truth and fact are interchangeable. Reality means the same thing too.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Uh huh. A person who perceives a frog to be a prince is telling the truth when they say the frog is a prince, but not a fact. They could say so in a court, after swearing an oath, because they believe it to be true, and so to them, it is the truth. That they are mistaken about the fact isn't relevant to whether or not a person is telling the truth.

A fact is a reality that cannot be logically disputed or rejected...A truth on the other hand, is almost the opposite.

William Faulkner wryly commented, “Facts and truth really don’t have much to do with each other.” Unfortunately, he was often correct. Different truths can be divined from a single set of facts.

Two Realities: Truth and Fact (and They’re Not the Same)...Fact is indisputable. Truth is acceptable.

Science is the pursuit of facts, not truth. A scientist leaves the ownership of truth to philosophers and theologians. The currency of science is the provable, not the believable.

We look INSIDE ourselves to find TRUTHS and OUTSIDE of ourselves to find FACTS

1. Facts are more objective when compared to the more subjective truths.
2. Facts are more permanent when compared to the more temporary truths.
3. Facts exist in reality, whereas truths are usually the things that one believes to be true, or the things that are true in the current situation.
4. Facts can also answer the ‘where,’ ‘when’ and ‘how’ questions, whereas truths answer the ‘why’ question.

Fact is basically something that exists...Facts are objective matters rather than subjective ones. It is not just something that you believe, but..things that can be observed empirically, or by the senses.

Truth ...is what a person has come to believe. If he believes that something is true, then it is true.

facts can answer certain ‘why’ questions, like ‘where’ or ‘when’, and even ‘how’, while truth answers the question ‘why’. The question of ‘how’, and even ‘what’, are said to be answerable by either of the two.

Theres plenty more on the subject.

It shouldn't be my job to educate you on the very obvious differences. Having a self alleged IQ of 170 this should already be obvious to you, as understanding it is necessary to higher level problem solving, which problem solving ability all ultra high IQ's must possess in order to score said ultra-high IQ's.

1 Reply

He sometimes has problems with nuances, like for instance, what is real and what is an Easter bunny.

1 Reply

@BillW,

If that were true then you could point out untrue statements in my posts.

Yet you cannot.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

This progressive nonsense about the truth being whatever progressives want it to be, is nothing but progressive nonsense.

Truth = reality = fact. Period.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Well, my truth for example, is that you are a racist. So accoding to your logic, it must be fact, period.

At least you just explained why you are unable to tell the difference between your opinions and fact.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Wrong. You are lying when you accuse me of racism.

You are also lying when you accuse me of being unable to tell the difference between opinion and fact.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Are you back to using your mindreading abilities again?

1 Reply

@vikorr,

You are lying when you say that I have ever claimed to read minds.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Of course you just did (by implication). If it were the case that I didn't honestly believe you to be a racist (ie. I was lying)- you would only be able to tell that by reading my mind. But to me it is the truth - so by your argument, factually, you are a racist.

Of course my view - it is my opinion, which I believe to be true. But also one backed up by a LOT of evidence from your writings.

You do understand that people with ultra-high IQ's not only understand the difference between fact & truth - but also understand the implications of their own writings?

1 Reply

@vikorr,

You are lying when you say I claimed to be a mind reader.

You are lying when you accuse me of racism.

You are lying when you say there is a difference between "fact", "truth", and "reality".

You do not speak for people with "ultra high IQs".

1 Reply

@oralloy,

You realise that Truth & Fact have different definitions, right? Therefore they are different. Philosophers talk of the difference. Scientists talk of the difference. Logic debates talk about the difference. Courts talk about the difference, Politicians talk about the difference....because they are different.

You realise that a lie is something that people believe to be false right? And you can't even explain why I would believe it to be false. That leaves you being able to read minds, because it is the only way a person wouldn't be able to explain why a lie is a lie.

Both of these are obvious to people of just average intelligence.

All traits, particularly intelligence, have commonalities - identifying hallmarks. I don't need to speak for people with ultra-high intelligence to know what the hallmarks of ultra high intelligence are.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Wrong. They mean the same thing.

Your claim about intelligence having identifying hallmarks is similarly nonsense. Unless maybe you are referring to the trait of "always being able to understand things".

If you are not lying, and you actually believe all the falsehoods that you spew, then you are highly delusional. But I believe that you are merely dishonest. I do admit that I could be wrong.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Your claim about intelligence having identifying hallmarks is similarly nonsense.

Alright, it seems I was wrong about you being above average intelligence. A look through the hallmarks reveals you have way more hallmarks of below average intelligence than hallmarks of above average intelligence (and anyone of slightly above average intelligence knows there are hallmarks)

https://financesonline.com/13-most-intelligent-people-in-the-history-of-the-world/
By the way, somehow the historians left you off this list of most intelligence people in history - starting at 165. You self allege 170,, so silly them for not being able to read the Mensa list, and silly Mensa for not correcting them.

Hallmarks of high intelligence

Quote:

https://cognitiontoday.com/signs-of-high-intelligence/#Personality_traits_of_highly_intelligent_people
Positive signs of high intelligence
1. Good memory and thinking ability
2. Good attitude and hard-working nature
3. General and Tacit Knowledge
4. Good language proficiency and reasoning skills
5. Reliable decision-making
6. Trusted by others
7. High Creativity
8. High Achievements
9. Problem-solving
10. Intuition

Hallmarks of low intelligence

Quote:

https://www.psychmechanics.com/signs-of-low-intelligence/
1. Lacking curiosity
2. Lacking intellectual humility
3. Closed-mindedness
4. Not interested in learning
5. Not seeking novelty
6. Avoid thinking
7. Diminished ability to reflect on things
8. Lacking critical thinking
9. Not changing their minds often
10. Black and white thinking
11. Lacking creativity
12. Lacking cognitive flexibility
13. Short-term thinking
14. Poor decision-making
15. Unrealistic thinkers
16. Poor interpersonal skills

BLACK & WHITE THINKING / SEEING THE WORLD IN BLACK & WHITE

Quote:

https://www.healthline.com/health/mental-health/black-and-white-thinking
Black and white thinking is the tendency to think in extremes: I am a brilliant success, or I am an utter failure. My boyfriend is an angel, or He’s the devil incarnate.

This thought pattern, which the American Psychological Association also calls dichotomous or polarized thinking, is considered a cognitive distortion because it keeps us from seeing the world as it often is: complex, nuanced, and full of all the shades in between.

Quote:

https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/black-and-white-thinking
Black and white thinking is a thought pattern that makes people think in absolutes. For instance, you may think you are either always right or the world’s biggest failure. Psychologists consider this thought pattern to be a cognitive distortion because it keeps you from seeing life the way it really is: complex, uncertain, and constantly changing.

Quote:

https://www.learning-mind.com/black-and-white-thinking/
The black-and-white thinking divides reality into light and dark with a clean-cut, canceling its complexity, ambiguity, and every nuance. It makes us think in terms of “all or nothing”.

Exercising all-or-nothing thinking means believing that things can be completely right or totally wrong, that people are either friends or foes, that the days are perfect or a nightmare, that all that is not a success is a failure, and that all that is not virtuous is vicious. It is now or never. We are beautiful or ugly, that you love or you hate, and so on.

In short: black-and-white thinking tends to define a situation by making clear, rigid, and permanent distinctions. It reduces the multiform, complex, and sometimes indecipherable chaos to “this” or “that”. It tends to define the reality of people and events with only two opposing categories: good or bad.

Black-And-White Thinking Is a Cognitive Distortion

All-or-nothing thinking is very reassuring, especially if the thinker automatically puts him/herself on the side of reason, intelligence, justice, beauty, and truth.

If you want some empirical criteria to recognize them quickly, then here are three examples:

1. Only seeing one side of a situation.
2. Ignoring the contrary evidence and not questioning one’s source of information.
3. Getting into heated arguments with those who do not share one’s opinions.

Thus, black-and-white thinking is a cognitive distortion: one of the many biases that can obscure our ability to judge and make good decisions. They deform or erase all elements not congruent with the “black and white” vision, which instead should reasonably be considered.

2 Replies

The Derek Chauvin Trial

Quick Links

My Account

able2know