The Derek Chauvin Trial

@vikorr,

If you want to improve your intelligence, and you can, but you would need to let go of black and white thinking. The world is mostly grey. Being grey doesn't stop anyone from functioning, and it doesn't make it a scarier place - It results in a safer world with less conflict, and actually makes the world more beautiful due to all the shades & nuances.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

You are lying about my IQ as well.

It seems possible that you've never told the truth even once.

Also, your sources are wrong. While some of what they list as "hallmarks of high or low intelligence" are reasonably accurate (namely the traits involving the ability to understand things, or lack thereof), both lists include some outright falsehoods.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

You are misusing the term "black and white thinking".

The articles that you cite refer to people who force "all or nothing" thinking into cases where it does not apply.

That is far different from recognizing an all or nothing situation when that is the actual reality, which is what I do.

But it should come as no surprise that you are lying about me.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

For a lie, it is highly odd that what I say is backed up by mensa, historians, and psychologists.....

- You'd have to take your issue up with Mensa & Historians that somehow left you off their lists.

- You'd also have to take your issue up with psychologists who wrote the hallmarks of both high, and low intelligence.

- You'd also have to take your issue up with the psychologists that say that black & white thinking is cognitive distortion.

Chanting 'you're lying' doesn't change the studies, and doesn't change your behaviour patterns.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Not at all - you said the world is black & white, and you don't recognise nuance and shades of grey (which is exactly how they describe the opposite of black & white - recognising nuance, greys, variations, unknowns etc). All your writings paint the world in black and white.

Certainly you blew these traits out of the water

Quote:

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

1 Reply

@vikorr,

You are lying about what I said.

That shouldn't come as a surprise given your track record of dishonesty.

I was referring to the difference between "things that are true" and "things that are false". I was not saying that "everyone had to be entirely good or entirely evil" or "days had to be entirely good or entirely bad" like what those medical sites were talking about.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

For a lie, it is highly odd that what I say is backed up by mensa, historians, and psychologists.....

I doubt that Mensa backs up your lies. Most likely you are lying about that.

You may have a random historian or psychologist that backs up your falsehoods. That doesn't make your falsehoods any less false.

vikorr wrote:

- You'd have to take your issue up with Mensa & Historians that somehow left you off their lists.

Again, most likely you are lying about Mensa.

vikorr wrote:

- You'd also have to take your issue up with psychologists who wrote the hallmarks of both high, and low intelligence.

I do not have any need to dispute random hacks who publish inaccurate information.

vikorr wrote:

- You'd also have to take your issue up with the psychologists that say that black & white thinking is cognitive distortion.

I doubt that these people care much that you are misrepresenting their studies.

vikorr wrote:

Chanting 'you're lying' doesn't change the studies, and doesn't change your behaviour patterns.

It does however point out that you are lying about me.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

I was not saying that everyone had to be entirely good or entirely evil.

I didn't say you did. That is the extreme of black & white thinking. Psychologists would write such first to make it very obvious. There are degrees to black & white thinking. Black & white thinking is also:
-The world is this way, not that way (vs 'the world is a mix of both ways)
- A is right, B is wrong (where there is perspective involved, rather than say, maths), rather than 'both perspectives have a foundations in something'
- Civil rights are an absolute, and anyone disagreeing is X (versus not everyone agrees on what should be a civil right)
- Guns = freedom, and anyone disagreeing is wrong (vs people disagree on this for reasons valid to them)
- Arbery attacked McMichael (and not Arbery was also defending his life from McMichael)
- Christian Cooper attacked Amy Cooper, and not Amy Cooper would have perceived Christian Cooper to attack her dog

Etc. One view is absolute, the other recognises greys and nuances

As for your other responses - if I were lying, I would not be able to find anything else that backed up what I was saying. I did find and list them...then you went on to display yet another of the listed hallmarks of low intelligence...

1 Reply

@vikorr,

The fact that grays exist does not mean that black and white do not also exist.

I can be entirely correct (and I am) and you entirely wrong (and you are) and at the same time there can still be issues that have nuances (there are those as well).

Your silly denial of reality does not mean that I am wrong for saying that reality exists.

Your silly denial of reality merely means that you are either delusional or dishonest (I think you are dishonest).

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

The fact that grays exist does not mean that black and white do not also exist.

Didn't say it meant that, did I. Maths, facts, etc are black and white.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

However, that is enough for this conversation. I see that you are not willing to learn about anything you disagree with.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

My unwillingness to accept falsehoods does not mean that I am unwilling to learn.

You certainly have nothing to teach however.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Didn't say it meant that, did I. Maths, facts, etc are black and white.

Actually you have been saying that. You've been falsely accusing me of not being able to recognize nuance merely because I've pointed out that facts are a black and white matter.

0 Replies

Current score.

Viktorr 951 - 0 Oralloy.

Proof that Oralloy isn’t just thick, he’s super thick. Thicker than Thickwit McThickoid, Of Thickwhistle Thickerton.

Now cue the mindless repetitive drivel.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Current score.
Viktorr 951 - 0 Oralloy.

Maybe if you are tallying up outright lies.

izzythepush wrote:

Proof that Oralloy isn’t just thick, he’s super thick. Thicker than Thickwit McThickoid, Of Thickwhistle Thickerton.

Wrong again. Lies don't prove anything.

izzythepush wrote:

Now cue the mindless repetitive drivel.

I'm sure vikorr will be spewing more lies soon enough.

0 Replies

That’s the mindless repetitive drivel I was talking about.

I know what you’re going to say before you do.

Everyone does.

It’s because you’re very simple minded with an extremely limited vocabulary.

You can rant and rave as much as you want, but it doesn’t make it any less true, it only confirms you’re delusional.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

You are lying about my vocabulary. You are lying about my intellect. You are lying about me being delusional as well.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

You are lying about my vocabulary. You are lying about my intellect. You are lying about me being delusional as well.

Prove it. Say something original on this subject - something that you haven’t posted here before.
Give us an Oralloy original thought - from your bottomless reservoir of knowledge - about the thread topic.

1 Reply

@snood,

Everything that there currently is to say about this thread topic has already been said.

Perhaps there will be more to say after future developments transpire.

EDIT: Well, scratch that. I can think of an on-topic item that hasn't been said here before.

I had some questions about how police were supposed to control someone who was resisting arrest the way this guy was. No one here could ever answer my questions. But my questions were answered on a different website. The police have special cuffs that go around the waist and attach to someone's ankles (with their knees bent so their feet are behind their waist). Combined with handcuffs, they are pretty effective at immobilizing someone. What the officer should have done is applied these cuffs to the guy's legs and left him on his side until reinforcements could arrive (perhaps also with a larger transport vehicle).

By the way I think you misunderstand what is meant by vocabulary. Having an original thought is not the same as having a broad vocabulary. An original thought could be expressed with a limited vocabulary, or an endlessly-repeated thought could be expressed with a broad vocabulary.

0 Replies

On a loosely related topic

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/trial-ahmaud-arbery-slaying-set-judge-february-79640819

Quote:

Trial in Ahmaud Arbery slaying set by judge for February
...
A federal grand jury in April indicted both McMichaels and Bryan on hate crimes charges. All three were charged with one count of interference with civil rights and attempted kidnapping. The McMichaels were also charged with using, carrying and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence.
...
The McMichaels and Bryan won't face hate crime penalties at the state level because Georgia's hate crimes law wasn't adopted until after his slaying. At the time Arbery was killed, Georgia was one of just four U.S. states without a hate crimes law. Georgia lawmakers quickly passed one amid the outcry over his death.

Attorneys for all three men charged in the case say they committed no crimes. The McMichaels’ lawyers have said they pursued Arbery, suspecting he was a burglar, after security cameras had previously recorded him entering a home under construction. They say Travis McMichael shot Arbery while fearing for his life as they grappled over a shotgun.

State prosecutors have said Arbery stole nothing and was merely out jogging when the McMichaels and Bryan chased him.

The Justice Department alleges that the men “used force and threats of force to intimidate and interfere with Arbery’s right to use a public street because of his race.”

2 Replies

The Derek Chauvin Trial

Quick Links

My Account

able2know