Trayvon Martin

[mockbee]

But being against this sort of thing in principle is no better than being a Luddite.

Talk to me in 200 years and maybe I'd change my tune. But we are far, far, far away from having a solid understanding of what's happening in the brain.

Though this isn't really the thread to have a debate about it.

[Hype]

And of course they shouldn't give propanolol to juries.. that's nuts. But being against this sort of thing in principle is no better than being a Luddite.

There's a flaw in your arguement that YOU know what is "normal" or "right".

In other words, changing someone's perception or belief with chemicals implies that they are "abnormal" or "incorrect" and that YOU (the provider of said medication) knows what is "normal" and "right" and therefore you are "correcting" them. (eg. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest)

The problem is that what is considered "normal" today may not have been hundreds of years ago or even hundreds of years into the future.

You are merely "medicating" people to "fit" "current" definitions of "normal" or "right", but current definitions may not be empirically correct, as what is considered "normal" is rather subjective.

If you tuly want an "impartial" jury than why don't you give them medication to remove all EMOTION so that their decision can be based on pure logic alone. What if a juror isn't logical to begin with, do you give them chemicals that somehow make them logical (which doesn't even exist).

Courts use the word "peer" for jurors as they recognize that humans carry all sorts of emotional, etc baggage and therefore the best that can be hoped is to be judged by a "peer" (someone WITH flaws like the defendant), not a robot.

The movie Equilibrium is kind of about this... Anyway, you put a lot of stuff in scare-quotes there and the best I can do with it is say that I wasn't advocating any kind of blanket policy, but I also think that you seem to be a kind of relativist in a way that I don't think is tenable. I certainly agree with you that definitions of 'normal' change, but that is at least partially because science has allowed us to get beyond treating things we don't understand as sorcery and applying really vague and non-explanatory terms like "hysteria" to women who happen to dislike how they're being treated to the point of freaking out.

Your last point is fair enough, and is obviously the reason why juries are composed of a multitude rather than a single person... that way there can be a way of correcting for at least some potential biases. I just don't think there's an INBUILT problem with discovering permanent solutions to recognized problems. There may be contextual problems that arise, but those can be sorted out later.

Actually your point about jurors being 'logical' is an interesting one too... actually, I think we SHOULD test jurors to see if they can follow basic laws of logic (Modus ponens, material implication, classical syllogisms, etc) and if they can't, they should be disqualified on grounds of being idiots.

[Hype]

But being against this sort of thing in principle is no better than being a Luddite.

Talk to me in 200 years and maybe I'd change my tune. But we are far, far, far away from having a solid understanding of what's happening in the brain.

Though this isn't really the thread to have a debate about it.

Yeah all I said was being against it in principle is silly. Based on what you've just said, I don't think you ARE against it in principle, you're just against it if it were to be implemented now. But that's kind of obvious, right?

[dali]

I just don't think there's an INBUILT problem with discovering permanent solutions to recognized problems.

There you go again, claiming to know what is a problem or not. Racism may be a problem TO YOU but how do you know that empirically it's actually not a problem, but merely a natural part of human DNA? Maybe racism IS inbuilt in order to keep races from "mixing" so that there is less genetic errors with offspring, similar to why plants don't breed with different species and why it's not a good idea to have a child born from having sex with your cousin.

What I'm saying is, for someone who waxes and wanes about philosophy and Bioethics so much it's kinda amusing you claim to know what is "right" and best about biology and the state of the world (ie. what is a problem or not).

Why don't do be a little more humble and just realize that humans are just glorified apes and that us humans really don't know jack shit about the world around us and thus we should stop trying to meddle in things we don't understand, and NEVER will fully understand.

It's OK to say "I don't know".

[LJF]

I don't know a lot about the stand your ground by where does the law end and can't it be used by both sides. By this I mean let's say Trayvon did hit Zimmerman can't it be said he was just defending himself from someone following him and giving him threats. He should also be able to defend himself by that same law. So how can that law really be used by Zimmerman. Again I might not understand the law really, but it just seems like a very fucked up law. From all of the reports if I was Trayvon I'd have fought back also if someone was following me and yelling at me. I'd think of that as a threat and defend himself.

[dali]

I don't know a lot about the stand your ground by where does the law end and can't it be used by both sides. By this I mean let's say Trayvon did hit Zimmerman can't it be said he was just defending himself from someone following him and giving him threats. He should also be able to defend himself by that same law. So how can that law really be used by Zimmerman. Again I might not understand the law really, but it just seems like a very fucked up law. From all of the reports if I was Trayvon I'd have fought back also if someone was following me and yelling at me. I'd think of that as a threat and defend himself.

So if you were on someone else's property (the property of the private community he was 'cutting thru') you think you would have the right to stand YOUR ground? You're not even on YOUR ground in that instance? The word ground is used both metaphorically and empirically in this instance.

[Hype]

I just don't think there's an INBUILT problem with discovering permanent solutions to recognized problems.

There you go again, claiming to know what is a problem or not. Racism may be a problem TO YOU but how do you know that empirically it's actually not a problem, but merely a natural part of human DNA? Maybe racism IS inbuilt in order to keep races from "mixing" so that there is less genetic errors with offspring, similar to why plants don't breed with different species and why it's not a good idea to have a child born from having sex with your cousin.

What I'm saying is, for someone who waxes and wanes about philosophy and Bioethics so much it's kinda amusing you claim to know what is "right" and best about biology and the state of the world (ie. what is a problem or not).

Why don't do be a little more humble and just realize that humans are just glorified apes and that us humans really don't know jack shit about the world around us and thus we should stop trying to meddle in things we don't understand, and NEVER will fully understand.

It's OK to say "I don't know".

None of that made any sense, dude. There are no 'races', genetically -- they're not different species, they're just a couple of alleles (like 5 or 6) that code for proteins that affect visible phenotype, and in isolated populations, you get some passed down disorders like Tay Sachs, but these are nothing to do with "race" (race is, after all, what you look like). Your whole first paragraph is nonsense -- you misunderstood my use of "inbuilt". I used it to refer to possible problems with discovering solutions to recognized problems. You can't then assume "inbuilt" means something in our genes... because that's not what I meant. You're just having a totally different conversation.

I didn't make any claims about what's "right" in what you quoted I just said that I don't think there are INBUILT problems. I don't know if you just get drunk and respond to posts without reading them properly, or if you actually have issues reading things closely, but "no inbuilt problems" doesn't imply "no problems" (WITH trying to make scientific progress!!!!), and nor does it imply anything about "rightness".

The last two paragraphs are irrelevant and nonsensical. I don't want to get into a thing with you, but what the fuck does "Why don't do be more humble" mean? And if what you're saying is that we should be more humble, then who the fuck are you to say "we don't understand, and NEVER will fully understand" these things. That last claims is ironically extremely unhumble. YOU don't know that we will NEVER fully understand the things that we're talking about here. It's, as you say, "OK to say "I don't know"".

[Hype]

On topic... It may turn out to have been legal, but frankly, I'd rather have a possibly troubled kid in a hoodie with some skittles going to visit his dad, than some overzealous "neighborhood watchman" with a fucking gun walking around my street.

[LJF]

I don't know a lot about the stand your ground by where does the law end and can't it be used by both sides. By this I mean let's say Trayvon did hit Zimmerman can't it be said he was just defending himself from someone following him and giving him threats. He should also be able to defend himself by that same law. So how can that law really be used by Zimmerman. Again I might not understand the law really, but it just seems like a very fucked up law. From all of the reports if I was Trayvon I'd have fought back also if someone was following me and yelling at me. I'd think of that as a threat and defend himself.

So if you were on someone else's property (the property of the private community he was 'cutting thru') you think you would have the right to stand YOUR ground? You're not even on YOUR ground in that instance? The word ground is used both metaphorically and empirically in this instance.

Yes I would. If I feel someone is a threat to me I will defend myself. My point is that this law cuts both ways and can be used by both sides. Again I don't know enough about the law, but the YOUR in your ground I don't think has to be literally property that you own.

I get neighborhood watch and wanting to protect your community, but Zimmerman isn't a cop and he shouldn't be using deadly force. Let's just say for agrument's sake that Zimmerman felt he had to defend himself because Trayvon hit him, does that mean he had the right to shoot him? Forget about race for a second and get down to the bottom line which is one person shot and killed another person who was unarmed. How can you say that the person who shot and killed someone shouldn't go to jail? This wasn't a case of someone breaking into your home and threaening you or your family. This was someone walking through a neighborhood.

[Romeo]

exactly.

They also released the video of Zimmerman being lead into the precinct after it happened. No head cut. No bloody nose. Not even blood on his clothing like he HAD a bloody nose. nothing. Mr. Vigilante Wannabe Cop is a lying sack of shit.

[Romeo]

On topic... It may turn out to have been legal, but frankly, I'd rather have a possibly troubled kid in a hoodie with some skittles going to visit his dad, than some overzealous "neighborhood watchman" with a fucking gun walking around my street.

and I live on a street where a lot of kids use as a cut through to the main road.

[LJF]

Bottom line is Zimmerman killed an unarmed person. Further more an unarmed 17 yr old. One of the things that concerns me is that this has become almost only about race and really what matters is someone was murdered no other way to put it. We can't forget about that. Race probably played a part in it and should be part of the discussion, but this crazy law also needs to be part of the discussion. We can't let race cloud the facts and the facts are Trayvon was murdered. There needs to be justice, that's all people want.

[Hokahey]

Requiring that jurors NOT be high or drunk is also mandatory. And it's not all that different.

One requires them not to be chemically intoxicated, and one requires them to be chemically intoxicated at the hands of a government official. Not all that different?

I suppose the logic is that both "requirements" promote clearer thinking, but you're talking about flawed machines being tasked with the decision to begin with, and asking them to not make themselves more flawed with intoxication is entirely different than trying to fix the machine. How many other chemicals and treatments may better prepare them to be the perfectly impartial machine? If one, why not the others?

The aim is to have an impartial jury. You can't be totally impartial if you have an implicitly racist disposition.

And if that's the case they should not be selected from the jury pool. But we have the right to have negative opinions on other races and should not be subjected to government reprogramming via the use of forced chemical intake to promote a "better way of thinking."

[Essence_Smith]

Bottom line is Zimmerman killed an unarmed person. Further more an unarmed 17 yr old. One of the things that concerns me is that this has become almost only about race and really what matters is someone was murdered no other way to put it. We can't forget about that. Race probably played a part in it and should be part of the discussion, but this crazy law also needs to be part of the discussion. We can't let race cloud the facts and the facts are Trayvon was murdered. There needs to be justice, that's all people want.

[Hokahey]

Bottom line is Zimmerman killed an unarmed person. Further more an unarmed 17 yr old. One of the things that concerns me is that this has become almost only about race and really what matters is someone was murdered no other way to put it. We can't forget about that. Race probably played a part in it and should be part of the discussion, but this crazy law also needs to be part of the discussion. We can't let race cloud the facts and the facts are Trayvon was murdered. There needs to be justice, that's all people want.

Yes.

I'm all for the right to protect yourself via firearm if necessary, but when you stalk and kill an unarmed person, especially after disobeying the command of an offical you've contacted regarding the situation, you should be sentenced to the firing squad. If you're going to be armed, you better get it right when it comes time to draw your weapon.

[creep]

i really hate spike lee. nice job spike. he could have cause more innocent people to be killed.

SANFORD, Fla. -- Spike Lee has apologized to a Florida couple who say they were forced to leave their home when a Twitter posting that the director helped spread listed their address as that of a man who shot an unarmed teenager.Elaine and David McClain are in their 70s and say they have a son named William George Zimmerman who lived in their Sanford-area home in the mid-1990s. They say he is no relation to 28-year-old George Zimmerman who killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin on Feb. 26.The killing has touched off widespread public outrage and protests across the country, including from Lee and other celebrities, because Zimmerman was not arrested. He says he acted in self-defense. Lee tweeted late Wednesday: "I Deeply Apologize To The McClain Family For Retweeting Their Address. It Was A Mistake. Please Leave The McClain's In Peace."

[mockbee]

So if you were on someone else's property (the property of the private community he was 'cutting thru') you think you would have the right to stand YOUR ground? You're not even on YOUR ground in that instance? The word ground is used both metaphorically and empirically in this instance.

This was someone walking through a neighborhood.

My understanding is that Trayvon's fathers girlfriends house he was walking to is in that private community, that wasn't just some neighborhood. I don't see how this case will have a fair trial, but at the very least it is more than likely there will be one, or hell to pay if not.

[Artemis]

Bottom line is Zimmerman killed an unarmed person. Further more an unarmed 17 yr old. One of the things that concerns me is that this has become almost only about race and really what matters is someone was murdered no other way to put it. We can't forget about that. Race probably played a part in it and should be part of the discussion, but this crazy law also needs to be part of the discussion. We can't let race cloud the facts and the facts are Trayvon was murdered. There needs to be justice, that's all people want.

I agree that crazy laws like the 'Stand Your Ground" law need to be discussed along with America's gun love that doesn't seem to be waning.

[Essence_Smith]

Bottom line is Zimmerman killed an unarmed person. Further more an unarmed 17 yr old. One of the things that concerns me is that this has become almost only about race and really what matters is someone was murdered no other way to put it. We can't forget about that. Race probably played a part in it and should be part of the discussion, but this crazy law also needs to be part of the discussion. We can't let race cloud the facts and the facts are Trayvon was murdered. There needs to be justice, that's all people want.

I agree that crazy laws like the 'Stand Your Ground" law need to be discussed along with America's gun love that doesn't seem to be waning.

That's because everyone feels like they need a gun to protect themselves from all the other people who have guns to protect themselves...

[Artemis]

Bottom line is Zimmerman killed an unarmed person. Further more an unarmed 17 yr old. One of the things that concerns me is that this has become almost only about race and really what matters is someone was murdered no other way to put it. We can't forget about that. Race probably played a part in it and should be part of the discussion, but this crazy law also needs to be part of the discussion. We can't let race cloud the facts and the facts are Trayvon was murdered. There needs to be justice, that's all people want.

I agree that crazy laws like the 'Stand Your Ground" law need to be discussed along with America's gun love that doesn't seem to be waning.

That's because everyone feels like they need a gun to protect themselves from all the other people who have guns to protect themselves...

yeah, it's a vicious circle.

i'm not trying to change the topic to guns, just wanted to add that point.

[creep]

flordia is one of the few states where it is easy to get a concealed weapon permit. you can't do that where i live.

[Xizen47]

i really hate spike lee. nice job spike. he could have cause more innocent people to be killed.

Lee tweeted late Wednesday: "I Deeply Apologize To The McClain Family For Retweeting Their Address. It Was A Mistake. Please Leave The McClain's In Peace."

would of been a pretty big Mistake Retweeting the guys real address too Spike... fkn idiot

[Romeo]

actually creep is not a few

Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming allow residents to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming allow concealed carry with a permit.
Restrictive May-Issue states. California and New York vary within state; Inland California and Upstate New York are Permissive, while the New York City, Los Angeles, and San Francisco metropolitan areas are Restrictive.
I know in NYC and my county you have to have reason to get a carry permit (forget concealed, it's not allowed). If your a business owner that carries money you can get a carry permit. Other wise the permit is only to own the gun, store it on your premises and transport to a firing range. That's it.

[Larry B.]

i really hate spike lee. nice job spike. he could have cause more innocent people to be killed.

Lee tweeted late Wednesday: "I Deeply Apologize To The McClain Family For Retweeting Their Address. It Was A Mistake. Please Leave The McClain's In Peace."

Innocent people to be killed? People would kill these McClain people because they knew their address?? Really?

And your fucking media has the guts to criticize and demonize 90% of the Eastern countries' people and how they treat each other?

[creep]

i really hate spike lee. nice job spike. he could have cause more innocent people to be killed.

Lee tweeted late Wednesday: "I Deeply Apologize To The McClain Family For Retweeting Their Address. It Was A Mistake. Please Leave The McClain's In Peace."

Innocent people to be killed? People would kill these McClain people because they knew their address?? Really?

And your fucking media has the guts to criticize and demonize 90% of the Eastern countries' people and how they treat each other?

this coming from the guy that admitted that he was planning on killing a local politician.