tadmjones
-
Posts
2042 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
49
Posts posted by tadmjones
-
-
The OP is about the specific legal case, so .. I think your comments are literally 'off topic', but hypothecticals can always be fun
-
None of the above has anything to do with the specific legal case, the one in which Zimmerman was charged with second degree murder.
-
Who can say for sure that perhaps crystalline formation is not the ultimate self generated action resulting in goal attainment.
-
The only thing that matters in this specific case, and any others like it, is whether or not while being assaulted an individual has the right to defend themselves from an aggressor.
-
Ridiculous.
So you would have no problem with an American Nazi party , a group of individuals acting in concert to promote their ideology?
Organizations based on antithetical views to western ideals , should be tolerated and allowed to proliferate in a rational society, until of course they commit a physical act of rights violation? Wouldn't this line of reasoning mean that it is okay to allow groups of individuals to conspire openly to circumvent established principles of the rule of law( in the western sense,obviously)?
It would not be criminal for me to solicit individuals for the expressed purpose of armed robbery of a bank? or the overthrow through violence of the current government?
-
What 'kind' or 'type' of Muslim does not support Islamic law?
-
Muslims should not be allowed to congregate, for the same reasons that communists should not be allowed to run for office in this country. But of course these things could only happen in a society based on , and that followed consistently, rational principles.
-
On a just a chronologic basis, which comes first self awareness or the identification of one's being alive? or is it nearly simultaneous or the same thing?
-
Even a more 'secular' bent of Islam would not be comfortable with western ideals, so why do they come 'here'?
And why for that matter is it 'ok' for there to be a communist party ticket on federal ballots in the US?! wtf
-
(I have seen it argued that Zimmerman would not have gotten out of his car if he didn't have a gun on him, meaning the 'suspicious individual' scared him enough that he should not have persisted. Again, speculation, but it's interesting to think about.)
I have seen it argued that it was Trayvon's voice screaming for help because Zimmerman was pointing his weapon at him at point blank range and that Zimmerman may have smiled inwardly before pulling trigger, just speculation but interestting nonetheless.
-
tadmjones:
An implicit concept is a potential concept: one has acquaintance with what would be the referents of a concept but one has just not yet integrated them together. I don't see how an implicit concept could ever be used in a proof, which requires explicitness by the nature of proof.
I hope I've not misunderstood the question.
It was poorly phrased near rhetoric question. That is the idea I was trying to convey , when forming new concepts some antcedent concepts can simply be held implicitly.
When discussing techinal epistemology one usually assumes a broader context of knowledge and then can show which 'fully' formed concepts are dependent on others in order to 'prove' one has the hierachy correct, to allow further logical integration ie cause and effect.
I understand the broad overview akin to the rational faculty being innate while the content of the mind is self generated.
-
Is there a difference acknowledged between implicit grasp and 'formal' explicit delineation of hierachical necessicity as it demonstrates proof in the context of 'technical' epistemology?
-
I will grant unprovoked, but the aggressors , terrorists whether Islamic or not, choose targets based certain'reasons', eg ideology.
-
hmm again with the missing post thingy
Looking back on the OP , both groups could be described as posing a threat to America , and both can be seen as examples of 'loose or weak' organizations. The various government agencies are headed and run by various individuals and groups. It is likely that these different individuals have varying views on their use of power. What would cause them to become an even greater threat , would be if the separate power wielders were to adopt an ideology that included the idea of centralization of power and worked toward the end of utterly destroying any remnants of structural checks and balances of the current government.
In the same way the umma could adopt as part of their ideology the same principles of centralization of power and become an even larger threat to America and any other nation that follows western ideals.
So instead of debating whether to hate the sin or the sinner, lets condemn both.
-
LOL, true... especially if they're out to get you because you're paranoid!
With reference back to Islam, an optimistic interpretation of jihad would vary from a pessimistic one, yes? The 5 Pillars that support Islam, e.g. faith, prayer, concern for the needy, self-purification, and the pilgrimage, define jihad in terms of self-defense/improvement; which is hardly ideologically unique in justifying a right to live. Supposing that an implicitly pessimistic individual was introduced to the Muslim community, it follows that a more aggressive meaning for jihad would be derived to accomodate a more aggressive individual outlook. The question remains, is an ideology that promotes self-defense/improvement responsible for the aggressive actions of pessimists who claim to defend it? Or, if Islam were removed, wouldn't pessimistic individuals simply adopt alternate ideologies and defend them aggressively??
I remain unpersuaded that the ideological root of terrorism is bound to any particular religion or politics. The aggression of Radical Islamists is a clear and present danger to America, but no more so than aggression by any religion/politics that persecutes the unaffiliated. Clearly the greater threat to America comes from leaders that claim defense for aggression and sacrifice liberty for security, as initially suggested by the OP, and others...
-
hmm don't know what happened to the post above but
I think the term 'racial profiling' should only be used to describe actions or motivations of government agencies and their agents acting in that capacity.
Maybe it's just me, but when that term is applied to an individuals thought it seems to smack of a violation of 'new think'.
-
I think people may be confused about what racial profiling means. It is my assumption that it means taking someone's race into account with other factors when making a determination related to behavior or affiliation... For instance, assuming a black guy with tats who is dressed like a thug in Los Angeles is not a part of MS13... Because MS13 is an hispanic gang. As I understand it, that is racial profiling. But there is nothing racist about it.
Could I get a definition of racial profiling from those who have condemned it?
-
As to jury composition, the talking heads(at least on msnbc) were this weekend favorably discussing the need for legislative action to ensure minority representation on juries.
-
-
Sharpton is probably holding 'prayer' vigils right now
-
I think most O'ists see it as a statement or arguement for subjectivism/primacy of consciousness pov
-
It is not possibe for a person to be devoid of an ideology or a philosophy; at the very least, all people have an implicit guidance system which determines which values they pursue. I don't think very many people are inherhent brutes biologically predisposed to violence. The closest we have, aside from people with glandular disorders, would probably be the thugs and warlord who populate African hellholes and violent inner cities. But even these people, with their extremely high rates of violence, are influenced by the philosophies of nihilism and desruction which they embody.
I agree, I just didn't know which emoticon was the 'tongue 'n' cheek" one
-
harrison
I'll just say we have differing views here. For one ,induction can not be nonvolitional, it is a conscious , directed type of reasoning.
-
What of ideologies that leave absolutely no choice other than to follow its strictures?
Are aggressive individuals people just predisposed to violence, like brutes? If so, why would they need or want an intellectual based premise(a reason, or rationalization) to act violently, do you mean they would not be violent without a reason? Perhaps getting rid of ideologies would help in this respect, help them to remain nonaggressive if they have no rationalization. Or do violence based ideologies sometimes just have strict adherents?
Leave George Zimmerman alone!
in Domestic United States Politics
Posted · Edited by tadmjones
I actually didn't follow the testimony closely enough to know what TM's friend said in court, ver batim, and not being a legal scholar I would not be able to determine if her testimony was/is actually hearsay, but as to the legal case as put forth by the prosecution , how much weight is given to individual motivations?
Of course as opposed to individual's reactions.