LAPD release shocking footage of shooting that killed teen bystander
Watch it before YT bans it.
I saw some dimwit going on about how shooting was overreaction to a guy with a bike lock, but it was not. This guy was severely beating random, innocent people. Shooting was definitely warranted. A bike lock used so is a deadly weapon.
He was still beating a woman when the cops got there. He only stopped because he saw the cops and ran.
He must have struck her at least two dozen times. I couldn’t count, because it’s not all on camera.
Watch it, but prepare for awfulness.
And besides, the police were told by at least one — maybe more than one — 911 caller that the man had a gun and shots had been fired. They had a reasonable belief that he had a gun (one that turned out to be false, but still, reasonable given what they knew).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The claim is that an “objective morality” is “any moral system with a non-mind-dependent standard.” And it is trivially easy to select such a standard.
The problem is that the SELECTION is subjective.
So I can claim that morality is based on "how much the nearest feather weighs.”
That would yield objective, indeed, measurable standards.
But it wouldn’t really, because the objective standard is erected arbitrarily and subjectively.
Since economics is transactional, there is almost always two sides of any given matter.
And the most common economic errors almost always stem from only seeing one side.
For example, this calling for the “cancelling” of student debt: are the creditors just to be screwed? They did nothing wrong — except perhaps trusting those who promised to repay them. Are the creditors to be paid off by the taxpayers?
Why should those of us who did not take loans or repaid their loans pay ALSO for the loans of others, who won’t pay their own loans? Why shouldn’t they repay their own debts? Because it’s inconvenient to them? Yes, debt is, but cancelling debt is inconvenient to others.
Kant’s famous dictum “being is not a real predicate”—which he took from Wolff and uses in a Wolffian sense—is actually quite trivial. A “real predicate” is one which determines a thing in regard to what it is, that is, it pertains to essence. Whereas being pertains to existence.
So to say “being is not a real predicate” is just to say that “predicating existence to something is not an essential determination of the thing.”
This is true in all cases in which essence and existence are distinct—everything, that is, but God.
Kant’s critique of the ontological argument (which is Kant’s name for it), amounts to this:
For the ontological argument to work, existence would need to be a real predicate. But nowhere do we find this to be so. So the argument doesn’t work.
The professor puts the woman on the spot by asking “You took this class because I’m black?”
That is EITHER suppose to matter deeply OR it isn’t. Which is it?
Critical Race Theory and Wokeness in general both CLAIM that blacks have special “black ways of knowing.”
If black people really do have special “ways of knowing”, then why on earth would it be a bad thing to select a class on the basis of the professor’s race?
Only if that is false would it be a questionable thing to do.
As an irrational feeling, empathy tells us almost nothing. Ethics is about action, about what should be done, should not be done, or is permissible to do or not do. There are no ethical systems that appeal to empathy *as* a justification.
There is no action A that would be made right by or justified by “I feel/felt empathy.” At best, empathy could be a partial motive for a right action — but even then the rightness of the action would not be a question in which empathy figures.
Empathy can easily (and commonly does) lead to wrong actions. Empathy can be evoked by storytelling, for example, and one can tell a story that paints someone not or little deserving of empathy as deserving of it.
CRT Poll: Is it true that the American Republic is, as it was founded to be, a system of White Supremacy?
CRT Poll: Is it true, as Derrick Bell, founder of CRT, maintains that if Americans were offered a highly beneficial deal by space aliens to sell all American blacks, that a majority would vote for this proposal?
CRT Poll: Is it true that it would be better to reject the idea that all persons are equal before the law and instead make laws which specifically favor some people and disfavor others, on the basis of their race?