Woman calls cops another Black Jogger
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,202
Location: Right over your left shoulder
04 Jun 2020, 3:27 pm
Brictoria wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Why anyone would defend racism -- especially blatant racism -- is a complete mystery to me.
Mystery? It's not that big of leap to suggest that people who defend racism do so because they agree with it and don't see the problem. It's the intuitive solution to the question even if it's not politically correct to state aloud.
It could equally be posited that those who see racism everywhere and make such an effort to point it out, only see it because they recognise their own inner thoughts and so need to "purify" themselves by belittling another person.
Translation: You're willing to ignore context because you'd rather pretend the racist lady isn't.
_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.
Last edited by envirozentinel on 05 Jun 2020, 4:30 am, edited 1 time in total.: link removed that can be translated as a personal attack
04 Jun 2020, 3:53 pm
funeralxempire wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Why anyone would defend racism -- especially blatant racism -- is a complete mystery to me.
Mystery? It's not that big of leap to suggest that people who defend racism do so because they agree with it and don't see the problem. It's the intuitive solution to the question even if it's not politically correct to state aloud.
It could equally be posited that those who see racism everywhere and make such an effort to point it out, only see it because they recognise their own inner thoughts and so need to "purify" themselves by belittling another person.
Translation: You're willing to ignore context because you'd rather pretend the racist lady isn't. Stalin had a term for people who engage in what you're doing.
One can't know for sure whether she is racist or not, since nobody is a mind reader. Her behavior would make me assign higher probability that she is racist than I would assign to the average person. But, at the same time, there is also some possibility that she isn't racist.
That, however, doesn't change the fact that making a threat is worse transgression than being racist. Thus, on a balance, what Christian Cooper did is worse than what she did.
04 Jun 2020, 7:49 pm
QFT wrote:
The use of "if/then" is part of the very definition of the threat. This is what the threat is defined as: "if you are not going to do what I say, I will do something you won't like".
I realize that he didn't make up the rules about the dog being on leash, the park did, so he had every right to ask her to obey these rules. But like I said, there are ways of asking without making a threat. My issue is not that he asked but rather how he asked.
If he wanted to make if/then statement, the only thing that should have been after "then" should have been the prescribed punishment (that is, call a security), nothing beyond that.
I realize that he didn't make up the rules about the dog being on leash, the park did, so he had every right to ask her to obey these rules. But like I said, there are ways of asking without making a threat. My issue is not that he asked but rather how he asked.
If he wanted to make if/then statement, the only thing that should have been after "then" should have been the prescribed punishment (that is, call a security), nothing beyond that.
Dude! you are over-intellectualising what this man did when he was in a position relying on cognitive heuristics. In the NT world we tend to approximate within boundaries (not get fixated with absolutes) and the general consensus is that Christian Cooper's actions did not constitute a threat. Yes he's a little weird but then based on your logic anyone with Aspergers who acts a little weird in public should also be considered criminals??
QFT wrote:
So, in other words, you think its okay to judge people by appearance yet its not okay to judge them by race? I guess this touches upon my earlier question about comparing my situation with my officemate and his situation with that woman. In my case, I am poorly groomed and not well spoken of. So are you saying that being poorly groomed and not well spoken of would justify being given a cold shoulder while being black would not? Why is there such a double standard? I mean,
Grooming= your outside appearance that has nothing to do with your attitude on the inside
Well liked = opinion of people on the outside that have nothing to do with who you are on the inside
Both are about social privilege as opposed to being a good person.
Grooming= your outside appearance that has nothing to do with your attitude on the inside
Well liked = opinion of people on the outside that have nothing to do with who you are on the inside
Both are about social privilege as opposed to being a good person.
No I am not saying this. In an ideal world people should not judge you for your appearance or your manners or how you sound/come across. But we know that's not the case. Amy Cooper judged Christian in a highly negative manner. It's possible the girl in your office might carry bias as well but there's nothing you can do about it.
QFT wrote:
Incidentally, when we talked about my officemate, you also suggested that not being physically attractive might be genetic (you mentioned, for example, that more attractive people have more symmetric features). So if skin color is genetic, and symmetry of body features is genetic too, why is it not okay to judge others based on skin color yet it is okay to judge them based on the symmetry?
You know the answer to this question QFT. There is hundreds of years of evil persecution of coloured people every time skin colour is invoked in a derogatory manner. It's a fact that everytime skin color is used to denigrate somebody from a non-white background it has a psychological impact on the person on the receiving end. I am not saying people also don't get depressed/anxious if they are picked on for not grooming, dressing well etc.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,202
Location: Right over your left shoulder
04 Jun 2020, 7:54 pm
QFT wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Why anyone would defend racism -- especially blatant racism -- is a complete mystery to me.
Mystery? It's not that big of leap to suggest that people who defend racism do so because they agree with it and don't see the problem. It's the intuitive solution to the question even if it's not politically correct to state aloud.
It could equally be posited that those who see racism everywhere and make such an effort to point it out, only see it because they recognise their own inner thoughts and so need to "purify" themselves by belittling another person.
Translation: You're willing to ignore context because you'd rather pretend the racist lady isn't. Stalin had a term for people who engage in what you're doing.
One can't know for sure whether she is racist or not, since nobody is a mind reader. Her behavior would make me assign higher probability that she is racist than I would assign to the average person. But, at the same time, there is also some possibility that she isn't racist.
That, however, doesn't change the fact that making a threat is worse transgression than being racist. Thus, on a balance, what Christian Cooper did is worse than what she did.
She lied and made a false report in an attempt to have the police arrive to brutalize him or at least inflict a reasonable fear of that occurring. This is far worse than whatever half-threat you're still whining about. It's a little bit revolting that you refuse to put these two actions into perspective and makes me question your own biases as to why his pseudo-threat of nothing is more important than her blatantly threatening action.
_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.
05 Jun 2020, 3:44 am
cyberdad wrote:
QFT wrote:
The use of "if/then" is part of the very definition of the threat. This is what the threat is defined as: "if you are not going to do what I say, I will do something you won't like".
I realize that he didn't make up the rules about the dog being on leash, the park did, so he had every right to ask her to obey these rules. But like I said, there are ways of asking without making a threat. My issue is not that he asked but rather how he asked.
If he wanted to make if/then statement, the only thing that should have been after "then" should have been the prescribed punishment (that is, call a security), nothing beyond that.
I realize that he didn't make up the rules about the dog being on leash, the park did, so he had every right to ask her to obey these rules. But like I said, there are ways of asking without making a threat. My issue is not that he asked but rather how he asked.
If he wanted to make if/then statement, the only thing that should have been after "then" should have been the prescribed punishment (that is, call a security), nothing beyond that.
Dude! you are over-intellectualising what this man did when he was in a position relying on cognitive heuristics. In the NT world we tend to approximate within boundaries (not get fixated with absolutes) and the general consensus is that Christian Cooper's actions did not constitute a threat. Yes he's a little weird but then based on your logic anyone with Aspergers who acts a little weird in public should also be considered criminals??
What people with Asperger do is not intentional while what that guy did is, as evident by him preparing the dog bones.
As far as "approximating within boundaries" I do that too, but my approximation disagrees with most people. So in case of such disagreements, I resort to logic. Since these disagreements happen all the time, thats why it sounds like logic is all I am doing.
cyberdad wrote:
QFT wrote:
So, in other words, you think its okay to judge people by appearance yet its not okay to judge them by race? I guess this touches upon my earlier question about comparing my situation with my officemate and his situation with that woman. In my case, I am poorly groomed and not well spoken of. So are you saying that being poorly groomed and not well spoken of would justify being given a cold shoulder while being black would not? Why is there such a double standard? I mean,
Grooming= your outside appearance that has nothing to do with your attitude on the inside
Well liked = opinion of people on the outside that have nothing to do with who you are on the inside
Both are about social privilege as opposed to being a good person.
Grooming= your outside appearance that has nothing to do with your attitude on the inside
Well liked = opinion of people on the outside that have nothing to do with who you are on the inside
Both are about social privilege as opposed to being a good person.
No I am not saying this. In an ideal world people should not judge you for your appearance or your manners or how you sound/come across. But we know that's not the case. Amy Cooper judged Christian in a highly negative manner. It's possible the girl in your office might carry bias as well but there's nothing you can do about it.
But in case of the girl in my office you were siding with her when you were saying I was "harassing" her (your wording not mine) and you were also saying you were protective because you have a daughter of similar age.
cyberdad wrote:
QFT wrote:
Incidentally, when we talked about my officemate, you also suggested that not being physically attractive might be genetic (you mentioned, for example, that more attractive people have more symmetric features). So if skin color is genetic, and symmetry of body features is genetic too, why is it not okay to judge others based on skin color yet it is okay to judge them based on the symmetry?
You know the answer to this question QFT. There is hundreds of years of evil persecution of coloured people every time skin colour is invoked in a derogatory manner. It's a fact that everytime skin color is used to denigrate somebody from a non-white background it has a psychological impact on the person on the receiving end. I am not saying people also don't get depressed/anxious if they are picked on for not grooming, dressing well etc.
Well, the blacks have the entire black community to fall back to. But me as someone with Asperger I am totally on my own -- seeing how other people on WrongPlanet are too far away from me plus their experiences are different from mine (some have friends and even married while I am not). So -- unlike the black people -- I don't have a support network to fall back on.
In addition to this, black people have plenty of non-racist White people that would sympathize with their cause (as evident by the fact that so many White people took the side of Christian Cooper). On the other hand, as someone with Asperger, I don't have any NT-s that would sympathize with me. I mean, even if, say, 20% of NT-s were on my side, 20% of university population is a lot -- so I wouldn't be complaining I don't have any friends. My whole entire problem is that "nobody" is on my side and that I am a loner. Well, the situation of black people is much better: they do have plenty of White people on their side.
As far as your point that black persecution has a long history, I can say the same thing about persecution of Jews -- and I am Jewish. Yet, *despite* my being Jewish, antisemitism doesn't bother me to the slightest; on the other hand, being ostracized as an aspie clearly does. So thats how I can use my own experience to say that aspies have it worse than ethnic minorities.
05 Jun 2020, 3:53 am
funeralxempire wrote:
QFT wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Why anyone would defend racism -- especially blatant racism -- is a complete mystery to me.
Mystery? It's not that big of leap to suggest that people who defend racism do so because they agree with it and don't see the problem. It's the intuitive solution to the question even if it's not politically correct to state aloud.
It could equally be posited that those who see racism everywhere and make such an effort to point it out, only see it because they recognise their own inner thoughts and so need to "purify" themselves by belittling another person.
Translation: You're willing to ignore context because you'd rather pretend the racist lady isn't. Stalin had a term for people who engage in what you're doing.
One can't know for sure whether she is racist or not, since nobody is a mind reader. Her behavior would make me assign higher probability that she is racist than I would assign to the average person. But, at the same time, there is also some possibility that she isn't racist.
That, however, doesn't change the fact that making a threat is worse transgression than being racist. Thus, on a balance, what Christian Cooper did is worse than what she did.
She lied and made a false report in an attempt to have the police arrive to brutalize him or at least inflict a reasonable fear of that occurring. This is far worse than whatever half-threat you're still whining about. It's a little bit revolting that you refuse to put these two actions into perspective and makes me question your own biases as to why his pseudo-threat of nothing is more important than her blatantly threatening action.
The difference is that calling a police is legal, while taking the law into your own hands is not.
So if Christian Cooper were to call a police on Amy Cooper, I would be on his side too (after all Amy Cooper broke the law by having the dog off leash so Christian Cooper has every right to call a police on her). But thats not what he did. Instead he threw dog bones. That amounts to taking law into his own hands.
Conversely, if Amy Cooper were to say "I will call my buddies and they will beat you up" instead of calling a police -- I would also say she would be the one in the wrong. Since that would be taking the law into her own hands, too. But thats not what she did: she called a police.
I guess your issue is that "false report" is illegal. But if one doesn't "know" they are making a false report, then its not really a false report. Lets say Person A yells "fire, fire, fire" as a prank (when there is no fire) -- then Person B believes him and pulls a fire alarm. I claim that Person B didn't do anything wrong since Person B was "lead to believe" that there was, in fact, a fire -- even though it happened not to be the case.
Similarly, Amy Cooper was "lead to believe" that Christian Cooper posed a threat -- even though, again, that happened not to be the case. Thats why her behavior was justified.
05 Jun 2020, 4:07 am
QFT wrote:
What people with Asperger do is not intentional while what that guy did is, as evident by him preparing the dog bones.
As far as "approximating within boundaries" I do that too, but my approximation disagrees with most people. So in case of such disagreements, I resort to logic. Since these disagreements happen all the time, thats why it sounds like logic is all I am doing.
As far as "approximating within boundaries" I do that too, but my approximation disagrees with most people. So in case of such disagreements, I resort to logic. Since these disagreements happen all the time, thats why it sounds like logic is all I am doing.
So? he planned...are you saying people with Aspergers don't plan? my approximation here is that he's a bird watcher and the dog biscuits are for dogs off leash so they don't scare away birds. I used to watch birds as a teenager and carry a camera and binoculars. Bird's a skittish and almost impossible to take photos and even with binoculars it takes quite a lot of patience. I would be damn annoyed if a dog came and scared away my quarry. But Like me christian probably also likes dogs and I don't playing with other people's dogs. I wouldn't personally carry dog biscuits because other people wouldn't trust my motives, in that way he's weird but that doesn't register in my mind as criminal???
QFT wrote:
But in case of the girl in my office you were siding with her when you were saying I was "harassing" her (your wording not mine) and you were also saying you were protective because you have a daughter of similar age.
Well, the blacks have the entire black community to fall back to. But me as someone with Asperger I am totally on my own -- seeing how other people on WrongPlanet are too far away from me plus their experiences are different from mine (some have friends and even married while I am not). So -- unlike the black people -- I don't have a support network to fall back on.
Well, the blacks have the entire black community to fall back to. But me as someone with Asperger I am totally on my own -- seeing how other people on WrongPlanet are too far away from me plus their experiences are different from mine (some have friends and even married while I am not). So -- unlike the black people -- I don't have a support network to fall back on.
I get it, and I was actually worried that you weren't picking up cues and would get yourself in trouble by constantly engaging this girl when (according to you) she was giving you the cold shoulder. My daughter is 14 so is unlikely to be the same age.
QFT wrote:
In addition to this, black people have plenty of non-racist White people that would sympathize with their cause (as evident by the fact that so many White people took the side of Christian Cooper). On the other hand, as someone with Asperger, I don't have any NT-s that would sympathize with me. I mean, even if, say, 20% of NT-s were on my side, 20% of university population is a lot -- so I wouldn't be complaining I don't have any friends. My whole entire problem is that "nobody" is on my side and that I am a loner. Well, the situation of black people is much better: they do have plenty of White people on their side.
Which is one of the reasons I get riled up about racism because the same people who are racist are likely also the same type who hate autism. Prejudice breeds ignorance. If we want people to treat autism differently we need them to treat everyone the same.
QFT wrote:
As far as your point that black persecution has a long history, I can say the same thing about persecution of Jews -- and I am Jewish. Yet, *despite* my being Jewish, antisemitism doesn't bother me to the slightest; on the other hand, being ostracized as an aspie clearly does. So thats how I can use my own experience to say that aspies have it worse than ethnic minorities.
I see, so you compartmentalise other people's prejudice from your own experiences, fair enough I guess most people probably do. No point carrying the burden/load of other oppressed minorities. I myself had desire to be an advocate for autism back in 2011 but being WP mean't that aspies are their best advocates (you don't need the likes of me).
I'm also not a SJW but my social thinking is left wing.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,202
Location: Right over your left shoulder
05 Jun 2020, 4:09 am
QFT wrote:
The difference is that calling a police is legal, while taking the law into your own hands is not.
So if Christian Cooper were to call a police on Amy Cooper, I would be on his side too (after all Amy Cooper broke the law by having the dog off leash so Christian Cooper has every right to call a police on her). But thats not what he did. Instead he threw dog bones. That amounts to taking law into his own hands.
Conversely, if Amy Cooper were to say "I will call my buddies and they will beat you up" instead of calling a police -- I would also say she would be the one in the wrong. Since that would be taking the law into her own hands, too. But thats not what she did: she called a police.
I guess your issue is that "false report" is illegal. But if one doesn't "know" they are making a false report, then its not really a false report. Lets say Person A yells "fire, fire, fire" as a prank (when there is no fire) -- then Person B believes him and pulls a fire alarm. I claim that Person B didn't do anything wrong since Person B was "lead to believe" that there was, in fact, a fire -- even though it happened not to be the case.
Similarly, Amy Cooper was "lead to believe" that Christian Cooper posed a threat -- even though, again, that happened not to be the case. Thats why her behavior was justified.
So if Christian Cooper were to call a police on Amy Cooper, I would be on his side too (after all Amy Cooper broke the law by having the dog off leash so Christian Cooper has every right to call a police on her). But thats not what he did. Instead he threw dog bones. That amounts to taking law into his own hands.
Conversely, if Amy Cooper were to say "I will call my buddies and they will beat you up" instead of calling a police -- I would also say she would be the one in the wrong. Since that would be taking the law into her own hands, too. But thats not what she did: she called a police.
I guess your issue is that "false report" is illegal. But if one doesn't "know" they are making a false report, then its not really a false report. Lets say Person A yells "fire, fire, fire" as a prank (when there is no fire) -- then Person B believes him and pulls a fire alarm. I claim that Person B didn't do anything wrong since Person B was "lead to believe" that there was, in fact, a fire -- even though it happened not to be the case.
Similarly, Amy Cooper was "lead to believe" that Christian Cooper posed a threat -- even though, again, that happened not to be the case. Thats why her behavior was justified.
Asking that she put her dog on a leach and having snacks to distract dogs that are damaging places birds rely on isn't exactly taking the law into your own hands and I don't believe you're dumb enough to believe she didn't know exactly what she was doing and that's why your defence of her seems either dishonest or painfully naive. The fact that she's allowed to call the police if she felt threatened doesn't give her the right to call the police and lie about her life being threatened. Please keep pretending her malicious lies in hopes of having him harmed aren't the only significant problem in this interaction and I'll keep pointing out that racism appears to be your motive.
_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.
05 Jun 2020, 4:17 am
He carries the bones to lure the dogs away from their owners ...
Transcript:
ME (to the dog): Come here, puppy!
HER: He won't come to you.
ME: We'll see about that...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/26/us/centr ... index.html
This is after he just threatened to do something to her that she won't like.
Will he kill her dog? Will he kidnap it?
He has demonstrated that he's a threat.
She's right to call the police on him and say he's a threat to both her and her dog.
He's not law enforcement.
He is provoking her by doing this.
_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.
Be the hero of your life.
Last edited by TheRobotLives on 05 Jun 2020, 4:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,202
Location: Right over your left shoulder
05 Jun 2020, 4:21 am
TheRobotLives wrote:
He carries the bones to lure the dogs away from their owners ...
Transcript:
ME (to the dog): Come here, puppy!
HER: He won't come to you.
ME: We'll see about that...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/26/us/centr ... index.html
This is after he just threatened to do something to her that she won't like.
Will he kill her dog? Will he kidnap it?
He has demonstrated that he's a threat.
She's right to call the police on him and say he's a threat to both her and her dog.
Transcript:
ME (to the dog): Come here, puppy!
HER: He won't come to you.
ME: We'll see about that...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/26/us/centr ... index.html
This is after he just threatened to do something to her that she won't like.
Will he kill her dog? Will he kidnap it?
He has demonstrated that he's a threat.
She's right to call the police on him and say he's a threat to both her and her dog.
She explicitly claimed her life had been threatened. She's a blatant liar; I'm not surprised her former employer decided they'd be better off no longer associating with someone like that. It's an indefensible lie.
_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.
05 Jun 2020, 4:34 am
funeralxempire wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
He carries the bones to lure the dogs away from their owners ...
Transcript:
ME (to the dog): Come here, puppy!
HER: He won't come to you.
ME: We'll see about that...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/26/us/centr ... index.html
This is after he just threatened to do something to her that she won't like.
Will he kill her dog? Will he kidnap it?
He has demonstrated that he's a threat.
She's right to call the police on him and say he's a threat to both her and her dog.
Transcript:
ME (to the dog): Come here, puppy!
HER: He won't come to you.
ME: We'll see about that...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/26/us/centr ... index.html
This is after he just threatened to do something to her that she won't like.
Will he kill her dog? Will he kidnap it?
He has demonstrated that he's a threat.
She's right to call the police on him and say he's a threat to both her and her dog.
She explicitly claimed her life had been threatened. She's a blatant liar; I'm not surprised her former employer decided they'd be better off no longer associating with someone like that. It's an indefensible lie.
Well, we don't know the full conservation.
However, rather than call police, he's escalating the situation by threatening to lure her dog away and video recording her.
What was she suppose to tell police?
She felt threatened because he made an open threat to do something and he was saying, "Come here, puppy!" like he was gonna do something evil to her dog.
Sure, maybe he's just gonna pull his pants down.
However, how could she know?
_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.
Be the hero of your life.
05 Jun 2020, 4:57 am
cyberdad wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
Sure, maybe he's just gonna pull his pants down.
However, how could she know?
A lot of hypotheticals after the event
When strangers makes threats, they aren't given the benefit of doubt.
They're assumed to be the worst.
_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.
Be the hero of your life.
05 Jun 2020, 11:04 am
cyberdad wrote:
QFT wrote:
What people with Asperger do is not intentional while what that guy did is, as evident by him preparing the dog bones.
As far as "approximating within boundaries" I do that too, but my approximation disagrees with most people. So in case of such disagreements, I resort to logic. Since these disagreements happen all the time, thats why it sounds like logic is all I am doing.
As far as "approximating within boundaries" I do that too, but my approximation disagrees with most people. So in case of such disagreements, I resort to logic. Since these disagreements happen all the time, thats why it sounds like logic is all I am doing.
So? he planned...are you saying people with Aspergers don't plan?
People with Asperger don't plan their social faux passes Thats what I mean.
cyberdad wrote:
my approximation here is that he's a bird watcher and the dog biscuits are for dogs off leash so they don't scare away birds. I used to watch birds as a teenager and carry a camera and binoculars. Bird's a skittish and almost impossible to take photos and even with binoculars it takes quite a lot of patience. I would be damn annoyed if a dog came and scared away my quarry. But Like me christian probably also likes dogs and I don't playing with other people's dogs. I wouldn't personally carry dog biscuits because other people wouldn't trust my motives, in that way he's weird but that doesn't register in my mind as criminal???
Did he actually say that was the case in one of his interviews, or are you just guessing it?
In any case, the use of dog biscuits even for the purposes you described is still not legal. Even when you go watch dolphins that don't belong to anybody there is a sign "don't feed dolphins". So feeding the animals that "do" have an owner is even worse. You don't know what medical conditions those dogs have and if that food is bad for them.
Besides, like you said yourself, other people won't trust your motives. Now, if your motives are pure yet others don't know it -- then yes, you would still be committing a crime. Let me give you an example. So, back when I was 14, me and my dad was playing tennis, and our tennis ball accidentally got into somebody elses back yard. We asked that person to let us in to take the ball, but they didn't let us in since it is their property. Well, we didn't insist, we left, so everything was fine. But lets do a hypothetical What would have happened if me and my dad were to simply walk in to take the ball without asking (kinda like he threw the bone without asking)? They would call a police. Why? Because they don't trust our motives: they don't know that we won't steal anything. But lets say that we make a really good case to the police that we weren't going to steal anything and lets say the police believes us. They can still get us into trouble for trespassing anyway. But why would police get us into trouble for trespassing if the purpose of anti-trespassing laws is to prevent people from stealing and police believed us we weren't going to steal? The reason is that we made other people worried that we might steal -- and making other people worried is, in itself, a crime. Well, by the same token, throwing biscuits at a dog would make an owner worried you were going to steal it, which, too, is a crime.
cyberdad wrote:
QFT wrote:
But in case of the girl in my office you were siding with her when you were saying I was "harassing" her (your wording not mine) and you were also saying you were protective because you have a daughter of similar age.
Well, the blacks have the entire black community to fall back to. But me as someone with Asperger I am totally on my own -- seeing how other people on WrongPlanet are too far away from me plus their experiences are different from mine (some have friends and even married while I am not). So -- unlike the black people -- I don't have a support network to fall back on.
Well, the blacks have the entire black community to fall back to. But me as someone with Asperger I am totally on my own -- seeing how other people on WrongPlanet are too far away from me plus their experiences are different from mine (some have friends and even married while I am not). So -- unlike the black people -- I don't have a support network to fall back on.
I get it, and I was actually worried that you weren't picking up cues and would get yourself in trouble by constantly engaging this girl when (according to you) she was giving you the cold shoulder. My daughter is 14 so is unlikely to be the same age.
My officemate is a graduate student, so she is probably in her 20-s. I am not interested in anyone under 18 since it is illegal.
I just found the quote in that thread where you said you were over-protective. In particular, it is on page 7, and it is is the post "07 Sep 2019, 6:57 pm", where you say
Quote:
Sorry fireblossom, my posts are about NT girls who put themselves "out there" in public places (coffee shops, parties, out with friends). I realise most girls on the spectrum (I have a 14yr old ASD daughter) prefer to keep their distance from the "meat market". Frankly I am overprotective in this regard so don't include ASD/Aspie girls in my posts to QFT who himself appears to be targeting NT girls in the science field anyway. This of course of course may not apply to you specifically if you have online dating profile or are on the dating scene.
So why is it that you were over-protective when it comes to aspie girls? Thats what made me think that you thought I was some kind of threat to them.
cyberdad wrote:
QFT wrote:
In addition to this, black people have plenty of non-racist White people that would sympathize with their cause (as evident by the fact that so many White people took the side of Christian Cooper). On the other hand, as someone with Asperger, I don't have any NT-s that would sympathize with me. I mean, even if, say, 20% of NT-s were on my side, 20% of university population is a lot -- so I wouldn't be complaining I don't have any friends. My whole entire problem is that "nobody" is on my side and that I am a loner. Well, the situation of black people is much better: they do have plenty of White people on their side.
Which is one of the reasons I get riled up about racism because the same people who are racist are likely also the same type who hate autism.
I am not sure that there is a correlation. The way I see it is that people on the right are racist against blacks while people on the left are racist against whites, so they are both racist, just different type of racism. So which of these two racisms is more likely to correlate with prejudice against aspies? Good question. Could go either way.
cyberdad wrote:
Prejudice breeds ignorance. If we want people to treat autism differently we need them to treat everyone the same.
I think both people on the left and people on the right would agree that "we need to treat everyone the same". The issue is that it is very difficult to define what we mean by the same.
From left wing point of view, the fact that in the past blacks were treated worse than whites means that today we need to treat blacks better than whites and that way "on average" it would be the same. From right wing point of view, the fact that blacks were treated worse in the past is irrelevant since none of those people in the past are alive today; on the contrary, if we punish today's Whites for the behavior of their slave ancestors it is unfair towards them since its not their fault their ancestors did what they did.
Also, if you ask which of the groups are discriminated against the most, again you get different answers depending on how you look at it. On the one hand, police tends to be more brutal with blacks. Yet, on the other hand, blacks get advantage when it comes to going to college (affirmative action) and getting hired. People are more likely to see blacks as criminals, yet, at the same time, people are also more likely to defend them in the name of political correctness.
The point I am trying to make is that I agree that people should be treated equally. I am just saying that its not necesserely true that "equality" always amounts to making things better for blacks. Its more complicated than that.
cyberdad wrote:
QFT wrote:
As far as your point that black persecution has a long history, I can say the same thing about persecution of Jews -- and I am Jewish. Yet, *despite* my being Jewish, antisemitism doesn't bother me to the slightest; on the other hand, being ostracized as an aspie clearly does. So thats how I can use my own experience to say that aspies have it worse than ethnic minorities.
I see, so you compartmentalise other people's prejudice from your own experiences, fair enough I guess most people probably do. No point carrying the burden/load of other oppressed minorities. I myself had desire to be an advocate for autism back in 2011 but being WP mean't that aspies are their best advocates (you don't need the likes of me).
I didn't say that there is no point in helping other minority groups you are not a part of. I actually think there is a lot of point in doing it. Because when the members of minority group speak for themselves then you could say "well, they are just being biased". But if the people "outside" their group speak out for them then you would say "well, then they must have a point".
What I was trying to say is this. While blacks have plenty of people outside their group speaking on their behalf, aspies don't seem to (the only examples of NT-s speaking on behalf of aspies are probably their relatives). So thats why I felt like blacks have it easier. Now the reason I brought it up is this. When I asked "why is it not okay to discriminate against blacks yet it is okay to discriminate against aspies" you said "well, discrimination against blacks is historic" -- which seemed to imply that you said blacks have it harder. But since, to me, it doesn't look like blacks have it harder, thats why I challenged that assertion.
By the way, since you mentioned you wanted to be an advocate for autism, is it because of your daughter or is it just you deciding it all on your own? I was assuming your daughter is an aspie? Was I correct?
05 Jun 2020, 11:26 am
funeralxempire wrote:
QFT wrote:
The difference is that calling a police is legal, while taking the law into your own hands is not.
So if Christian Cooper were to call a police on Amy Cooper, I would be on his side too (after all Amy Cooper broke the law by having the dog off leash so Christian Cooper has every right to call a police on her). But thats not what he did. Instead he threw dog bones. That amounts to taking law into his own hands.
Conversely, if Amy Cooper were to say "I will call my buddies and they will beat you up" instead of calling a police -- I would also say she would be the one in the wrong. Since that would be taking the law into her own hands, too. But thats not what she did: she called a police.
I guess your issue is that "false report" is illegal. But if one doesn't "know" they are making a false report, then its not really a false report. Lets say Person A yells "fire, fire, fire" as a prank (when there is no fire) -- then Person B believes him and pulls a fire alarm. I claim that Person B didn't do anything wrong since Person B was "lead to believe" that there was, in fact, a fire -- even though it happened not to be the case.
Similarly, Amy Cooper was "lead to believe" that Christian Cooper posed a threat -- even though, again, that happened not to be the case. Thats why her behavior was justified.
So if Christian Cooper were to call a police on Amy Cooper, I would be on his side too (after all Amy Cooper broke the law by having the dog off leash so Christian Cooper has every right to call a police on her). But thats not what he did. Instead he threw dog bones. That amounts to taking law into his own hands.
Conversely, if Amy Cooper were to say "I will call my buddies and they will beat you up" instead of calling a police -- I would also say she would be the one in the wrong. Since that would be taking the law into her own hands, too. But thats not what she did: she called a police.
I guess your issue is that "false report" is illegal. But if one doesn't "know" they are making a false report, then its not really a false report. Lets say Person A yells "fire, fire, fire" as a prank (when there is no fire) -- then Person B believes him and pulls a fire alarm. I claim that Person B didn't do anything wrong since Person B was "lead to believe" that there was, in fact, a fire -- even though it happened not to be the case.
Similarly, Amy Cooper was "lead to believe" that Christian Cooper posed a threat -- even though, again, that happened not to be the case. Thats why her behavior was justified.
Asking that she put her dog on a leach and having snacks to distract dogs that are damaging places birds rely on isn't exactly taking the law into your own hands
"Asking to put the dog on a leach" isn't, but "having snacks to distract dogs" is. I am sure there are laws that say not to feed other people's animals -- just like there are laws that say to keep dogs on a leash. So what he basically said is "if you are going to break the law I will break the law too", and thats where he took the law into his own hands.
funeralxempire wrote:
and I don't believe you're dumb enough to believe she didn't know exactly what she was doing
She was scared. People do stupid things when they are scared. Here is an example. I am afraid of dogs. So when the dog runs after me I might run away and yell cuss words. Is it logical? Nope. The dog runs faster than me so by running away I only trigger her. And the dog doesn't know English so yelling cuss words at the dog won't help. But I do those things anyway since I am scared so my behavior isn't rational. Well, Amy Cooper was scared of Christian Cooper, thats why you should cut her some slack.
funeralxempire wrote:
The fact that she's allowed to call the police if she felt threatened doesn't give her the right to call the police and lie about her life being threatened.
What she *should have* said was that she was given an unspecified threat so she was concerned about the possibility that it might pertain to her life even though she doesn't know one way or the other. But its hard to think through this complicated sentence when you feel frightened.
Perhaps she was worried that police would take too long to come and IF she is in danger the time is crucial. So she decided to use as strong words as possible to get the police to hurry.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,202
Location: Right over your left shoulder
05 Jun 2020, 4:24 pm
QFT wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
QFT wrote:
The difference is that calling a police is legal, while taking the law into your own hands is not.
So if Christian Cooper were to call a police on Amy Cooper, I would be on his side too (after all Amy Cooper broke the law by having the dog off leash so Christian Cooper has every right to call a police on her). But thats not what he did. Instead he threw dog bones. That amounts to taking law into his own hands.
Conversely, if Amy Cooper were to say "I will call my buddies and they will beat you up" instead of calling a police -- I would also say she would be the one in the wrong. Since that would be taking the law into her own hands, too. But thats not what she did: she called a police.
I guess your issue is that "false report" is illegal. But if one doesn't "know" they are making a false report, then its not really a false report. Lets say Person A yells "fire, fire, fire" as a prank (when there is no fire) -- then Person B believes him and pulls a fire alarm. I claim that Person B didn't do anything wrong since Person B was "lead to believe" that there was, in fact, a fire -- even though it happened not to be the case.
Similarly, Amy Cooper was "lead to believe" that Christian Cooper posed a threat -- even though, again, that happened not to be the case. Thats why her behavior was justified.
So if Christian Cooper were to call a police on Amy Cooper, I would be on his side too (after all Amy Cooper broke the law by having the dog off leash so Christian Cooper has every right to call a police on her). But thats not what he did. Instead he threw dog bones. That amounts to taking law into his own hands.
Conversely, if Amy Cooper were to say "I will call my buddies and they will beat you up" instead of calling a police -- I would also say she would be the one in the wrong. Since that would be taking the law into her own hands, too. But thats not what she did: she called a police.
I guess your issue is that "false report" is illegal. But if one doesn't "know" they are making a false report, then its not really a false report. Lets say Person A yells "fire, fire, fire" as a prank (when there is no fire) -- then Person B believes him and pulls a fire alarm. I claim that Person B didn't do anything wrong since Person B was "lead to believe" that there was, in fact, a fire -- even though it happened not to be the case.
Similarly, Amy Cooper was "lead to believe" that Christian Cooper posed a threat -- even though, again, that happened not to be the case. Thats why her behavior was justified.
Asking that she put her dog on a leach and having snacks to distract dogs that are damaging places birds rely on isn't exactly taking the law into your own hands
"Asking to put the dog on a leach" isn't, but "having snacks to distract dogs" is. I am sure there are laws that say not to feed other people's animals -- just like there are laws that say to keep dogs on a leash. So what he basically said is "if you are going to break the law I will break the law too", and thats where he took the law into his own hands.
funeralxempire wrote:
and I don't believe you're dumb enough to believe she didn't know exactly what she was doing
She was scared. People do stupid things when they are scared. Here is an example. I am afraid of dogs. So when the dog runs after me I might run away and yell cuss words. Is it logical? Nope. The dog runs faster than me so by running away I only trigger her. And the dog doesn't know English so yelling cuss words at the dog won't help. But I do those things anyway since I am scared so my behavior isn't rational. Well, Amy Cooper was scared of Christian Cooper, thats why you should cut her some slack.
funeralxempire wrote:
The fact that she's allowed to call the police if she felt threatened doesn't give her the right to call the police and lie about her life being threatened.
What she *should have* said was that she was given an unspecified threat so she was concerned about the possibility that it might pertain to her life even though she doesn't know one way or the other. But its hard to think through this complicated sentence when you feel frightened.
Perhaps she was worried that police would take too long to come and IF she is in danger the time is crucial. So she decided to use as strong words as possible to get the police to hurry.
She lied and pretended he was a violent criminal who intended on causing her physical harm, given the racial dynamics in the US and the current situation, if she didn't understand that her lies had the potential to get him killed she's a moron, but most likely she did understand because no one is that f*****g ignorant.
If your defence boils down to 'she was scared and stupid' perhaps she needs a caretaker permanently so that encounters with unarmed, calm, non-threatening black citizens don't set her off into another hysterical panic. More realistically though you, her and I all know she was a liar and I'm tired of wasting my time dealing with your pathetically weak deflections whether they're motivated by ignorance, racism or both. I'm not sure why you're so committed to pretending like racism wasn't the primary factor in her actions but the most likely answer will probably induce much butthurt.
_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.
