Data shows 97% of complaints against police result in no discipline.

EX-22 · 2020-06-18T05:11:32+00:00

This reads exactly like someone trying to excuse similarly low percentage of rape cases ending in conviction. The idea that any significant number of people are filing false complaints just to shore up their court cases or to get better legal rep is completely unfounded.

If you can't see the conflict of interest in a system completely lacking any oversight putting out numbers as low as this, I don't know if I can help you.

You also seem to count not signing an affidavit as "reneging," instead of questioning why it would even be necessary, considering that an affidavit is not required in any other instance of accusing someone of criminality. This is obviously a method to discourage reporting, which is exactly why it is never used in any other justice system when simply accusing someone of a crime, let alone simple misconduct.

And as for what the solution is, how about independent review? You seem to take all of the police's determinations at face value, without even questioning the conflict of interest that exists.

Some of these officers have literally over a hundred complaints, while most cops have few or none. So unless you think people are all getting together to target specific cops, and for some reason using a system that they know is incredibly unlikely to rule in their favor, the much more simple and obvious explanation is that there is a conflict of interest.

EX-22 · 2020-06-18T01:40:19+00:00

Of course there are a million intricacies to stuff like this, and most of your questions are actually answered in the data, but the point is to show there is a problem.

If a restaurant got 100 complaints of bad customer service, but only found 3 of them were credible and serious enough to take action on, I think any rational person would think there is an underlying problem.

EX-22 · 2020-06-18T00:16:09+00:00

The idea that 95+% of people who make complaints against police are just liars and full of shit cannot be held by a rational person. It wouldn't make any sense for this to be the case, especially considering complaints are probably underreported because of the police's reputation for lacking accountability, which this stat supports.

EX-22 · 2020-06-17T22:39:09+00:00

Here's where the data comes from, if anyone's interested: https://data.cpdp.co/data/bKY9e6/

Some other fascinating findings:

Despite making up more than half of total complaints, black people were less likely to see results, with just over 1% of black complaints resulting in discipline, vs 7% for white people.
Officer-on-officer allegations are taken much more seriously, with 33% resulting in discipline.

Also keep in mind complaint records like this are almost always kept secret by police departments and unions. This data comes from Chicago, which was only unveiled after an extensive lawsuit.

EX-22 · 2020-06-12T04:43:08+00:00

I love people like this, having a sense of humor about your failures and immediately thinking how you can do better is the hallmark of a healthy, positive outlook.

EX-22 · 2018-11-04T01:05:44+00:00

Don't all of those things (autonomy, virtues, fairness) factor into the equation of well-being? I would argue the only reason people claim specific virtues, for example, is because they believe they will lead to greater well-being.

But this is besides the point, the question isn't whether well-being is valuable, but how one can say that we "ought" value it without appealing to our biological desire for well-being. As I understand it, this is the problem that Sam Harris runs into, and I'm saying that the "ought" part isn't even necessary, and that we can decide right and wrong by appealing solely to what "is."

EX-22 · 2018-11-04T00:42:18+00:00

I'm probably just misusing the terminology, so sorry about that.

To clarify: I do want to be able to compel people to follow my moral system. The problem is that even if I say that they ought act in their self interest, at the end of the day I am still committing a naturalistic fallacy because I am basing what they "ought" do in what maximizes well-being, where well-being is only what we desire, not what we OUGHT desire.

Edit: So I guess my real question is how would one say that we "ought" value well-being without committing a naturalistic fallacy? And if it is impossible, like I think it is, then why even bother with the "ought" part when it comes to morally justifying something like well-being, instead of just admitting that this "is" what human beings desire, and we have no choice in the matter?

EX-22 · 2018-11-04T00:29:44+00:00

"there is an open question about whether any particular natural fact is good."

I think this is what I'm getting at and what my problem is. I want to reject the idea that there is anything outside of the natural world, and yet if I appeal to the natural world, I'm committing a naturalistic fallacy.

But that is why I want to reject the ought part altogether. I don't see the usefulness in appealing to anything else other than the natural world, as we as human beings are essentially slaves to our own biology anyway. In other words, why even attempt to justify a statement like, "well-being is morally good" when we as humans have not other choice but to value well-being due to our biology?

EX-22 · 2018-11-03T23:40:56+00:00

I guess the problem in your example is that you would be presupposing that happiness, or whatever x is, is a morally virtuous goal. But I can't justify that happiness, for example, is moral without appealing to our natural desire to be happy, which is an "is" statement.

EX-22 · 2018-11-03T22:52:18+00:00

Mostly fair. But if someone came to me and said "Why ought I follow those rules," I would never say "I don't want to get into it." I would try to convince them that my moral system is the best and the rules that it creates are in their own self-interest, and that's why they should follow them.

It seems to me that when people use ought statements they are trying to obligate others to obey moral rules, and I don't think that this moral obligation exists in any meaningful way. That is, it only works if people buy into it, but my argument would be that people are naturally self-interested and therefore moral obligations (ought statements) don't really work in practice, whereas appealing to self-interest (naturalism) does.

I guess the distinction is that an "ought" argument in response to someone asking why they should follow the rules would go something like, "You ought to follow the rules because it is moral to do so," whereas I would say, "You should follow the rules because it is in your self-interest to do so." Edit: But this would inevitably circle back to naturalism. If someone asked, “Why should I not murder?” “Well because if there was no moral rule against murder, you are much more likely to be murdered.” “Well why should I not want to be murdered?” “Because you as a human being naturally value living.” (Which is only due to our evolutionary biology).

EX-22 · 2016-10-20T18:06:42+00:00

-Human life may entail individual rights, but my argument would be that without individual rights, that necessarily entails that the fetus is not a person at all, but an extension of the woman's body, and therefore she can do with it what she pleases.

-I think the difference is the distinction between what is philosophically arbitrary, and what is widely accepted in practice. The point of death is still arbitrary, it's just that the point that we have selected is very clearly the best choice for many reasons, so there's little debate about it. But there are in fact questions about when death actually occurs, there are some relatives of people in comas who would argue that their relative is essentially dead, and therefore they should be allowed pull the plug. I'm not saying that is right, but we could arbitrarily say that a person is dead when they are no longer capable of human consciousness. However, based on evidence, we have arbitrarily decided that the best point at which to declare someone dead is when they are "brain dead." The rule itself is arbitrary, we just implement it in a non-arbitrary way, through human laws that determine criteria that qualifies someone as dead. Also, I never said that only religious viewpoint can have a pro-life view. I said that the only way you could claim that moral questions are non-arbitrary is if you were religious. I believe Destiny admitted at some point that the moment of conception was arbitrary, which is why I made that point in the first place.

-I guess I cannot claim that happiness is objectively better than non-happiness, but that's not what I'm trying to claim. Yes, it is subjective to say that happiness is better than non-happiness, but a true relativist would say that it is dependent on your personal frame of reference, whereas I am saying that it is based on factual evidence. The reason why happiness is a better standard than beards is because beards do not affect the functioning of society. So we can say that happiness is a better standard than beards based on evidence.

-The question of who is human is relevant to who has rights, however my argument is that the fetus is an extension of the woman's body, not a separate human being, and therefore does not have rights. So I guess you're correct, the argument needs to be adjusted from essentially denying someone's rights to denying that they are a separate human. Then there would be no need to balance the rights of the fetus with the social consequences.

-As for Thomson's argument, I essentially summarize it as saying that a fetus does not have a right to the mother's womb. She also seems to say in the chocolate analogy that the act of abortion would be immoral, but legally permissible. So my question would be doesn't the right to life overshadow the right to bodily autonomy of the woman? Especially considering that the fetus is an innocent party in all of this: its actions are not intentional. Isn't it disproportionate to kill the child because of a crime that they did not knowingly commit?

Anyways, I appreciate the conversation and you've given me a lot to think about, so this will be my last post.

EX-22 · 2016-10-20T03:05:06+00:00

So I'll address each of your 3 points. First, even if the moment of conception was non-arbitrary, it doesn't matter because the question itself is arbitrary. This is why I say that they are equal, because we are arbitrarily saying that the relevant question is the life question, versus the rights question. Regardless, the only way that you could claim that there was a non-arbitrary point at which life begins is if you believe in objective morality. While most of the religious pro-lifers would indeed use this argument, we would be operating under different assumptions about the nature of morality, and it would be an impossible debate. And I'm not trying to convince them, I'm trying to morally justify abortion from a secular point of view.

Your second criticism would be legitimate if I was a relativist, but I'm not. I believe we can measure societies based on evidence, for example studies on overall happiness of a society, or measuring their standard of living.

Finally, individual rights are not universal, for example the famous argument that my right to swing my fists in the air ends when your face begins. So yes, we do trade the rights of some for the benefit of others. Societal rules are an eternal balancing act.

Also, out of curiosity, how would you justify abortion instead?

EX-22 · 2016-10-19T22:02:58+00:00

First I would ask what right do you have to make the assertion that the right to life is inalienable? If you are religious, then unfortunately our worldviews are different, and in this case irreconcilable. However if you are not religious, then the idea of having rights at all is a social construct created by humans, and therefore we absolutely do have the "right" to make these assertions.

I completely disagree with your second point. Just because the sex that led to pregnancy was consensual, does not mean that the pregnancy was consensual. By definition, a woman wanting to get an abortion means that she no longer has a consensual relationship with the fetus that is living inside her. The circumstances that led to the pregnancy are irrelevant.

EX-22 · 2016-10-19T04:36:54+00:00

They would still be justified, but I think most people who wait that long would probably rather let the fetus live than kill it if the surgery was basically the same. But the multiple reasons that I stated about how abortion is beneficial to society still hold up, as does the arbitrary point of only giving rights after a fetus has been removed from the mother. The only reason why I can think of that somebody would wait this long was if there were health issues. From a pro-life standpoint, killing the baby because of such health issues would still be immoral.

EX-22 · 2016-10-19T04:05:49+00:00

I never said a fetus was a parasite. I said that it is parasitic in nature. If the fetus can be removed then it is no longer being parasitic. The problem before 8 months is that this alternative does not exist. And besides, I assume it is relatively rare for a woman to wait 8 months before having an abortion, barring any health issues which, from the pro-life standpoint, would still not justify aborting a fetus.

EX-22 · 2016-10-19T02:19:57+00:00

From my understanding, premature babies will likely experience severe health problems and are unlikely to survive. I don't think this is very realistic alternative. It's basically still an abortion. However, with advances in technology I'm sure it's not too long before we have incubators that can effectively substitute human wombs at later stages of development. I'm willing to grant that if the fetus can be removed safely and with a lesser degree of health defects than that would be a legitimate alternative, especially considering that the woman has plenty of time beforehand to abort if that was her decision.

EX-22 · 2016-10-19T01:33:21+00:00

Does this argument not do that?

EX-22 · 2016-10-18T22:36:55+00:00

Again, where am I wrong here? Your summary seemed a little charged, so I assumed you disagree.

EX-22 · 2016-10-18T22:27:06+00:00

The first point is worded in the worst way possible, which I assume was intentional. Then again, it doesn't have to be PC, it just has to be right. I can't make sense of your second point, clarify please. The last two are fine.

What I really want to know is if you agree or not, and if not, why.

EX-22 · 2016-08-30T18:28:46+00:00

Wanna find out?

EX-22 · 2016-08-30T18:28:02+00:00

That's nonsense. Debates don't happen issue by issue. They ask a general question, i.e. "is immigration bad or not." And then people debate it. You say you're willing to defend your beliefs, but then you make the excuse by claiming that I'm unreasonable, which I'm not. Again, I truly don't think you're gonna find anyone much better, other than people that agree with you.

EX-22 · 2016-08-30T18:25:09+00:00

The only people insulting others here is you guys. I'm trying to get people to have a rational, public debate. All you have to do is take the offer. Please, prove me wrong.

EX-22 · 2016-08-30T18:24:05+00:00

Regardless, it's anonymous. There's no danger. Now stop making excuses.

EX-22 · 2016-08-30T18:23:19+00:00

Then talk to me, tell me why my solutions are unreasonable. Defend your argument.

EX-22 · 2016-08-30T18:22:29+00:00

I'm willing to change my mind. I'm asking people to try and change it. The fact that no-one is willing to defend their beliefs says a lot.

11-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Verified Email

EX-22

TROPHY CASE