Coded Logic

Joined

• started 181 topics
• posted 1,465 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Coded Logic

• 
  77

  Rumor: Discouraging news from GB at upcoming CA?

  by bohm in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  this is on the reddit frontpage and sounds super weird.

  can it be confirmed in any way by anyone here?.

  https://www.reddit.com/r/exjw/comments/4u72dk/what_kind_of_announcement_could_cause_jws_to/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  I too have long suspected a racketeering raccoon scheme.

  
  
• 
  32

  Cancer has been with us for a long time

  by Coded Logic in

  1. social
  2. current

  a 2 million year old hominid has been discovered that had cancer in its foot - making it the oldest neoplasia found in the human lineage.

  now, as to why cancer predates original sin by nearly 2 million years, i'd love to hear christian apologists try and explain.. http://sajs.co.za/osteogenic-tumour-australopithecus-sediba-earliest-hominin-evidence-neoplastic-disease/patrick-s-randolph-quinney-scott-williams-maryna-steyn-marc-r-meyer-jacqueline-s-smilg-steven-e.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  That's why they are referred to as apes and not humans.
  - Vidqun

  
  

  Humans are apes. We belong in the category of "ape" much in the same way we belong in the category of mammals. But australopithecus isn't just an ape. It belongs to in even more specific sub category - hominin - of which we humans also belong. But chimpanzees do NOT belong.
  

  You're trying to draw a distinction saying australopithecus and chimpanzees belong to a group different from humans. When, in fact, the complete opposite is true. Australopithecus and humans belong to a group that chipmanzees do not belong to.
• 
  32

  Cancer has been with us for a long time

  by Coded Logic in

  1. social
  2. current

  a 2 million year old hominid has been discovered that had cancer in its foot - making it the oldest neoplasia found in the human lineage.

  now, as to why cancer predates original sin by nearly 2 million years, i'd love to hear christian apologists try and explain.. http://sajs.co.za/osteogenic-tumour-australopithecus-sediba-earliest-hominin-evidence-neoplastic-disease/patrick-s-randolph-quinney-scott-williams-maryna-steyn-marc-r-meyer-jacqueline-s-smilg-steven-e.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  Sorry, linked the wrong paper in my OP. Here's the correct one:

  file:///home/chronos/u-e33153ad3c668a4fe36e2f3d9f2665dbd8596045/Downloads/SAJS%20112_7-8_Odes_Research%20Article.pdf
  
• 
  32

  Cancer has been with us for a long time

  by Coded Logic in

  1. social
  2. current

  a 2 million year old hominid has been discovered that had cancer in its foot - making it the oldest neoplasia found in the human lineage.

  now, as to why cancer predates original sin by nearly 2 million years, i'd love to hear christian apologists try and explain.. http://sajs.co.za/osteogenic-tumour-australopithecus-sediba-earliest-hominin-evidence-neoplastic-disease/patrick-s-randolph-quinney-scott-williams-maryna-steyn-marc-r-meyer-jacqueline-s-smilg-steven-e.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  A 2 million year old hominid has been discovered that had cancer in its foot - making it the oldest neoplasia found in the human lineage. Now, as to why cancer predates original sin by nearly 2 million years, I'd love to hear Christian Apologists try and explain.

  http://sajs.co.za/osteogenic-tumour-australopithecus-sediba-earliest-hominin-evidence-neoplastic-disease/patrick-s-randolph-quinney-scott-williams-maryna-steyn-marc-r-meyer-jacqueline-s-smilg-steven-e
• 
  127

  Racial Insensitivity

  by Coded Logic in

  1. social
  2. current

  "blue" lives matter!

  - sheriff david clarke at the rnc.

  this bs really makes my blood boil.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  The more cameras that capture the police in action the more police misconduct we're seeing. The more videos we see of unarmed people being shot the more we're realizing the accounts of the police officers are being fabricated. We now understand that when a police officer shoots an unarmed person that officer - and their fellow officers - will do nearly anything to cover their tracks - including saying the suspect went for their gun when the suspect didn't and officers will sometimes move objects closer to the deceased's body so they can say they thought the suspect had a gun.

  But more to the point, if you are more likely to be stopped by the police for identical behavior and you're more likely to be wrongly shot by the police because of your race - this is clear indication of racial bias. Considering these two factors it's not surprising the figures show that more unarmed black people are shot than unarmed white people.

  Simon keeps trying to insinuate that "unarmed" isn't a clear enough distinction. He isn't wrong because all unarmed persons shot by the police are perfectly innocent. Rather, he's wrong because their's a disparity in the ratio of unarmed white persons shot compared to unarmed black persons (6 to 1).

  If we assume for a moment that 50% of all unarmed shootings are justified - we would still have a disproportionate ratio of 6 to 1. The only way we can balance out the numbers in terms of race is if 0% of unarmed white people being shot by the police are justifiable - but a full 83% of unarmed black people being shot by the police are justifiable.
• 
  127

  Racial Insensitivity

  by Coded Logic in

  1. social
  2. current

  "blue" lives matter!

  - sheriff david clarke at the rnc.

  this bs really makes my blood boil.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  If someone is shot and it was the right thing to do - what is the problem?

  
  How do we tell the difference between shootings that were "the right thing to do" from shootings that were "the wrong thing to do"? I think we can all agree a justified shooting is when the person represents a clear and present danger to the public or to the officer. Generally speaking, unarmed persons do not fit into this category.

  This problem is exasperated further because, when video emerges, almost all unarmed persons shot by police are unjustified. And we also have many videos of cops who claim an individual was going for the officers gun - when the individual clearly wasn't.

  Also, you haven't proven that more unarmed black people are shot than unarmed white people. Links you've posted previously show more white people shot.

  
  No the data clearly shows more unarmed black people are shot than unarmed white persons (38 black vs 32 white).
  https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings/

  Well first you have to prove that it is disproportionate and we're still waiting on that.

  
  Does the research I cited in my previous comment show that police are more likely to stop black people over white people for identical behavior?Does the research I cited in my previous comment show that unarmed black persons are more likely to be shot by police compared to unarmed white persons both statistically and in simulations?
  
• 
  127

  Racial Insensitivity

  by Coded Logic in

  1. social
  2. current

  "blue" lives matter!

  - sheriff david clarke at the rnc.

  this bs really makes my blood boil.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  Is calculation of any bias based on the color of the people in front of a police officer or is it based on the total number of people who share that skin color?

  Perhaps addressing both sides of this issue simultaneously will afford us some clarity.

  First, we know black people are far more likely to attract police attention than white people are for identical behavior:

  http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/bernd.wittenbrink/research/pdf/cpjw07.pdf

  http://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-07-police-people-legal-interventions.html

  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2561263/

  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00398.x/abstract

  Second, we know police are more likely to shoot if the person is black than if they're white. This has been found both in the research of actual shootings:

  http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0141854

  And in the research of simulated confrontations:

  http://psych.colorado.edu/~jclab/FPST.html (http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/bernd.wittenbrink/research/pdf/cpjw07.pdf)

  http://pss.sagepub.com/content/16/3/180.abstract

  So, from both increased interactions with the police AND a higher error rate to shoot at unarmed black persons, I don't think we should be surprised when we discover that more unarmed black people are shot than unarmed white people. And I don't think we should disparage an entire social movement when they're outraged by this disproportionate use of force.
• 
  127

  Racial Insensitivity

  by Coded Logic in

  1. social
  2. current

  "blue" lives matter!

  - sheriff david clarke at the rnc.

  this bs really makes my blood boil.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  I don't blame coded logic for refusing to answer this because it would mean he either demonstrates incredible bias or contradicts his previous claims.

  Instead of addressing the very real facts we have you are instead attempting to side track the issue with an unrelated hypothetical. You're not fooling anyone.
  
  
• 
  127

  Racial Insensitivity

  by Coded Logic in

  1. social
  2. current

  "blue" lives matter!

  - sheriff david clarke at the rnc.

  this bs really makes my blood boil.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  Black people are more likely to be stopped by police in many places. There are easily reasons for this that are not racist - responding to reports of crime, types of vehicle violations etc... and the simple fact that crime tends to attract police (you'd hope) so they should spend more time in higher-crime communities than lower-crime ones.

  
  

  This is demonstrably false. You're just making things up Simon. The real reason black people attract more police attention is implicit bias.
• 
  127

  Racial Insensitivity

  by Coded Logic in

  1. social
  2. current

  "blue" lives matter!

  - sheriff david clarke at the rnc.

  this bs really makes my blood boil.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  No, it doesn't.

  Real mature Simon. I post the statistics so we can have a meaningful discussion about unarmed shootings, use of force, and implicit bias - and this is how respond? Like a little child? "Not ugh".

  Time and time again I've given you a chance to raise your objections but instead you choose to remain willfully ignorant on the topic. This is getting tiresome and it's becoming blatantly clear you haven't taken the time to read a single one of these studies. Instead of addressing any of the research, you've instead chosen to just try to shout people down by way of attrition.

  The raw number of people shot doesn't matter

  Correct! You're finally getting it! It's not the raw number of people shot. It's the number of UNARMED people who are shot. Because their's a huge difference between shooting someone who is armed vs. shooting someone who is unarmed. And if you're willing to do the extra work you can be even more specific in our break down. The names of every person who was shot and the day it happened is included in the research. If - as you've proposed - you think black people go for officers guns and white people don't (a ridiculous proposition but one you've made none the less) you can subtract the number of black AND white persons who did this. Of course, the only way to balance out the statistics would be if 5 out of 6 black people went for the officers gun and NONE of the white people did.

  See Simon, some of us understand how statistics work. And some - like yourself - don't. There are numerous sites that teach a basic understanding of statistics which would enable you to carry on a more informed discussion on the matter.

  The study referenced several times indicates that there simply isn't the situation that you are pushing for.

  Be more specific. What "situation" am I pushing for? And which of the studies I linked doesn't indicate it?