[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

@Uncle Skeleton

I'm still in! About halfway through my response. Sorry for the delay!

Take all the time you need. I'm saving a seat for you.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Memory is time-sensitive, yes. Both yours and his (and the rest of us reading). Citing evidence is the generally accepted way to use technology to mitigate the inherent weaknesses of (biological) memory. You're not restricted to a time frame, but the longer time passes, the more your point degrades without being bolstered by direct citation.

It would appear you are far more inclined to give CTP the benefit of the doubt than I am. As is your prerogative. As for me I'm simply calling BS on his claim because we all know that he realizes exactly how the quotation function works around here. And even if he was too lazy to dig up my post that he was supposedly responding to he could have easily prefaced his post with "@OAW ..." to make it clear he was supposedly addressing me who hadn't posted at all in a WEEK and about anything Obama related for SIX MONTHS in this thread. But, of course, that would have been too much like right.

So instead he chose to get snippy with you and PRESUMED that you were thinking that his post was directed at you even though that wasn't your response AT ALL. Not to mention that "Obama's effectiveness, particularly WRT his impact on the Black community" has very little to do with the topic of this thread since the POTUS ... Obama or otherwise ... has very little control over state/local policing practices. And this point is further driven home by the fact that his post about rising wealth gaps between blacks and whites during the Obama Administration being a key contributor to supposedly rising crime rates was in and of itself WAY OUT OF LEFT FIELD. Particularly in the midst of a pages long ongoing tangential discussion about the 2nd Amendment, government tyranny, and the feasibility of the citizenry winning an armed conflict with the federal government.

Suffice it to say that his "I'm not restricted to a timeframe." argument STRAINS CREDULITY and I'm just not buying it. Not even a little bit.

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt, but my bias is towards you, not him, so I'm trying not to be convinced by my bias (especially since I haven't read the entire thread; I assume that you have). If he is right, he'll find a citation. I think it's more like he'll go look for a citation and only then find out that his memory has... "evolved" since it then. (I think it's even more likely than that he won't look for one because he already knows he was bluffing). Of course, this is all "I think." If he produces a citation then I'll admit I thought wrong.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt, but my bias is towards you, not him, so I'm trying not to be convinced by my bias (especially since I haven't read the entire thread; I assume that you have).

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If he is right, he'll find a citation.

Good luck with that.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I think it's more like he'll go look for a citation and only then find out that his memory has... "evolved" since it then. (I think it's even more likely than that he won't look for one because he already knows he was bluffing).

That part in bold is his typical M.O. That's for sure.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Of course, this is all "I think." If he produces a citation then I'll admit I thought wrong.

Trust me. You will NOT have to eat any crow on this one. Unlike CTP I actually verify my facts BEFORE I post. He banks on people not taking the time to actually verify his claims. So when I said that I haven't made any posts about Obama in this thread since March 2016 rest assured that I actually looked and know this to be true for a fact.

OAW

PS: And good to see you back on the forum!

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I'm skeptical. Can you give an example of one of these equations in a proof?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof

a proof must demonstrate that a statement is always true (occasionally by listing all possible cases and showing that it holds in each), rather than enumerate many confirmatory cases.

It's deductive reasoning - i.e. start with your conclusion (top) and work your way down, showing that your conclusion as originally stated is true along the way.

i.e.
2 + 2 = 4
(4^-2) + (4^-2) = 16^-2

A terrible example as my advanced (or in this case, middle school) math has long since rusted out of my brain, but those two equations state the same values in different formats.

Which of those two outcomes is the good one?

Depends on which side you fall on in the argument - for our purposes here I'd say we'd both fall squarely in the "rebel" camp, though our example vastly oversimplifies the situation and assumes a government with malicious intent.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

In a mathematical proof you can't start with your conclusion either. One style (indirect proof) starts by assuming the conclusion is false and if it leads to a contradiction then the assumption that it's false must itself be false. But you can't start by assuming the conclusion is true.

Actually in some circumstances you can: if two statements are equivalent, then you make a direct proof where each step is an equivalence, you can indeed start with the conclusion. That amounts to reading the ordinary proof backwards. Snow-i gave an example.

However, there are cases where statement A implies B but not the other way around. Then you can't start with the conclusion and “read backwards”.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OAW 

So when I said that I haven't made any posts about Obama in this thread since March 2016 rest assured that I actually looked and know this to be true for a fact.

As if that matters.

Suffice it to say that his "I'm not restricted to a timeframe." argument STRAINS CREDULITY and I'm just not buying it. Not even a little bit.

Couldn't care less. This is just a diversion to avoid the horrifying truth that the decline of the black community was overseen by your presidential hero. I'm inclined to agree with Gazi Kodzo on one point, for PoC he's been worse than Bush. Partly that's because he destroyed the illusion that any gov't force was holding them back.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt, but my bias is towards you, not him

Good luck w/ that.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Unlike CTP I actually verify my facts BEFORE I post.

I missed this one. Like with "Hands up, don't shoot"? It's a real shame Holder didn't have you working for the Justice Dept, no doubt he could have used your "facts" during his investigation. Right?

[subego]

@Uncle Skeleton, et. al.

I figure a restatement of my position, stripped of talk of terrorism or warfare, is the best way to get the fire going again.

Let us define our rebels as perfect. They only target the most egregiously guilty police officers, they are so skilled as to never face the question of harming an innocent, and the demands they make are just.

The rebel strategy hinges on a rational response for success. The rational response is to acquiesce to their demands.

I argue the Rebel strategy would trigger an irrational response. Instead of demands being met, the outcome would be escalation.

The nearly insurmountable hurdle the Rebels face is imperfect information. If the guilt of a target is successfully called into question, the Rebel strategy is at serious risk of being seen as unjust. If it is seen as unjust, the response would be to escalate instead of acquiesce.

That any given target would be successfully painted as innocent I propose is nearly a foregone conclusion. By both their associates and the system, behavior of the targets is already rationalized, excused, and then defended. The guilty are protected.

The Rebel strategy would only serve to reinforce the underlying psychology which protects the guilty, not provoke introspection of it.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof

None of those start by assuming the conclusion is true.

It's deductive reasoning - i.e. start with your conclusion (top) and work your way down, showing that your conclusion as originally stated is true along the way.

i.e.
2 + 2 = 4
(4^-2) + (4^-2) = 16^-2

A terrible example as my advanced (or in this case, middle school) math has long since rusted out of my brain, but those two equations state the same values in different formats.

Actually your second line is false. 1/16 + 1/16 is not equal to 1/256.
Even if it were true, it does nothing to support the conclusion, for the simple reason that the only people who will believe it, already knew it (it's preaching to the choir).

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Actually in some circumstances you can: if two statements are equivalent, then you make a direct proof where each step is an equivalence, you can indeed start with the conclusion. That amounts to reading the ordinary proof backwards. Snow-i gave an example.

I'm even more skeptical now than I was yesterday. Can you provide an actual example in which an actual fact was proven using this method?

However, there are cases where statement A implies B but not the other way around. Then you can't start with the conclusion and “read backwards”.

Yeah, exactly. You wouldn't be able to know whether this method was reliable unless it was redundant. The proof must have already been proved before, or else we wouldn't know whether we can use it now or not. So then how does it tell us anything? It fits the description of circular reasoning to a T.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

@Uncle Skeleton, et. al.

I figure a restatement of my position, stripped of talk of terrorism or warfare, is the best way to get the fire going again.

I'm game

Let us define our rebels as perfect.

I object. This perpetuates the lie that we're talking about a chess game. It's not a chess game, it's a bar brawl. I think I was clear in my emphasis of the phrase "last resort" (and snow-i's "big red button," same idea). Like a self-defense case. You don't shoot at an intruder because it's a good idea, or because of the likely outcomes. You shoot an intruder because you've tried everything else and this is all you have left. We tried obeying the police. We tried begging the police. We tried leaving it up to their supervisors to enforce discipline. We tried leaving it up to the justice system to force discipline. Nothing worked, they didn't even try*. We don't think this is a good idea (that's why those other ideas came first, duh), but it's the only thing left to try. Because doing precisely nothing, and letting them keep killing people all the time with no backlash, is not an option. There's no likelihood it will work. There is a slim possibility it will work. Slim is better than none.

I argue the Rebel strategy would trigger an irrational response. Instead of demands being met, the outcome would be escalation.

Generally this kind of prognostication is unreliable. I could just as easily project that the adversary, like a schoolyard bully drunk on the power he perceives in his micro-domain, will become more cautious and deliberate after being shocked back to reality when he finds out that the soft target he abuses will actually have the gall to fight back. When he realizes that his previously favored status relied on the unspoken rules of civil society, which he broke, he will have to be as careful as everyone else about who he points his weapon at.

The nearly insurmountable hurdle the Rebels face is imperfect information.

Both sides face a hurdle of imperfect information. Before the current century, information obviously favored the state, but that is because the Rebels lacked the technology/infrastructure to distribute information. Today, it seems that both sides have equal(ish) access to information. Is it still true that one side needs perfect information while the other doesn't? Isn't it more fair to say that the battle ground of information, like all the other battle grounds, will be decided by simple majority and objective quality? (imperfections on both sides notwithstanding)

If the guilt of a target is successfully called into question, the Rebel strategy is at serious risk of being seen as unjust. If it is seen as unjust, the response would be to escalate instead of acquiesce. That any given target would be successfully painted as innocent I propose is nearly a foregone conclusion.

Well I hope you can forgive me for holding the police to the same high standards to which you hold the rebels. Police are subject to escalation from their adversary as well (and one could argue, it's happening).

Who shall we demand to take the high road? The bully or the bullied? Those who answer to us or those who are free citizens? The animal backed into a corner, or the hunter who cornered him? I argue that on all counts, it's painfully obvious that the police are the side that owes us a remedy, not their adversaries.


*disclaimer: There ARE lots of good examples of police forces out there, working hard specifically to correct errors like the ones that lead to this thread. The problem is, by the nature of this error, 99% good is not sufficient. If 1% of civilians were serial killers, it would be anarchy. And if 1% of police go about killing the wrong people, it is just as bad. One percent bad traffic tickets is manageable, one percent bad homicides is worthy of a certain amount of hysteria.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I'm even more skeptical now than I was yesterday. Can you provide an actual example in which an actual fact was proven using this method?

Sure. You can show that 2x + 1 = 5 is equivalent to x = 2. If you start from x = 2, multiply both sides by 2 and then add 1 to both, then you arrive at 2x + 1 = 5. Conversely, if you start with 2x + 1 = 5, subtract 1 from both sides and divide by 2, you conclude x = 2. Moreover, if you invert the steps from the last sentence, you obtain the first sentence all over again. As long as all the steps in between are equivalences, you can read the proof any way you'd like.

More generally, if you want to prove that statement A is equivalent to statement B, you have to show that A implies B and B implies A. So if A is your initial thesis and B your conclusion, then you in fact need to reverse the order if you want to show equivalence of statements.

However, in most cases, you actually need just one direction, e. g. that A implies B.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Yeah, exactly. You wouldn't be able to know whether this method was reliable unless it was redundant.

No, it's not circular reasoning. The only thing you need to ensure is that all steps are indeed equivalences. E. g. 2x + 1 = 5 is indeed equivalent to 2x = 4. For instance, n = 4 implies “n is even”, but “n is even” does not imply n = 4.

(PS For reference, I'm a professor of mathematics.)

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Couldn't care less. This is just a diversion to avoid the horrifying truth that the decline of the black community was overseen by your presidential hero. I'm inclined to agree with Gazi Kodzo on one point, for PoC he's been worse than Bush. Partly that's because he destroyed the illusion that any gov't force was holding them back.

Nice

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Nice

That pretty much sums it up.

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Sure. You can show that 2x + 1 = 5 is equivalent to x = 2. If you start from x = 2, multiply both sides by 2 and then add 1 to both, then you arrive at 2x + 1 = 5. Conversely, if you start with 2x + 1 = 5, subtract 1 from both sides and divide by 2, you conclude x = 2. Moreover, if you invert the steps from the last sentence, you obtain the first sentence all over again. As long as all the steps in between are equivalences, you can read the proof any way you'd like.

The contention is whether you can start by assuming your conclusion is true. I'm pretty sure your conclusion is that the two statements are equivalent. But that equivalency was not assumed at the beginning, and it wasn't seen until the end. In either direction.

If instead, your conclusion is meant to be that 2x+1=5, then you started by assuming something else, that x=2. (vice versa in reverse). Finally, if you claim that your conclusion is equivalency and we all already know they are equivalent and therefore your conclusion was implied by the first step, then that's exactly what I meant when I said that would make it redundant. If we had to already agree that they were equivalent in order to prove they were equivalent, then there was nothing gained by the proof.

More generally, if you want to prove that statement A is equivalent to statement B, you have to show that A implies B and B implies A. So if A is your initial thesis and B your conclusion, then you in fact need to reverse the order if you want to show equivalence of statements.

However, in most cases, you actually need just one direction, e. g. that A implies B.

Yes, that is my point. A and B are different from each other.
The real question is this: is there any point to ever showing that A implies A?

(PS For reference, I'm a professor of mathematics.)

Then you should be able to make a better example than this one
I also teach math for a living, so I am very interested to learn if I have made a mistake here. But I don't think I have.

[OAW]

It would appear something went down in Chicago last week. The Chicago PD is about to release the video. And it doesn't look good.

Chicago police, in a nationwide conference call and bulletin, warned of "civil unrest" and potential violence against cops following the department's anticipated release of video related to an incident in which a black man was fatally shot in the back, two law enforcement officials said Friday.

The officer violated policy in last week's shooting of 18-year-old Paul O'Neal, the bulletin said.

Sharon Fairley, head of Chicago's police oversight board, described the video in a statement as "shocking and disturbing" and offered her condolences to O'Neal's family and friends.

Fairley said the video can be released without jeopardizing the investigation, even though it will happen before the 60-day period outlined in the city's transparency policy.

The footage "as shocking and disturbing as it is, is not the only evidence to be gathered and analyzed when conducting a fair and thorough assessment of the conduct of police officers in performing their duties," said Fairley, chief administrator of Chicago's Independent Police Review Authority.

The police department released the body and dashcam videos of the shooting at noon Friday. CNN is reviewing the footage.

O'Neal family, which filed federal civil rights lawsuit against the officers, was expected to see the video before it's released to the public. The suit, filed Monday, alleges the officers fired at O'Neal "without lawful justification or excuse."

The nationwide police bulletin said the shooting was "determined to violate their Department policy... Chicago PD anticipates civil unrest."

O'Neal was shot and died from his injuries after leading a police chase through the South Side of Chicago. He had been suspected of stealing a car.

The body camera of the officer who fatally shot O'Neal did not record when he opened fire, police said.

Chicago police release video related to shooting of unarmed man - CNN.com

OAW

[OAW]

^^^

Apparently this guy was shot in the back while fleeing on foot. The video of the shooting isn't captured because the body cam was off. Imagine that. But the events leading up to the shooting ... including audio of the fatal shots ... was captured on some other camera. It's being described as a "street execution". I expect there will be those who are inclined to dismiss this with "But he stole a car!". To which my response is simply "And he should have been arrested for that. Not shot in the back while fleeing the police.

OAW

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I'm game


I object. This perpetuates the lie that we're talking about a chess game. It's not a chess game, it's a bar brawl. I think I was clear in my emphasis of the phrase "last resort" (and snow-i's "big red button," same idea). Like a self-defense case. You don't shoot at an intruder because it's a good idea, or because of the likely outcomes. You shoot an intruder because you've tried everything else and this is all you have left. We tried obeying the police. We tried begging the police. We tried leaving it up to their supervisors to enforce discipline. We tried leaving it up to the justice system to force discipline. Nothing worked, they didn't even try*. We don't think this is a good idea (that's why those other ideas came first, duh), but it's the only thing left to try. Because doing precisely nothing, and letting them keep killing people all the time with no backlash, is not an option. There's no likelihood it will work. There is a slim possibility it will work. Slim is better than none.



Generally this kind of prognostication is unreliable. I could just as easily project that the adversary, like a schoolyard bully drunk on the power he perceives in his micro-domain, will become more cautious and deliberate after being shocked back to reality when he finds out that the soft target he abuses will actually have the gall to fight back. When he realizes that his previously favored status relied on the unspoken rules of civil society, which he broke, he will have to be as careful as everyone else about who he points his weapon at.



Both sides face a hurdle of imperfect information. Before the current century, information obviously favored the state, but that is because the Rebels lacked the technology/infrastructure to distribute information. Today, it seems that both sides have equal(ish) access to information. Is it still true that one side needs perfect information while the other doesn't? Isn't it more fair to say that the battle ground of information, like all the other battle grounds, will be decided by simple majority and objective quality? (imperfections on both sides notwithstanding)



Well I hope you can forgive me for holding the police to the same high standards to which you hold the rebels. Police are subject to escalation from their adversary as well (and one could argue, it's happening).

Who shall we demand to take the high road? The bully or the bullied? Those who answer to us or those who are free citizens? The animal backed into a corner, or the hunter who cornered him? I argue that on all counts, it's painfully obvious that the police are the side that owes us a remedy, not their adversaries.


*disclaimer: There ARE lots of good examples of police forces out there, working hard specifically to correct errors like the ones that lead to this thread. The problem is, by the nature of this error, 99% good is not sufficient. If 1% of civilians were serial killers, it would be anarchy. And if 1% of police go about killing the wrong people, it is just as bad. One percent bad traffic tickets is manageable, one percent bad homicides is worthy of a certain amount of hysteria.

I thought the primary argument for why violence towards the police would work in this instance, when it doesn't with garden variety terrorism, are the differences between the violence being proposed and that committed by terrorists. I presented my scenario with the intent of maximizing the justification of the Rebel's behavior. Behaving in a less just manner only increases the probabilities the outcome will be escalation, no?

When it comes to the bully theory, I would argue the power dynamic is vastly different. While there are no doubt exceptions, bad cops on the whole don't receive protection by bullying other cops into protecting them. Cops are notoriously difficult to push around. Bad cops receive protection because they take advantage of the mutual cover cops give each other. The calculus a "good" cop is using is if they upset the cart they'll get thrown off. They rationalize allowing the bad ones to milk the system because said system is what allows good ones to get the job done.

With regards to imperfect information, I'm arguing the Rebels are in a far more disadvantageous position. The issue isn't the general phenomenon of imperfect information, it's a specific piece of information, to wit, that of the guilt of the target. As I said in the previous post, if the target is perceived to be innocent, the Rebels risk being seen as fighting for an unjust cause. I'm working under the assumption the less justified the Rebels appear, the less chance they have of succeeding. The tools at the disposal of the Rebels are executing someone and claiming they're bad. The tools at the disposal of the police begin with those which set up the situation where the guilty are protected in the first place. They most certainly don't end there.

Lastly, isn't the whole problem the police aren't held to a higher standard? You'll get no argument from me this should be remedied, and if taking the low road is the only option which remains, then so be it. That said, is not the lower the road, the more similar the actions are to terrorism?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

I thought the primary argument for why violence towards the police would work...

Who said it would work? I thought this was about the second amendment. The 2nd doesn't say you'll win, only that you'll get a chance to play. Kind of like the declaration of independence, it doesn't give everyone happiness, just the pursuit of it.

When it comes to the bully theory, I would argue the power dynamic is vastly different. While there are no doubt exceptions, bad cops on the whole don't receive protection by bullying other cops into protecting them.

I'm surprised that's even a question. Bullies don't receive protection by bullying their parents either (the analogy for police chiefs, prosecutors, and judges, I suppose). If the system fails to engender discipline, it's because the system is rotten, not because the bully somehow manipulated it. And true to the analogy, often the system claims to have no time to address the problem until things catch on fire. Squeaky wheel gets the grease, right?

They rationalize allowing the bad ones to milk the system because said system is what allows good ones to get the job done.

In that case, a sea change in the incentive profile is just what the doctor ordered. If protecting murders produces dead cops instead of system stability, then suddenly that rationalization (which is an evil unto itself, but whose inevitability is a premise of your argument that I'm not going to criticize) will push good cops to report bad ones instead of to protect them.

The tools at the disposal of the police begin with those which set up the situation where the guilty are protected in the first place. They most certainly don't end there.

I don't get it. Can you be more explicit?

Lastly, isn't the whole problem the police aren't held to a higher standard? You'll get no argument from me this should be remedied, and if taking the low road is the only option which remains, then so be it. That said, is not the lower the road, the more similar the actions are to terrorism?

I think the reason "terrorism" has risen to Godwin-level knee-jerk vilification is that their road is well below the low road. The low road is more like the Hammurabi code, which while medieval was still a form a justice. In modern times we demand that the punishment be measurably more mild than the crime. The low road is a punishment on par with the crime. Terrorism is a punishment far worse than the crime. We don't usually conflate the first two, and I don't think it's helpful to conflate the latter two either.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The contention is whether you can start by assuming your conclusion is true. I'm pretty sure your conclusion is that the two statements are equivalent. But that equivalency was not assumed at the beginning, and it wasn't seen until the end. In either direction.

You are mixing up a lot of things here. First, you need to distinguish between conjectures (or claims) and conclusions — a conclusion follows after a proof while you start your proof with a conjecture that a certain statement is valid. You can make any conjecture, but as long as there is no proof, it will stay just that. (And of course, you can also prove statements to be false, e. g. 2x + 1 = 5 is not equivalent to x = 0.)

Secondly, for equivalences there is no beginning and no end — that's the whole point. Logically speaking, 2x + 1 = 5 is as good a statement as x = 2. It's just that you as a student often start computations with the former, you're biased into believing that's not the case. (Once you have to come with exercises, you typically start with the other side.)

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If instead, your conclusion is meant to be that 2x+1=5, then you started by assuming something else, that x=2. (vice versa in reverse). Finally, if you claim that your conclusion is equivalency and we all already know they are equivalent and therefore your conclusion was implied by the first step, then that's exactly what I meant when I said that would make it redundant. If we had to already agree that they were equivalent in order to prove they were equivalent, then there was nothing gained by the proof.

No. The claim that 2x + 1 = 5 is equivalent to x = 2 is only valid because I gave a proof. And the reason we seemingly show only one direction is that mathematicians have previously proven that adding and subtracting from both sides is an equivalence all by itself. So it only looks as if we are only proving one direction when in fact we are proving both at the same time.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The real question is this: is there any point to ever showing that A implies A?

No, because logically speaking that's a tautology, i. e. a statement that is universally true no matter what A is. Also the equivalence of A implies B and Not B implies Not A is a tautology.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Then you should be able to make a better example than this one
I also teach math for a living, so I am very interested to learn if I have made a mistake here. But I don't think I have.

But it doesn't seem you have done a lot of proofs while learning mathematics yourself. This is really the basics of the basics.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Nice

You still no car?

*being accused of deflecting"

Originally Posted by OAW 

That pretty much sums it up.

*actual deflection*

Can you confirm that Holder was trying to reach you so you could help him during the Wilson investigation. Why didn't you just present him with "the facts"? OMG!! I guess he and Obama just hate black people.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

You are mixing up a lot of things here. First, you need to distinguish between conjectures (or claims) and conclusions — a conclusion follows after a proof while you start your proof with a conjecture that a certain statement is valid.

No I'm not mixing them up at all. They are precisely what I'm trying to focus your attention on (and snow-i's). Maybe you didn't notice the post this sub-thread started with, but in it I claimed that a certain conjecture and conclusion were the same. As you later confirm for me, that is a tautology and not very informative. Snow-i claimed, though that a mathematical proof can use its conclusion as its conjecture (I disagreed and I still do).

Secondly, for equivalences there is no beginning and no end —

I'm going to try to direct you back to the topic: proofs. Not equivalences. In your proof (in this case, a proof of an equivalence), there is a beginning (you call it the conjecture) and an end (the conclusion). That is what matters for this context.

But it doesn't seem you have done a lot of proofs while learning mathematics yourself. This is really the basics of the basics.

I know the impersonal nature of this medium can inject animus where there is none, but I am trying to keep things friendly. I hope my tone wasn't misconstrued.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Who said it would work? I thought this was about the second amendment. The 2nd doesn't say you'll win, only that you'll get a chance to play. Kind of like the declaration of independence, it doesn't give everyone happiness, just the pursuit of it.


I'm surprised that's even a question. Bullies don't receive protection by bullying their parents either (the analogy for police chiefs, prosecutors, and judges, I suppose). If the system fails to engender discipline, it's because the system is rotten, not because the bully somehow manipulated it. And true to the analogy, often the system claims to have no time to address the problem until things catch on fire. Squeaky wheel gets the grease, right?


In that case, a sea change in the incentive profile is just what the doctor ordered. If protecting murders produces dead cops instead of system stability, then suddenly that rationalization (which is an evil unto itself, but whose inevitability is a premise of your argument that I'm not going to criticize) will push good cops to report bad ones instead of to protect them.

I don't get it. Can you be more explicit?


I think the reason "terrorism" has risen to Godwin-level knee-jerk vilification is that their road is well below the low road. The low road is more like the Hammurabi code, which while medieval was still a form a justice. In modern times we demand that the punishment be measurably more mild than the crime. The low road is a punishment on par with the crime. Terrorism is a punishment far worse than the crime. We don't usually conflate the first two, and I don't think it's helpful to conflate the latter two either.

I feel my point isn't getting addressed. That isn't an accusation, only an observation I intend to drive the discussion in a certain direction and am failing to do so.

The road I'm trying to take is that of optics. Success or failure in this type of endeavor will rest on perception. If the desire is to predict the outcome of human behavior, a determination of what constitutes objective reality is nearly worthless.

I have a vastly different model for why terrorists are villains. Terrorists are villains because history is written by the victors, and the terrorists have yet to win. The elevation of the road (or sewer) upon which any given act rests depends far less on reality than who is being asked. The terrorist believes they take the high road, and likewise believes it is their victim who crawls forth from perdition.

The idea of good and evil holds far more weight that the actual qualities.

It is on these grounds I reject the bully hypothesis. Despite the bad apples, the police consider themselves to be righteous. Just like the terrorist above, they perceive the road they take to be the high one*.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I don't see the problem with playground bullies being they consider their behavior to be for the greater good. That the attack against them succeeds because it addresses the bully's self-righteous reverie

If the police decide to paint themselves as "the good guys", which I'd say is close to inevitable, what tools do the attackers have to combat it?



*I earlier posited imperfect information is the enemy of the Rebels. This is the prime example. It is important to note the imperfection on display does not arise from information asymmetry, it is the result of the absence of introspection.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

I feel my point isn't getting addressed. That isn't an accusation, only an observation I intend to drive the discussion in a certain direction and am failing to do so.

Ok I'm game for that too. I'll try my best to follow your theme for a while.

The road I'm trying to take is that of optics. Success or failure in this type of endeavor will rest on perception. If the desire is to predict the outcome of human behavior, a determination of what constitutes objective reality is nearly worthless.

Predicting human behavior is notoriously faulty. For example, I doubt there is a single expert who predicted that Trump would win the republican nomination. Most didn't think he would make it past SC. The stock market is another prime example. No one can reliably beat index funds, and you can't claim people aren't trying their hardest to do so. So I don't concede the point that the outcome is decided before the first move. It is very much an unknown. Like all conflicts, both sides go in with one part chance and two parts hope.

I have a vastly different model for why terrorists are villains. Terrorists are villains because history is written by the victors, and the terrorists have yet to win. The elevation of the road (or sewer) upon which any given act rests depends far less on reality than who is being asked. The terrorist believes they take the high road, and likewise believes it is their victim who crawls forth from perdition.

The idea of good and evil holds far more weight that the actual qualities.

If the police decide to paint themselves as "the good guys", which I'd say is close to inevitable, what tools do the attackers have to combat it?

Optics, of course. Can't put lipstick on a pig. Moral high ground can be manipulated, but there still does exist an objective truth, and some of it will be visible to the peanut gallery even through the noise (and some on the wrong side will also be won over by objective moral truth). Both sides will work hard to control the narrative, and the side of objective justice has to work just as hard and won't get a free ride, but they will have the advantage that it's easier to sell the truth than a lie.

*I earlier posited imperfect information is the enemy of the Rebels. This is the prime example. It is important to note the imperfection on display does not arise from information asymmetry, it is the result of the absence of introspection.

You make it sound like the establishment can flip a switch and recast the narrative of history (using optics alone; if they decide to go the genocide route, then it's rather obvious how that can happen afterwards). Whitewashing history is a big job, and all the more so while cellphone cameras undermine the lie before it's done being cooked up. And it's not just a rag-tag gang of foil-hat bloggers that are reinforcing the original version of history. Mainstream media, which one would expect to be the strongest tool of a domineering history-rewriting police state, is also on-board with reporting the eye-witness version, not the sanitized version.

[subego]

My thanks for allowing me to choose the direction. I shall strive not to end up in the rabbit hole.

My footnote was not discussing how the world at large view the police, but how the police view themselves.

Likewise with question of the available tools. I'm not asking what tools exist to convince the populace, I'm asking what tools exist to convince the police they aren't as righteous as they believe themselves to be. As I proposed in my last post, even the filthy terrorist thinks they take the high road.

The confidence with which one can predict human behavior depends upon what is being predicted. I am asking us to make two behavioral predictions. The first is would the police consider themselves the wronged party. The second is if the police consider themselves to be the wronged party, would they be more inclined to retaliate or acquiesce.

I argue these are on the "more predictable" end of the spectrum of human behavior. I predict the police would consider themselves to be the wronged party, just as even more vile actors consider themselves to be the wronged party. The police would then choose to retaliate, as one would (or dare I say should) expect from any wronged party who has the means to do so.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

My thanks for allowing me to choose the direction. I shall strive not to end up in the rabbit hole.

My footnote was not discussing how the world at large view the police, but how the police view themselves.

Likewise with question of the available tools. I'm not asking what tools exist to convince the populace, I'm asking what tools exist to convince the police they aren't as righteous as they believe themselves to be. As I proposed in my last post, even the filthy terrorist thinks they take the high road.

I don't think I like the implication that the police are the only delicate flowers whose egos need stroking, and everyone else needs to pussyfoot around them. What about how your "rebels" view themselves? Why do we need tools in order to convince the police, but the "rebels" are on their own to convince themselves? Shouldn't we either treat both sides as self-aware or both sides as reactive emotion-piles that need to be pampered? Why is one side branded as "rebels" who need to buck up and eat a bag of dog doo-doo in order to satisfy police blood-lust, while the police (not branded with emotive language, I note) don't need to take any responsibility for their own self-assessment, and instead need it to be fed to them like grapes being fed to a roman emperor by his concubines?

(obviously I'm letting my creative license loose a bit, because I hope you're the type who won't be put off by it, and because I think it helps convey my position; please let me know if I need to tone it down (edit: the crux of my message in this section is, if I should believe that there's a good reason to baby the police and their emotions, especially more than is needed for their victims and those who would avenge them, then you'll have to convince me of it))

The confidence with which one can predict human behavior depends upon what is being predicted. I am asking us to make two behavioral predictions. The first is would the police consider themselves the wronged party. The second is if the police consider themselves to be the wronged party, would they be more inclined to retaliate or acquiesce.

By "first" do you mean chronologically or by importance? I think that more important is whether voters, presidents, police oversight committees and others who control police budgets consider the police the wronged party, not how police consider themselves. I will point out that our most recent disaster has been framed as police at fault from the first we heard about it (or did you get a different presentation in Chicago?). And I think that is especially meaningful as this victim was not even one of those "perfect rebels" you brought up. The powers that be are wary of the sleeping giant, how unrestful that sleep currently is, and how responsive it is to their slings and arrows.

The police would then choose to retaliate, as one would (or dare I say should) expect from any wronged party who has the means to do so.

I won't speculate about whether they would retaliate, but I will speculate that if they are stupid enough to do so, then we really will have "rebels." They know this, and their bosses know this, and whether that is enough to keep them sober enough not to go full police state, well ... sometimes you do the right thing even if it is not a sure thing.

Edit: On reflection, I'm not sure I kept my promise to follow your lead. If your real question was how to convince police, my answer is we might not have a way, and we shouldn't need one. They work for us, and if they're not convinced then they're fired. If that tool doesn't work, then the main back-up plan for out-of-control police is supposed to be the second amendment. Right?

[subego]

These are all good questions, for which I'm attempting to generate good answers.

Which disaster are you speaking of? They're hard to keep straight.

As a quick note, my predictions were meant to be chronological. The second is irrelevant without the information from the first prediction.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I was referring to the Paul O'Neal case, and I probably should have thought to say that. In the news reports I'm hearing, much is made of the fact that investigators are appalled by police behavior in the case, and they were remarkably quick to disclose the videos to the public.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No I'm not mixing them up at all. They are precisely what I'm trying to focus your attention on (and snow-i's). Maybe you didn't notice the post this sub-thread started with, but in it I claimed that a certain conjecture and conclusion were the same. As you later confirm for me, that is a tautology and not very informative. Snow-i claimed, though that a mathematical proof can use its conclusion as its conjecture (I disagreed and I still do).

I've read the exchange beforehand, and as I wrote in my initial reply, the validity of your point depends on whether or not subego's statement is an equivalence or merely a one-way logical implication. (Of course, we're talking about sociology here, so proofs in the mathematical sense are only of limited use.) Moreover, a conjecture stops being a conjecture once you have a proof that it is true — or false.

Honestly, I have the impression that none of you have a good background in mathematics (as a science) — which is fine and not a knock on anyone.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I'm going to try to direct you back to the topic: proofs. Not equivalences. In your proof (in this case, a proof of an equivalence), there is a beginning (you call it the conjecture) and an end (the conclusion). That is what matters for this context.

No, you're still mixing things up: An equivalence is a logical statement, and the validity of such a statement hinges on the existence of a proof. An equivalence is indeed a circular statement with no beginning and end — which is why equivalences helpful understanding equivalence of definitions or characterizations of one object.

A conjecture is a logical statement (i. e. supposing that certain assumptions hold true, you can make a conclusion) that has not yet been proven true or false. It makes no sense to speak of conjecture and conclusion, the conclusion is part and parcel of the conjecture. The validity of the conjecture and the validity of the conclusion are one and the same thing. In case you think of a “proven conjecture” (i. e. a true logical statement) as a “conclusion”, then you simply use these word in a way that is not consistent with mathematics.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I know the impersonal nature of this medium can inject animus where there is none, but I am trying to keep things friendly. I hope my tone wasn't misconstrued.

Sorry if my last post was a bit too acerbic.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I've read the exchange beforehand, and as I wrote in my initial reply, the validity of your point depends on whether or not subego's statement is an equivalence or merely a one-way logical implication. (Of course, we're talking about sociology here, so proofs in the mathematical sense are only of limited use.) Moreover, a conjecture stops being a conjecture once you have a proof that it is true — or false.

Outside of mathematics, you can't prove A by first assuming A is true.
In a mathematical proof, you can't prove A by first assuming A is true.
In a mathematical equivalence, you can't prove A by first assuming A is true.

I don't know why you brought up equivalences, but if anyone is confusing them with the topic at hand, it's you.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

No, you're still mixing things up: An equivalence is a logical statement, and the validity of such a statement hinges on the existence of
...
A PROOF!!!.

(emphasis added)
Does that proof start by assuming its conclusion is true?

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

A conjecture is a logical statement (i. e. supposing that certain assumptions hold true, you can make a conclusion) that has not yet been proven true or false. It makes no sense to speak of conjecture and conclusion, the conclusion is part and parcel of the conjecture. The validity of the conjecture and the validity of the conclusion are one and the same thing.

Does that allow a conclusion to be used as a conjecture with which to prove that conclusion? Because that was the question you started with, and you have yet to answer it.
(yes, the validities are linked, but the statements themselves must be distinct)

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

In case you think of a “proven conjecture” (i. e. a true logical statement) as a “conclusion”, then you simply use these word in a way that is not consistent with mathematics.

I was quite clear: you can't start [a proof] by assuming the conclusion is true.
You replied by quoting the above: Actually in some circumstances you can
At this point I'm quite certain it is you who is using the word in an inconsistent way. If not, then please give an example of a proof that begins by assuming its own conclusion is true. Feel free to link to a proof instead of writing it from scratch.

[christ]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If not, then please give an example of a proof that begins by assuming its own conclusion is true.

Linguistically a conclusion isn't a conclusion unless it concludes, so sticking with linguistics rather than mathematics may be a better way to resolve this issue.

Mathematically/ Logically/ Philosophically there is a whole class of proofs (Reductio ad absurdum) that start off by assuming a conclusion, and then demonstrating that this conclusion leads to an inconsistency, so any one of these is definitely a proof that starts with a conclusion.

As noted above conjectures are sort of two way things, so either end of the chain is a conclusion, and any proof can be worked either way: in this sense neither end of the logical chain is really 'the' conclusion. It is a bit of a cheat by starting with both ends of the chain and working toward the middle, though.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by christ 

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If not, then please give an example of a proof that begins by assuming its own conclusion is true.

Linguistically a conclusion isn't a conclusion unless it concludes, so sticking with linguistics rather than mathematics may be a better way to resolve this issue.

Mathematically/ Logically/ Philosophically there is a whole class of proofs (Reductio ad absurdum) that start off by assuming a conclusion, and then demonstrating that this conclusion leads to an inconsistency, so any one of these is definitely a proof that starts with a conclusion.

I wouldn't have taken the effort to add "is true" to the (ahem) conclusion of my sentence if I were not already accounting for that (I already mentioned proof by contrapositive or indirect proof, which as I already described begins by assuming the conclusion is false). Linguistically you are evading the question as presented

As noted above conjectures are sort of two way things, so either end of the chain is a conclusion, and any proof can be worked either way: in this sense neither end of the logical chain is really 'the' conclusion. It is a bit of a cheat by starting with both ends of the chain and working toward the middle, though.

If you must, then the question is whether both ends can be the same. Can you start from X in order to arrive at X? No, of course not. That has been the question the entire time. Not which end is which, but whether they are the same as each other. (to wit: "When your conclusion is your premise that is circular reasoning"; no distinction was made which end was called which, only that they were the same)

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I don't think I like the implication that the police are the only delicate flowers whose egos need stroking, and everyone else needs to pussyfoot around them. What about how your "rebels" view themselves? Why do we need tools in order to convince the police, but the "rebels" are on their own to convince themselves? Shouldn't we either treat both sides as self-aware or both sides as reactive emotion-piles that need to be pampered? Why is one side branded as "rebels" who need to buck up and eat a bag of dog doo-doo in order to satisfy police blood-lust, while the police (not branded with emotive language, I note) don't need to take any responsibility for their own self-assessment, and instead need it to be fed to them like grapes being fed to a roman emperor by his concubines?

(obviously I'm letting my creative license loose a bit, because I hope you're the type who won't be put off by it, and because I think it helps convey my position; please let me know if I need to tone it down (edit: the crux of my message in this section is, if I should believe that there's a good reason to baby the police and their emotions, especially more than is needed for their victims and those who would avenge them, then you'll have to convince me of it))



By "first" do you mean chronologically or by importance? I think that more important is whether voters, presidents, police oversight committees and others who control police budgets consider the police the wronged party, not how police consider themselves. I will point out that our most recent disaster has been framed as police at fault from the first we heard about it (or did you get a different presentation in Chicago?). And I think that is especially meaningful as this victim was not even one of those "perfect rebels" you brought up. The powers that be are wary of the sleeping giant, how unrestful that sleep currently is, and how responsive it is to their slings and arrows.


I won't speculate about whether they would retaliate, but I will speculate that if they are stupid enough to do so, then we really will have "rebels." They know this, and their bosses know this, and whether that is enough to keep them sober enough not to go full police state, well ... sometimes you do the right thing even if it is not a sure thing.

Edit: On reflection, I'm not sure I kept my promise to follow your lead. If your real question was how to convince police, my answer is we might not have a way, and we shouldn't need one. They work for us, and if they're not convinced then they're fired. If that tool doesn't work, then the main back-up plan for out-of-control police is supposed to be the second amendment. Right?

Unless I am mistaken, the ultimate goal is behavior modification. Is not the psychology of those whose behavior is to be changed of paramount importance?

My proposition isn't the psychology of those attempting to instigate the behavior change is unimportant. What I claim is it bears little relevance to an analysis of whether any given plan will succeed.

What I argue is relevant would be the inclination not to perceive one's faults. My experience has been the direct application of force fails to reverse this inclination.

That is the sum of my argument. Violence will not cause the police to perceive their faults. If the violence is to succeed in changing their behavior, the mechanism will not be through self-perception of fault.

What does that leave? Fear? This raises the specter of retaliation. One of the benefits of behavior change via self-realization is it doesn't provoke a retaliatory response. It should be noted retaliation need not be direct application of force. While I have unfortunately been too engrossed in national politics to comment with any authority on the O'Neal case, I can offer an unsavory theory about Laquan McDonald.

The video of his shooting was released. Out of both fear and anger the police chose to disengage. Now, there's a gang war.

I wish again to stress this is my conjecture, but would argue it is most certainly a plausible outcome to the plans under discussion.

By my reckoning, this makes the morality something of a sticky proposition. There must be a ratio of unintended consequences to elimination of the problem which is unacceptable. What is this ratio and how likely is the plan to surpass it?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Out of both fear and anger the police chose to disengage. Now, there's a gang war.
...
the ultimate goal is behavior modification ...
What does that leave? Fear?

How are the police going to modify the behavior of the gangs? Through fear, right?

Fear is the currency of morality. Fear of speeding tickets, fear of jail time, fear of armed home-owners (beware of dog), fear of being denied entry into heaven and facing an eternity of fire-and-brimstone enemas. I'm having one of those "wait, what?" moments if you're claiming fear is off the table.

It's certainly a bonus if we can manage to evolve beyond fear, and live under the auspices (or at least the illusion) of some hippy-dippy love-one-another golden rule paradigm. All parties will be happier who manage to live within this mindset. I try my best to spend the majority of my time there, because it's more pleasant there. But nowhere on earth do we rely on it without the safety net of physical retribution if/when someone goes off-book.

I don't know why police would be the only people who can manage to color within the lines once the consequences for doing otherwise are removed.

This raises the specter of retaliation.
...
Out of both fear and anger the police chose to disengage. Now, there's a gang war.

That's more of a gray area between retaliation and merely Blackstone's formulation ("rather 100 guilty free than 1 innocent jailed")

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Outside of mathematics, you can't prove A by first assuming A is true.
In a mathematical proof, you can't prove A by first assuming A is true.
In a mathematical equivalence, you can't prove A by first assuming A is true.

“A” by itself is not a complete statement for which you can even make a proof. At the very least that would involve two two statements, A and B, which are connected by implications (including “A does not imply B”). So it makes no sense if you only make reference to a single part of the statement — unless you speak of the tautology A => A.

Moreover, n equivalence A <=> B consists of two statements (A => B and B => A), not one. What you prove is the equivalence, not each of the statements. If you want to invoke A <=> B for a particular case, then you need to show that in your specific situation, A or B is satisfied. That's the crucial step if you want to apply a general fact to a specific situation.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Does that allow a conclusion to be used as a conjecture with which to prove that conclusion? Because that was the question you started with, and you have yet to answer it.
(yes, the validities are linked, but the statements themselves must be distinct)

Again a conjecture is a logical statement such as “A implies B” that has not yet been proven or disproven, but that you posit to be true. Once it is proven, it is no longer a conjecture. If it is disproven, then the conjecture is simply false. The way I initially read your use of the word “conclusion” is that in case of A => B, you call B “the conclusion”. However, this is an inseparable part of the logical statement. To speak of “conjectures” and “conclusions” the way you do is inconsistent with the way it is used in mathematics. Your post made a very sweeping statement, though, about “how to prove things mathematically” that was not correct, because it left out the possibility of using equivalences. If you are able to go from the conclusion to the initial claim using equivalences, then you prove A => B by in fact showing A <=> B. Going from x = 2 to 2x + 1 = 5 using equivalence transformations does show that 2x + 1 = 5 implies x = 2.

Your criticism, though, has some validity, but not because “going backwards” is impossible in general. Rather it is usually false that two statements are equivalent.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

How are the police going to modify the behavior of the gangs? Through fear, right?

Fear is by no means the only way that police (or society in general) can modify behavior. I'd invite you to have a look at other countries where this is standard practice. Relying only on fear, in fact, is a very poor way to try and modify behavior, especially when it comes to younger people whose cognitive reasoning skills literally do not exist so that they can be scared.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Fear is the currency of morality.

No, there are many other regulatory mechanisms society has, mutual trust, shame and guilt are others. In fact, those two are the dominant ones over fear of punishment. And societies who primarily rely on shame (e. g. most oriental cultures) as opposed guilt (as most occidental cultures are) are in fact run very differently. If you compare, say, Italy and Germany, then there are different levels of trust in society that manifest themselves in many ways. E. g. in Germany public transport has no ticket gates because people on average are honest enough to make the system work.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

“A” by itself is not a complete statement for which you can even make a proof.

You don't even know what "A" is, it's a blank spot for anything. How can you say what it's not?

What you prove is the equivalence, not each of the statements.

Yes. And if you start your process by assuming the equivalence is true, then you are:
(i) using circular reasoning
(ii) finally up to speed with the part of this thread you first replied to. Welcome.

Your post made a very sweeping statement, though, about “how to prove things mathematically” that was not correct, because it left out the possibility of using equivalences. If you are able to go from the conclusion to the initial claim using equivalences, then you prove A => B by in fact showing A <=> B. Going from x = 2 to 2x + 1 = 5 using equivalence transformations does show that 2x + 1 = 5 implies x = 2.

Obviously you didn't even read my post all the way to the end. Because at the end of it, I said "the conclusion is true." Did you see that part?

Your criticism, though, has some validity, but not because “going backwards” is impossible in general. Rather it is usually false that two statements are equivalent.

Where in the world did you get "going backwards" from? Are you high?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

How are the police going to modify the behavior of the gangs?

mutual trust, shame and guilt

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

shame and guilt are others

It's kind of a gray area. Fear of being shamed, fear of feeling guilt. I think you meant to distinguish these from retribution or retaliation, not from fear.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Fear is by no means the only way that police (or society in general) can modify behavior.
...
mutual trust, shame and guilt are others.
...
(e. g. most oriental cultures) Italy and Germany,

I didn't say that it is the only means (in fact I explicitly praised other means in the same post), but I do emphasize that it is an integral means. Like literal currency (money) is not the only means of exchanging goods and services to improve the lives of both sides, but it would be nigh impossible to make due without it. Like fossil fuels are not as nice as renewable energy, but you still fall back on fossil fuels in times of need. Like prose is not as enjoyable as poetry, but you can't have a useful language without prose.

I didn't say it was the only means, but I did say that it's extremely questionable to suggest doing away with it entirely. The gangs which subego brought up are a perfect example. They're not likely to respond to the more pleasant means, so we will have to fall back on our more reliable traditional methods (fear).

[OAW]

Typical.

Justice Department report criticizes Baltimore police for unlawful practices against black residents - LA Times

OAW

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Still waiting for those indictments...

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

How are the police going to modify the behavior of the gangs? Through fear, right?

Fear is the currency of morality. Fear of speeding tickets, fear of jail time, fear of armed home-owners (beware of dog), fear of being denied entry into heaven and facing an eternity of fire-and-brimstone enemas. I'm having one of those "wait, what?" moments if you're claiming fear is off the table.

It's certainly a bonus if we can manage to evolve beyond fear, and live under the auspices (or at least the illusion) of some hippy-dippy love-one-another golden rule paradigm. All parties will be happier who manage to live within this mindset. I try my best to spend the majority of my time there, because it's more pleasant there. But nowhere on earth do we rely on it without the safety net of physical retribution if/when someone goes off-book.

I don't know why police would be the only people who can manage to color within the lines once the consequences for doing otherwise are removed.


That's more of a gray area between retaliation and merely Blackstone's formulation ("rather 100 guilty free than 1 innocent jailed")

I'm a strong proponent of the Blacksone formulation, though my experience with the ratio has always been that of a single order of magnitude.

In the worst recent year I can find (2011), the Chicago Police killed about 25 people. It's a touch less, but I don't mind testing my hypotheses with data unfavorable to my conclusion.

Assuming the trends continue, 130 more homicides will have occurred this year over last year.

If my math is correct, 50% of the killings by Chicago Police in 2011 would have to be ruled as illegitimate for there to be a 10:1 ratio.

If half the killings by police are tantamount to murder, there probably is an argument to be made for pushing the big red button regardless of the success profile, however if I am to believe this is the state of affairs, I will desire proof equivalent to the extraordinary nature of the claim.


I never argued fear is off the table, what I argue is fear has a high probability of creating the outcome I just described: worse than an order of magnitude more death (as I would posit the illegitimate shootings by police are much closer to 25% of the total than they are to 50%).

This actually strikes me as one of the better scenarios. A horrifying feedback loop isn't out of the question, and I'd assess a higher probability of that outcome than the problem being solved.



As an aside, this has been one of the best discussions I've ever had here. Many thanks!

[OAW]

Earlier in the thread we discussed a DOJ report that confirmed this very thing. The saddest part is that many of these suburbs are run by African-American Democrat elected officials. I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you BS "municipality" doesn't have the tax base to support itself (perhaps because it's only a few square blocks in size) then it shouldn't exist. Merge with other nearby municipalities to get enough scale to provide proper services to your residents without pimping people over traffic tickets to generate revenue.

Lawsuit Charges 13 St. Louis Suburbs With 'Extorting' Black Drivers - NBC News

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

OAW, you see the DOJ will now track police related killings? Inspired by the work of The Guardian. It's about damn time. There's no reason we haven't been compiling the information. Maybe it'll show things aren't as bad as they seem. Maybe it'll show where the most effective or fair law enforcement is.

Waiting for some union outcry as it will be mandatory.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

OAW, you see the DOJ will now track police related killings? Inspired by the work of The Guardian. It's about damn time. There's no reason we haven't been compiling the information. Maybe it'll show things aren't as bad as they seem. Maybe it'll show where the most effective or fair law enforcement is.

Waiting for some union outcry as it will be mandatory.

That I did not! You have a link?

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm a strong proponent of the Blacksone formulation, though my experience with the ratio has always been that of a single order of magnitude.

Heh, the link I posted agrees with you, but I was too lazy to have read it before posting. Apparently Ben Franklin is the person who decided to bump it up to 100. Point taken

If my math is correct, 50% of the killings by Chicago Police in 2011 would have to be ruled as illegitimate for there to be a 10:1 ratio.

If half the killings by police are tantamount to murder, there probably is an argument to be made for pushing the big red button regardless of the success profile, however if I am to believe this is the state of affairs, I will desire proof equivalent to the extraordinary nature of the claim.

Something about this recipe is unnerving, and the ingredient I'm smelling most strongly is the feeling of making a deal with the devil about how many souls it will cost to get what we should be getting either way. Don't we also desire extraordinary (or even ordinary) proof of the connection between standard police effectiveness (stopping crimes) and needing the freedom to draw down on people walking across the street like Laquan McDonald was? Police don't seem to require the freedom to shoot other races or genders willy nilly, so it's not logical to think that they require this privilege in order to keep doing their job.

The connection could easily be causal in the wrong direction: police disdain for the law and for the social contract leads to a general culture of lawlessness, fear, and reckless abandon.

I never argued fear is off the table, what I argue is fear has a high probability of creating the outcome

I've been thinking about this since the last few times you said it. Please consider the various things that do ultimately cause people to change. Some examples are incarceration, religion, near-death experience, or random chance. Do any of them ever work more than 10% of the time? Even 1%? You don't come to Jesus the first time you set foot in a church, and I don't think it's fair to expect police to change their outlook right after experiencing the backlash from their indulgences. It's a process.

As an aside, this has been one of the best discussions I've ever had here. Many thanks!

Same!

[BadKosh]

ALMOST 100!

Nearly 100 people shot in Chicago in less than a week - Chicago Tribune

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Heh, the link I posted agrees with you, but I was too lazy to have read it before posting. Apparently Ben Franklin is the person who decided to bump it up to 100. Point taken


Something about this recipe is unnerving, and the ingredient I'm smelling most strongly is the feeling of making a deal with the devil about how many souls it will cost to get what we should be getting either way. Don't we also desire extraordinary (or even ordinary) proof of the connection between standard police effectiveness (stopping crimes) and needing the freedom to draw down on people walking across the street like Laquan McDonald was? Police don't seem to require the freedom to shoot other races or genders willy nilly, so it's not logical to think that they require this privilege in order to keep doing their job.

The connection could easily be causal in the wrong direction: police distain for the law and for the social contract leads to a general culture of lawlessness, fear, and reckless abandon.



I've been thinking about this since the last few times you said it. Please consider the various things that do ultimately cause people to change. Some examples are incarceration, religion, near-death experience, or random chance. Do any of them ever work more than 10% of the time? Even 1%? You don't come to Jesus the first time you set foot in a church, and I don't think it's fair to expect police to change their outlook right after experiencing the backlash from their indulgences. It's a process.



Same!

"Deal with the Devil" is appropriate phrasing. If the idea is to accept this state of affairs as the cost of doing business, it needs to be noted that cost is making human sacrifices.

I imagine it is agreed that for whatever its flaws, the Hammurabi strategy is preferable to the Montezuma. What remains is an analysis of the middle ground.

How I approach this analysis relates to the question of what makes people change behavior, however I'm looking at it from a different direction.

As an analogy, I present the issues the country faces in setting up fair elections.

In general, election law is created by the party in power, and the party in power wields control over who gets the majority of seats on an election board.

What results should we expect from such a system? One where the participants ignore the overwhelming pressure to behave in their self-interest? The scenario into which they've been placed is a nearly impossible one to succeed. I argue only so much blame can be placed on them for failing in the nearly impossible scenario.

I argue the police are in a similar situation. They've been placed in a close to impossible scenario. The system encourages bad behavior. The results are predictable.

For the system to function the way we want, as in police serve as a mechanism to keep the peace, the system requires a non-adversarial relationship between the police and prosecutors. There should be little surprise they have one, and I can place little blame at the feet of either. This is the system they've been given.

Is not the Hammurabi strategy the proverbial fighting of the symptoms instead of the disease? Is the problem more likely to be solved by redesigning the system, or applying pressure to a single component?

[subego]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

ALMOST 100!

Nearly 100 people shot in Chicago in less than a week - Chicago Tribune

That the police consider lax gun laws to be motivator is insulting. What gun laws changed at the beginning of the year?

Our gun laws are some of the most restrictive in the country.

In fact, they're so restrictive, gangs here do a very unusual thing. In most places when a cop starts chasing a gang member, they throw their gun. This makes it less likely for them to be perceived as armed (and hence less likely to get shot), but more importantly, standard police procedure places a higher value on securing the now free weapon over chasing down a (now theoretically unarmed) suspect. It's a win-win for the gang member.

This doesn't happen in Chicago. The black market price for guns here is too high for them to be seen as disposable. I'll leave what would cause this economic state of affairs as an exercise for the reader.

Hint: it involves constricted supply.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by subego 

That the police consider lax gun laws to be motivator is insulting. What gun laws changed at the beginning of the year?

Our gun laws are some of the most restrictive in the country.

In fact, they're so restrictive, gangs here do a very unusual thing. In most places when a cop starts chasing a gang member, they throw their gun. This makes it less likely for them to be perceived as armed (and hence less likely to get shot), but more importantly, standard police procedure places a higher value on securing the now free weapon over chasing down a (now theoretically unarmed) suspect. It's a win-win for the gang member.

This doesn't happen in Chicago. The black market price for guns here is too high for them to be seen as disposable. I'll leave what would cause this economic state of affairs as an exercise for the reader.

Hint: it involves constricted supply.

So even when all you have to do is drive a short distance to legally purchase a gun, stricter gun laws can have a significant effect on the supply and price of illegal guns?

Thats not something a pro-gun person American admits every day.