CDZ A Comprehensive Look At The Uneven Playing Field

[320 Years of History]

Several folks here seem quite willing to form conclusions based solely on how the people in the photo are dressed.

If you didn't recognize OJ, how are you going to know which person in the photo above is the defendant? How can you know about the choices any of them made?

Did this defendant above make poor choices? Does he have on sweats?


People here are trying to pass off their generalizations and assumptions as fact and they are also trying to claim that there's something equitable about applying the conclusions deriving from their generalizations to other humans, particularly to black folks. And amidst all that, I suspect those same folks want the rest of us to accept that they aren't racists, idiots or ignoramuses. I don't know whether folks are doing that because they are biased (racially or otherwise), or because they are simply not any good at applying rigorously rational reasoning, or because they are just dumber than the day is long. I do know, however, that there's nothing assuredly right about generalizing about a whole class of people and applying those generalizations to specific individuals in the class. At the center of it all, that is what an "ism" bias is, racism, ageism, sexism, etc.

Ahhh yes, the infamous Billy Hawk. Drug dealer and general scumbag. Used to hang around with a corrupt cop. Then he got tired of the competition so killed him. The suit doesn't hide the scumbag underneath. I heard he was finally found guilty in his trial. Is that true?

Red:
Off Topic.

Blue:
The sweats that other boy was wearing doesn't make there be a scumbag underneath.

On topic because you used him as an example. Which I then shredded. Pretty pathetic attempt at a dodge. I agree, the sweats don't make the kid a bad guy, however, his demeanor does. His countenance screams "perp".

Who the individual be is irrelevant to the discussion topic. I don't care if it's Billy Hawk or Davy Crockett. Among the key points I've been making with regard the two courtroom photos and the one of the woman that I provided and the one that Predfan provided is that the clothing an individual wears is no good basis for making any assumptions about their character. That is precisely what you did...based only on two possible traits -- the clothing the guy wears and perhaps the color of his skin -- you concluded "[t]he individual in the grey sweater/workout set is clearly not educated, nor is he vocationally trained."

Truly, I don't know who Billy Hawk is. Never heard of him even. I Googled for "arraignment men in suits in courtrooms" or roughly that; I don't precisely recall now. You know choice I know of re: Billy Hawk? I know he chose to wear a poorly fitting sport jacket, but I have no idea of why.

There were other photos, most of them of folks in prison garb. I don't know who those people are either, but I'm not going to make any assumptions about whether they are scumbags, educated, vocationally trained, or anything else based on a photo.

The only life choice I can accurately say the folks above made is the one that landed them in court. Based on just the photos, that's all anyone can accurate speak to. Can folks say more than that? Sure, but they have to make assumptions about the pictured individuals to do so.

 

[westwall]

Several folks here seem quite willing to form conclusions based solely on how the people in the photo are dressed.

If you didn't recognize OJ, how are you going to know which person in the photo above is the defendant? How can you know about the choices any of them made?

Did this defendant above make poor choices? Does he have on sweats?


People here are trying to pass off their generalizations and assumptions as fact and they are also trying to claim that there's something equitable about applying the conclusions deriving from their generalizations to other humans, particularly to black folks. And amidst all that, I suspect those same folks want the rest of us to accept that they aren't racists, idiots or ignoramuses. I don't know whether folks are doing that because they are biased (racially or otherwise), or because they are simply not any good at applying rigorously rational reasoning, or because they are just dumber than the day is long. I do know, however, that there's nothing assuredly right about generalizing about a whole class of people and applying those generalizations to specific individuals in the class. At the center of it all, that is what an "ism" bias is, racism, ageism, sexism, etc.

Ahhh yes, the infamous Billy Hawk. Drug dealer and general scumbag. Used to hang around with a corrupt cop. Then he got tired of the competition so killed him. The suit doesn't hide the scumbag underneath. I heard he was finally found guilty in his trial. Is that true?

Red:
Off Topic.

Blue:
The sweats that other boy was wearing doesn't make there be a scumbag underneath.

On topic because you used him as an example. Which I then shredded. Pretty pathetic attempt at a dodge. I agree, the sweats don't make the kid a bad guy, however, his demeanor does. His countenance screams "perp".

Who the individual be is irrelevant to the discussion topic. I don't care if it's Billy Hawk or Davy Crockett. Among the key points I've been making with regard the two courtroom photos and the one of the woman that I provided and the one that Predfan provided is that the clothing an individual wears is no good basis for making any assumptions about their character. That is precisely what you did...based only on two possible traits -- the clothing the guy wears and perhaps the color of his skin -- you concluded "[t]he individual in the grey sweater/workout set is clearly not educated, nor is he vocationally trained."

Truly, I don't know who Billy Hawk is. Never heard of him even. I Googled for "arraignment men in suits in courtrooms" or roughly that; I don't precisely recall now. You know choice I know of re: Billy Hawk? I know he chose to wear a poorly fitting sport jacket, but I have no idea of why.

There were other photos, most of them of folks in prison garb. I don't know who those people are either, but I'm not going to make any assumptions about whether they are scumbags, educated, vocationally trained, or anything else based on a photo.

The only life choice I can accurately say the folks above made is the one that landed them in court. Based on just the photos, that's all anyone can accurate speak to. Can folks say more than that? Sure, but they have to make assumptions about the pictured individuals to do so.

Yes, we make assumptions, but they seem to be pretty accurate. What is the reason that you choose? Did their environment make them do it? Are people ever responsible for their actions?

 

[320 Years of History]

Several folks here seem quite willing to form conclusions based solely on how the people in the photo are dressed.

If you didn't recognize OJ, how are you going to know which person in the photo above is the defendant? How can you know about the choices any of them made?

Did this defendant above make poor choices? Does he have on sweats?


People here are trying to pass off their generalizations and assumptions as fact and they are also trying to claim that there's something equitable about applying the conclusions deriving from their generalizations to other humans, particularly to black folks. And amidst all that, I suspect those same folks want the rest of us to accept that they aren't racists, idiots or ignoramuses. I don't know whether folks are doing that because they are biased (racially or otherwise), or because they are simply not any good at applying rigorously rational reasoning, or because they are just dumber than the day is long. I do know, however, that there's nothing assuredly right about generalizing about a whole class of people and applying those generalizations to specific individuals in the class. At the center of it all, that is what an "ism" bias is, racism, ageism, sexism, etc.

Ahhh yes, the infamous Billy Hawk. Drug dealer and general scumbag. Used to hang around with a corrupt cop. Then he got tired of the competition so killed him. The suit doesn't hide the scumbag underneath. I heard he was finally found guilty in his trial. Is that true?

Red:
Off Topic.

Blue:
The sweats that other boy was wearing doesn't make there be a scumbag underneath.

On topic because you used him as an example. Which I then shredded. Pretty pathetic attempt at a dodge. I agree, the sweats don't make the kid a bad guy, however, his demeanor does. His countenance screams "perp".

Who the individual be is irrelevant to the discussion topic. I don't care if it's Billy Hawk or Davy Crockett. Among the key points I've been making with regard the two courtroom photos and the one of the woman that I provided and the one that Predfan provided is that the clothing an individual wears is no good basis for making any assumptions about their character. That is precisely what you did...based only on two possible traits -- the clothing the guy wears and perhaps the color of his skin -- you concluded "[t]he individual in the grey sweater/workout set is clearly not educated, nor is he vocationally trained."

Truly, I don't know who Billy Hawk is. Never heard of him even. I Googled for "arraignment men in suits in courtrooms" or roughly that; I don't precisely recall now. You know choice I know of re: Billy Hawk? I know he chose to wear a poorly fitting sport jacket, but I have no idea of why.

There were other photos, most of them of folks in prison garb. I don't know who those people are either, but I'm not going to make any assumptions about whether they are scumbags, educated, vocationally trained, or anything else based on a photo.

The only life choice I can accurately say the folks above made is the one that landed them in court. Based on just the photos, that's all anyone can accurate speak to. Can folks say more than that? Sure, but they have to make assumptions about the pictured individuals to do so.

Yes, we make assumptions, but they seem to be pretty accurate. What is the reason that you choose? Did their environment make them do it? Are people ever responsible for their actions?

Red:
You obviously did not carefully read my earlier posts....If you did, you didn't understand what you read.

I don't choose a reason. I await the facts and then use them as the basis for my remarks about other individuals. As I stated before, I am capable of making assumptions just as anyone else is. I know that it's unfair to any given individual or group for me to do so and conclude upon their character based on those assumptions (generalizations).

Blue:
From that original photo that Predfan posted, what do you know about those people? How would you know whether you are right or not?

 

[PredFan]

And what makes you know, based solely on the photo, that "personal choices" is the correct answer; moreover that, by the implication of your comment posted when you shared the photo, as "the correct answer," it can be extrapolated to the entirely of the black community? Your remarks indicate your answer to that question must essentially follow the line of "Occam's razor tells me so." Sure, you go with that....

Logic, reason, and knowledge is why I know. The only explanation other than personal choice is that those three men were arbitrarily handed their positions. One was given the job of lawyer, one was given the job of bailiff, and the third drew the short straw and was given a life of crime.

Of course the reality is that those three men earned what they got by personal choices they made.

Red:
To logically and reasonably know that the conclusion at which you have arrived about the people in the photo is correct, one would actually have to know a variety of things, things not provided in the photo alone, about the three pictured individuals. One cannot know, based solely on the photo, what distinguishes the key life choices the pictured individuals have made.

Here's the photo again for reference.

Incorrect. Predfan is absolutely correct here. The suit wearer obviously is a college graduate based on his posture and his demeanor. The one in the uniform is likewise a trained individual who has undergone years of instruction and that too is demonstrated by his posture. The individual in the grey sweater/workout set is clearly not educated, nor is he vocationally trained.

His demeanor is one of prey, he clearly is in danger, and knows it. And, based on posture is accepting guilt. Were he educated, and not guilty his demeanor would be one of outrage. This is not present here.

Green:
Those are assumptions and inferences that you have made, every one of which may be accurate or inaccurate.


Read the entire conversation between PredFan and me. Parts of it are missing from the quoted content in your post #182.


Here is the whole conversation:

Yes, apparently quite dangerous. In your case, a little bit of knowledge leads you to pretend the obvious does not exist. Your view leads to nothing but a continuation of the same problems. Everyone throwing up their hands wondering why the problems have been going on so long and why they still exist. Your overthinking paralyzes not just you but all efforts to solve the problem. It really is that simple. The man on the right made personal choices that led him to handcuffs in front of a judge. The man on the left made personal choices that led him to a responsible position in court of law. The man in the center made personal choices that led him to a high level of success. Could be that the man in the center made the personal choice to be a lawyer and help people like the man on the right. Could be that the man on the left made the personal choice to protect his neighborhood from people like the man in the right. I can only guess at their motivations, but it's all personal choices. Unless you think the ones not in handcuffs were given their positions and the man on the right got left out for some reason.

In this case the simplest answer is the correct one: personal choices.

And what makes you know, based solely on the photo, that "personal choices" is the correct answer; moreover that, by the implication of your comment posted when you shared the photo, as "the correct answer," it can be extrapolated to the entirely of the black community? Your remarks indicate your answer to that question must essentially follow the line of "Occam's razor tells me so." Sure, you go with that....

Logic, reason, and knowledge is why I know. The only explanation other than personal choice is that those three men were arbitrarily handed their positions. One was given the job of lawyer, one was given the job of bailiff, and the third drew the short straw and was given a life of crime.

Of course the reality is that those three men earned what they got by personal choices they made.

Red:
To logically and reasonably know that the conclusion at which you have arrived about the people in the photo is correct, one would actually have to know a variety of things, things not provided in the photo alone, about the three pictured individuals. One cannot know, based solely on the photo, what distinguishes the key life choices the pictured individuals have made.

Here's the photo again for reference.

If you look at the whole conversation, you'll see that it derives from Predfan's "blue" statement in the quoted messages. I've color coded the remarks that follow and that are related:

• Pink --> Remarks about assumptions and making assumptions.
• Purple --> Remarks that are assumptions about facts for which there's no clear evidence supporting those facts (hypothesis contrary to fact) and that are used to draw one or more conclusions.
• Brown --> Remarks about Ockham's razor and applying it to the human condition.
• Fluorescent blue --> A cognitively incoherent idea that begins as an assumption and reappears later as an assertion/conclusion.
• Pale blue --> Remarks about the impact of assumptions on our culture.

^ trying WAY too hard just to avoid admitting that yes when you take 3 black men from the same geographic area and one is in a suit , one is in a sheriff's uniform, and one is handcuffs it's pretty obvious that one made great choices, one made good choices, and one made terrible choices...............

Gotta hand it to him, he works VERY hard to deny the obvious.

 

[PredFan]

Several folks here seem quite willing to form conclusions based solely on how the people in the photo are dressed.

If you didn't recognize OJ, how are you going to know which person in the photo above is the defendant? How can you know about the choices any of them made?

Did this defendant above make poor choices? Does he have on sweats?


People here are trying to pass off their generalizations and assumptions as fact and they are also trying to claim that there's something equitable about applying the conclusions deriving from their generalizations to other humans, particularly to black folks. And amidst all that, I suspect those same folks want the rest of us to accept that they aren't racists, idiots or ignoramuses. I don't know whether folks are doing that because they are biased (racially or otherwise), or because they are simply not any good at applying rigorously rational reasoning, or because they are just dumber than the day is long. I do know, however, that there's nothing assuredly right about generalizing about a whole class of people and applying those generalizations to specific individuals in the class. At the center of it all, that is what an "ism" bias is, racism, ageism, sexism, etc.

False comparison. It was never about how they were dressed.

 

[PredFan]

Several folks here seem quite willing to form conclusions based solely on how the people in the photo are dressed.

If you didn't recognize OJ, how are you going to know which person in the photo above is the defendant? How can you know about the choices any of them made?

Did this defendant above make poor choices? Does he have on sweats?


People here are trying to pass off their generalizations and assumptions as fact and they are also trying to claim that there's something equitable about applying the conclusions deriving from their generalizations to other humans, particularly to black folks. And amidst all that, I suspect those same folks want the rest of us to accept that they aren't racists, idiots or ignoramuses. I don't know whether folks are doing that because they are biased (racially or otherwise), or because they are simply not any good at applying rigorously rational reasoning, or because they are just dumber than the day is long. I do know, however, that there's nothing assuredly right about generalizing about a whole class of people and applying those generalizations to specific individuals in the class. At the center of it all, that is what an "ism" bias is, racism, ageism, sexism, etc.

Ahhh yes, the infamous Billy Hawk. Drug dealer and general scumbag. Used to hang around with a corrupt cop. Then he got tired of the competition so killed him. The suit doesn't hide the scumbag underneath. I heard he was finally found guilty in his trial. Is that true?

Red:
Off Topic.

Blue:
The sweats that other boy was wearing doesn't make there be a scumbag underneath.

On topic because you used him as an example. Which I then shredded. Pretty pathetic attempt at a dodge. I agree, the sweats don't make the kid a bad guy, however, his demeanor does. His countenance screams "perp".

Who the individual be is irrelevant to the discussion topic. I don't care if it's Billy Hawk or Davy Crockett. Among the key points I've been making with regard the two courtroom photos and the one of the woman that I provided and the one that Predfan provided is that the clothing an individual wears is no good basis for making any assumptions about their character. That is precisely what you did...based only on two possible traits -- the clothing the guy wears and perhaps the color of his skin -- you concluded "[t]he individual in the grey sweater/workout set is clearly not educated, nor is he vocationally trained."

Truly, I don't know who Billy Hawk is. Never heard of him even. I Googled for "arraignment men in suits in courtrooms" or roughly that; I don't precisely recall now. You know choice I know of re: Billy Hawk? I know he chose to wear a poorly fitting sport jacket, but I have no idea of why.

There were other photos, most of them of folks in prison garb. I don't know who those people are either, but I'm not going to make any assumptions about whether they are scumbags, educated, vocationally trained, or anything else based on a photo.

The only life choice I can accurately say the folks above made is the one that landed them in court. Based on just the photos, that's all anyone can accurate speak to. Can folks say more than that? Sure, but they have to make assumptions about the pictured individuals to do so.

More false comparisons. In the photo I provided, all three men were of the same race. That was the whole point and the point of this thread. Your photos and argument built in them is nonsense.

 

[PredFan]

Ahhh yes, the infamous Billy Hawk. Drug dealer and general scumbag. Used to hang around with a corrupt cop. Then he got tired of the competition so killed him. The suit doesn't hide the scumbag underneath. I heard he was finally found guilty in his trial. Is that true?

Red:
Off Topic.

Blue:
The sweats that other boy was wearing doesn't make there be a scumbag underneath.

On topic because you used him as an example. Which I then shredded. Pretty pathetic attempt at a dodge. I agree, the sweats don't make the kid a bad guy, however, his demeanor does. His countenance screams "perp".

Who the individual be is irrelevant to the discussion topic. I don't care if it's Billy Hawk or Davy Crockett. Among the key points I've been making with regard the two courtroom photos and the one of the woman that I provided and the one that Predfan provided is that the clothing an individual wears is no good basis for making any assumptions about their character. That is precisely what you did...based only on two possible traits -- the clothing the guy wears and perhaps the color of his skin -- you concluded "[t]he individual in the grey sweater/workout set is clearly not educated, nor is he vocationally trained."

Truly, I don't know who Billy Hawk is. Never heard of him even. I Googled for "arraignment men in suits in courtrooms" or roughly that; I don't precisely recall now. You know choice I know of re: Billy Hawk? I know he chose to wear a poorly fitting sport jacket, but I have no idea of why.

There were other photos, most of them of folks in prison garb. I don't know who those people are either, but I'm not going to make any assumptions about whether they are scumbags, educated, vocationally trained, or anything else based on a photo.

The only life choice I can accurately say the folks above made is the one that landed them in court. Based on just the photos, that's all anyone can accurate speak to. Can folks say more than that? Sure, but they have to make assumptions about the pictured individuals to do so.

Yes, we make assumptions, but they seem to be pretty accurate. What is the reason that you choose? Did their environment make them do it? Are people ever responsible for their actions?

Red:
You obviously did not carefully read my earlier posts....If you did, you didn't understand what you read.

I don't choose a reason. I await the facts and then use them as the basis for my remarks about other individuals. As I stated before, I am capable of making assumptions just as anyone else is. I know that it's unfair to any given individual or group for me to do so and conclude upon their character based on those assumptions (generalizations).

Blue:
From that original photo that Predfan posted, what do you know about those people? How would you know whether you are right or not?

How do I know? Again, logic, reason, and education. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the accused isn't the guy in the police uniform, and while it could be the guy in the suit, it's more likely that it's the guy in cuffs. It also isn't astrophysics to figure out that the guy in uniform is a bailiff, and that the other two who are at the table have to be a the accused and his lawyer.

I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt that the one on the left is a bailiff, on the right is the accused, and in the center is the defense attorney. To claim that isn't true is nonsense.

 

[320 Years of History]

it's more likely that it's the guy in cuffs.

Here's your photo again.

Do you see any handcuffs in your photo?
Do you know from the photo whether either of the non-uniformed individuals has been or was convicted of a crime?

You asked what is the difference among the three men and answered that it is personal choices. I assert that you can't tell much about any personal choices other than one made by the uniformed guy. All you know from the photo is that the other two made specific sartorial choices, not life choices.

 

[PredFan]

it's more likely that it's the guy in cuffs.

Here's your photo again.

Do you see any handcuffs in your photo?
Do you know from the photo whether either of the non-uniformed individuals has been or was convicted of a crime?

Ok, no cuffs, fine. I still know that the kid in the jumper isn't the lawyer and that the man in the cop uniform is the bailiff, and if the man in the center ever committed a crime, it's totally irrelevant to this photo. He's the lawyer for the man on the right. The bailiff is behind the man on the right because it's court procedure that there be one there in case the accused gets violent which has been known to happen.

You are desperate, and your desperation has you talking nonsense.

 

[PredFan]

I swear, leftists these days. Up is down, black is white, lies are truth, and you could be staring right at a thing and a leftist will try to tell you it doesn't exist.

 

[Papageorgio]

Red:
To logically and reasonably know that the conclusion at which you have arrived about the people in the photo is correct, one would actually have to know a variety of things, things not provided in the photo alone, about the three pictured individuals. One cannot know, based solely on the photo, what distinguishes the key life choices the pictured individuals have made.

Here's the photo again for reference.

Incorrect. Predfan is absolutely correct here. The suit wearer obviously is a college graduate based on his posture and his demeanor. The one in the uniform is likewise a trained individual who has undergone years of instruction and that too is demonstrated by his posture. The individual in the grey sweater/workout set is clearly not educated, nor is he vocationally trained.

His demeanor is one of prey, he clearly is in danger, and knows it. And, based on posture is accepting guilt. Were he educated, and not guilty his demeanor would be one of outrage. This is not present here.

Green:
Those are assumptions and inferences that you have made, every one of which may be accurate or inaccurate.


Read the entire conversation between PredFan and me. Parts of it are missing from the quoted content in your post #182.


Here is the whole conversation:

Logic, reason, and knowledge is why I know. The only explanation other than personal choice is that those three men were arbitrarily handed their positions. One was given the job of lawyer, one was given the job of bailiff, and the third drew the short straw and was given a life of crime.

Of course the reality is that those three men earned what they got by personal choices they made.

Red:
To logically and reasonably know that the conclusion at which you have arrived about the people in the photo is correct, one would actually have to know a variety of things, things not provided in the photo alone, about the three pictured individuals. One cannot know, based solely on the photo, what distinguishes the key life choices the pictured individuals have made.

Here's the photo again for reference.

If you look at the whole conversation, you'll see that it derives from Predfan's "blue" statement in the quoted messages. I've color coded the remarks that follow and that are related:

• Pink --> Remarks about assumptions and making assumptions.
• Purple --> Remarks that are assumptions about facts for which there's no clear evidence supporting those facts (hypothesis contrary to fact) and that are used to draw one or more conclusions.
• Brown --> Remarks about Ockham's razor and applying it to the human condition.
• Fluorescent blue --> A cognitively incoherent idea that begins as an assumption and reappears later as an assertion/conclusion.
• Pale blue --> Remarks about the impact of assumptions on our culture.

^ trying WAY too hard just to avoid admitting that yes when you take 3 black men from the same geographic area and one is in a suit , one is in a sheriff's uniform, and one is handcuffs it's pretty obvious that one made great choices, one made good choices, and one made terrible choices...............

I'd be apt to say two made great choices as they appear to be productive members of society, the third one is the opposite, however he can change if he chooses to.

I can't even go that far for I know that if I were arrested at the right time -- when I'm gardening or just chilling around the house -- I could very well be wearing sweats. Other than being a white guy and older, I wouldn't look terribly different from the guy on the right.

​

That's another way to look at it, however unlikely.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[320 Years of History]

Incorrect. Predfan is absolutely correct here. The suit wearer obviously is a college graduate based on his posture and his demeanor. The one in the uniform is likewise a trained individual who has undergone years of instruction and that too is demonstrated by his posture. The individual in the grey sweater/workout set is clearly not educated, nor is he vocationally trained.

His demeanor is one of prey, he clearly is in danger, and knows it. And, based on posture is accepting guilt. Were he educated, and not guilty his demeanor would be one of outrage. This is not present here.

Green:
Those are assumptions and inferences that you have made, every one of which may be accurate or inaccurate.


Read the entire conversation between PredFan and me. Parts of it are missing from the quoted content in your post #182.


Here is the whole conversation:

Red:
To logically and reasonably know that the conclusion at which you have arrived about the people in the photo is correct, one would actually have to know a variety of things, things not provided in the photo alone, about the three pictured individuals. One cannot know, based solely on the photo, what distinguishes the key life choices the pictured individuals have made.

Here's the photo again for reference.

If you look at the whole conversation, you'll see that it derives from Predfan's "blue" statement in the quoted messages. I've color coded the remarks that follow and that are related:

• Pink --> Remarks about assumptions and making assumptions.
• Purple --> Remarks that are assumptions about facts for which there's no clear evidence supporting those facts (hypothesis contrary to fact) and that are used to draw one or more conclusions.
• Brown --> Remarks about Ockham's razor and applying it to the human condition.
• Fluorescent blue --> A cognitively incoherent idea that begins as an assumption and reappears later as an assertion/conclusion.
• Pale blue --> Remarks about the impact of assumptions on our culture.

^ trying WAY too hard just to avoid admitting that yes when you take 3 black men from the same geographic area and one is in a suit , one is in a sheriff's uniform, and one is handcuffs it's pretty obvious that one made great choices, one made good choices, and one made terrible choices...............

I'd be apt to say two made great choices as they appear to be productive members of society, the third one is the opposite, however he can change if he chooses to.

I can't even go that far for I know that if I were arrested at the right time -- when I'm gardening or just chilling around the house -- I could very well be wearing sweats. Other than being a white guy and older, I wouldn't look terribly different from the guy on the right.

​

​

That's another way to look at it, however unlikely.

It's all about maintaining my objectivity and refraining from making conclusions/assumptions/assertions about others when I don't have the proof that my assumptions (etc.) are accurate. I don't care to have others do that of me; thus I won't do it to them.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Look at this guy


" I wont's assume that the lawyer and bailiff made good choices and the defendant made bad choices"

Good grief.

 

[westwall]

it's more likely that it's the guy in cuffs.

Here's your photo again.

Do you see any handcuffs in your photo?
Do you know from the photo whether either of the non-uniformed individuals has been or was convicted of a crime?

You asked what is the difference among the three men and answered that it is personal choices. I assert that you can't tell much about any personal choices other than one made by the uniformed guy. All you know from the photo is that the other two made specific sartorial choices, not life choices.

You don't need for the kid to be in handcuffs to know he's a perp. His very countenance screams perp. That's the point. You wrap yourself up in appearances but ignore the elephant in the room. Why is that?

 

[PredFan]

I bought my friend an elephant for his room. He said thanks, I said: "Don't mention it."

 

[Fair&Balanced]

it's more likely that it's the guy in cuffs.

Here's your photo again.

Do you see any handcuffs in your photo?
Do you know from the photo whether either of the non-uniformed individuals has been or was convicted of a crime?

You asked what is the difference among the three men and answered that it is personal choices. I assert that you can't tell much about any personal choices other than one made by the uniformed guy. All you know from the photo is that the other two made specific sartorial choices, not life choices.

You don't need for the kid to be in handcuffs to know he's a perp. His very countenance screams perp. That's the point. You wrap yourself up in appearances but ignore the elephant in the room. Why is that?

Why did he even start this side argument anyway? Oh that's right, to avoid simply saying "yes the fact that some blacks do well, while most do not is evidence that personal choices can elevate a person out of any situation"

 

[PredFan]

it's more likely that it's the guy in cuffs.

Here's your photo again.

Do you see any handcuffs in your photo?
Do you know from the photo whether either of the non-uniformed individuals has been or was convicted of a crime?

You asked what is the difference among the three men and answered that it is personal choices. I assert that you can't tell much about any personal choices other than one made by the uniformed guy. All you know from the photo is that the other two made specific sartorial choices, not life choices.

You don't need for the kid to be in handcuffs to know he's a perp. His very countenance screams perp. That's the point. You wrap yourself up in appearances but ignore the elephant in the room. Why is that?

Why did he even start this side argument anyway? Oh that's right, to avoid simply saying "yes the fact that some blacks do well, while most do not is evidence that personal choices can elevate a person out of any situation"

People on the left don't want to hear that shit. It ruins everything. They need the blame game.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

it's more likely that it's the guy in cuffs.

Here's your photo again.

Do you see any handcuffs in your photo?
Do you know from the photo whether either of the non-uniformed individuals has been or was convicted of a crime?

You asked what is the difference among the three men and answered that it is personal choices. I assert that you can't tell much about any personal choices other than one made by the uniformed guy. All you know from the photo is that the other two made specific sartorial choices, not life choices.

You don't need for the kid to be in handcuffs to know he's a perp. His very countenance screams perp. That's the point. You wrap yourself up in appearances but ignore the elephant in the room. Why is that?

Why did he even start this side argument anyway? Oh that's right, to avoid simply saying "yes the fact that some blacks do well, while most do not is evidence that personal choices can elevate a person out of any situation"

People on the left don't want to hear that shit. It ruins everything. They need the blame game.

It just amazes me that a guy like 320 who portrays himself as a lover of facts, ignores such obvious facts.

Also, I realize he's placed me on ignore b/c I hurt his feelings by pointing out that he tries too hard with his long winded posts.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

it's more likely that it's the guy in cuffs.

Here's your photo again.

Do you see any handcuffs in your photo?
Do you know from the photo whether either of the non-uniformed individuals has been or was convicted of a crime?

You asked what is the difference among the three men and answered that it is personal choices. I assert that you can't tell much about any personal choices other than one made by the uniformed guy. All you know from the photo is that the other two made specific sartorial choices, not life choices.

You don't need for the kid to be in handcuffs to know he's a perp. His very countenance screams perp. That's the point. You wrap yourself up in appearances but ignore the elephant in the room. Why is that?

Why did he even start this side argument anyway? Oh that's right, to avoid simply saying "yes the fact that some blacks do well, while most do not is evidence that personal choices can elevate a person out of any situation"

People on the left don't want to hear that shit. It ruins everything. They need the blame game.

It just amazes me that a guy like 320 who portrays himself as a lover of facts, ignores such obvious facts.

Also, I realize he's placed me on ignore b/c I hurt his feelings by pointing out that he tries too hard with his long winded posts.

Teehee~ He has me on ignore for the exact same reason. I think he impresses himself more with his post volume, and the amount of words he can copy from the dictionary in a single post.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Here's your photo again.

Do you see any handcuffs in your photo?
Do you know from the photo whether either of the non-uniformed individuals has been or was convicted of a crime?

You asked what is the difference among the three men and answered that it is personal choices. I assert that you can't tell much about any personal choices other than one made by the uniformed guy. All you know from the photo is that the other two made specific sartorial choices, not life choices.

You don't need for the kid to be in handcuffs to know he's a perp. His very countenance screams perp. That's the point. You wrap yourself up in appearances but ignore the elephant in the room. Why is that?

Why did he even start this side argument anyway? Oh that's right, to avoid simply saying "yes the fact that some blacks do well, while most do not is evidence that personal choices can elevate a person out of any situation"

People on the left don't want to hear that shit. It ruins everything. They need the blame game.

It just amazes me that a guy like 320 who portrays himself as a lover of facts, ignores such obvious facts.

Also, I realize he's placed me on ignore b/c I hurt his feelings by pointing out that he tries too hard with his long winded posts.

Teehee~ He has me on ignore for the exact same reason. I think he impresses himself more with his post volume, and the amount of words he can copy from the dictionary in a single post.

See, I had a college English professor who taught me that volume of words doesn't reflect intelligence, ability to concisely get your point across in a manner that most people can understand does.