KarmaPolice

Participant
Post count: 1577

@JBear

Thanks for at least taking the time to respond and explain your views. I will respond by explaining the difference (and why it matters in the context of ALL these discussions) and its summed up in this comment by you:

my opinions are valid which I already know damned well but somehow have to end up proving to you every time we have a discussion. I’m open minded enough to see your point as what it is… your opinion, which by the way you are entitled to have

To begin with. I offered FACTS, not opinions. That’s a key distinction. I showed you — with real world examples – precisely what hate crime’s are in the real world. I said:

1. all criminal law revolves around proving thoughts: ABSOLUTE FACT
2. hate crimes are an ENHANCED sentence for existing crimes — ABSOLUTE FACT

I used actual, real world, timely examples, literally plucked from today’s events — all factual — and actual criminal statutes (FACTS) in play in those real world events. Facts, Facts, and more Facts. NOT opinions.

I think you know that (even though you say the opposite above) because the only thing you could come back with was that your OPINIONS . . . opinions . .”are valid.” You actual words: “my opinions are valid which I already know damned well”

To PROVE your point (“your opinion is valid”), you offered another OPINION, the 2012 (get that, 2012?) comment by Professor Paul Butler. To be clear that it is an OPINION he is offering (in 2012) an NOT FACTS . . in your own article he described your point about thoughts as “an argument.” An argument is an opinion. An argument has to be supported by FACTS to be compelling. My argument that the “moon is made of cheese” is NOT very compelling because there are so many facts to the contrary, right? I point that out because the same FACTS I gave you (in 2021) completely undercut Paul Butler’s 2012 opinion, right? His opinion in 2012 is undercut by the same FACTS that I posted here.

Secondly, and this is the folly ALL of these discussions . . finding someone with GOOGLE who shares your opinion (or did at one time) doesn’t make your opinion valid, right? Many people are of the opinion that Jews are evil. If you use Google, Hitler shared that opinion. Does that make the opinion valid?

want a less inflammatory example? If Butler’s opinion*** about hate crimes is valid what about his opinion that there should be NO PRISONS AT ALL IN THE UNITED STATES? THAT WE WOULD BE SAFER WITHOIUT PRISONS?

Berkeley Talks transcript: Paul Butler on how prison abolition would make us all safer

IN OTHER WORDS . . . . AND THIS IS THE BIG POINT I WANT TO MAKE

You are actually PROVING . . in the most beautiful example ever . . ever . . PRECISELY and EQUISITLY WHY I HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL THIS TIME that one of the biggest problems in America is people not understanding confirmation bid (ie the COCOON)

You are PROVING THAT POINT because you are literally saying “my opinion is valid because another (ultra-libertarian) has the same opinion.” You’re actually ignoring FACTS because someone else shares your OPINION. That is the very essence of the Orwellian (FauxNews) cocoon. “Tucker Carlson says its true . . . ” Youre just saying “Paul Butler said it true” when he didn’t even say that, he offered an opinion that “there is (was) an argument.” In other words, he did his best (for purposes of entertainment) to describe that people like you say this about hate crimes. That doesn’t mean ITS TRUE, right?

Its not. its just as ANTI-FACTUAL when Butler expresses the opinion, right, because you have the facts that I gave you.



@JBear
As an aside and the reason I put the **** I sincerely doubt you are for DEFUNDING THE POLICE . . like Paul Butler? So is his OPINION about DEFUNDING POLICING invalid? so your opinion is TRUE because he had the same opinion, but you disagree on his other opinion so on that he is wrong?

“Breaking the Chokehold: A Radical Approach to Disrupting the Policing System”

“In his timely new book, Chokehold: Policing Black Men, Georgetown law professor and former federal prosecutor Paul Butler interrogates the damning imagery and policies that place Black men in a “chokehold” which constantly surveils and subjects them to state sanctioned violence. Doing for policing what Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow did for mass incarceration, Butler’s Chokehold examines the systemic brokenness of policing and criminal justice in the United States through cutting edge research and policy solutions.”