Comments for Nalates’ Things & Stuff Second Life and Virtual Worlds Wed, 27 Jul 2016 15:45:23 +0000 hourly 1 Comment on Blender Materials Tutorial by Nalates Urriah Wed, 27 Jul 2016 15:45:23 +0000 You have gorgeous textures/materials. I hope they are selling well.

Readers: I can see links to posters in the admin section that don’t show on the blog page. Check out Brookston’s marketplace store:

Comment on Blender Materials Tutorial by Brookston Holiday Wed, 27 Jul 2016 06:25:05 +0000 Beautiful!

Comment on Truth and Tragedy by Nalates Urriah Tue, 26 Jul 2016 15:58:37 +0000 I put the response in a new comment.

Comment on Truth and Tragedy by Nalates Urriah Tue, 26 Jul 2016 15:42:05 +0000 Aah… that ‘deserving’ definition didn’t work for you, so change up again. Now you want to use an unwarranted death definition. I find it interesting you were afraid of being trapped using an intellectually honest definition.

By your own words you seem to think there is no statistical data to support yours or my position. You say there is no data that lists ‘innocent’ or unwarranted deaths. But, that just isn’t true as I’ll show.

The idea I won’t believe you because of a religious like zeal isn’t true, at least in my case. Then you go on to speculate I support Trump and run that on to say it shows a lack of a grip on reality. But, that is all your opinion with no basis. You speculate and assume without cause… which is a classical psychological description for those suffering from delusion illnesses. Assuming you are generally rational and it is just a debate tactic then you are trying to run a strawman to prove a point, sort of circular logic. Fail.

Back to the main point…

Unwarranted: not justified or authorized. – With that definition we have to define when an officer is justified or authorized in taking a life. In other words, we have to know the context of the shooting, of which you claim doesn’t exist.

To lay the foundation… For police officers in all locations there are well documented policies regarding the use of deadly force, the rules of engagement, so to say. In general the policies that authorize the use of deadly force base them on:
Serious offenses against persons
Nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices
Special nuclear material
Apprehension where escape would put people at risk of serious harm or death.

We can look at the FBI data and decide what is or isn’t in compliance with policy. We can do that because something like 300 contextual aspects of all police-civilian engagements are recorded. The numbers I quote gave no context. But, the numbers are only a presentation of an aspect of the information collected. We only need drill down to examine each case.

Roland G. Fryer, Jr is interesting. Currently a professor of political economics at Harvard (a liberal?). He is said to have grown up on the wrong side of the tracks, dislikes police (antidotal opinion from some writing about him). He took the time to drill down into the data and examine context. From this one report I would say he is intellectually honest.

The studies abstract says, “This paper explores racial differences in police use of force. On non-lethal uses of force, blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police. Adding controls that account for important context and civilian behavior reduces, but cannot fully explain, these disparities. On the most extreme use of force – officer involved shootings – we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account. We argue that the patterns in the data are consistent with a model in which police officers are utility maximizers, a fraction of which have a preference for discrimination, who incur relatively high expected costs of officer-involved shootings.”

Mr. Fryer’s exact purpose for the study is stated within as: “… Understanding the extent to which there are racial differences in police use of force and (if any) whether those differences might be due to discrimination by police or explained by other factors at the time of the incident is a question of tremendous social importance, and the subject of this paper.”

The short story on Mr. Fryer’s study is it destroys your argument. There is data on both warranted and unwarranted use of force. It further destroys your idea that more blacks than whites are killed without justifiable cause. Hard data.

You have and continue to try to use opinion and incomplete anecdotal information to argue against a rigorous study of the large amount of public data that is available. Why? I think it is obvious. You have nothing else to argue from. So, you have to claim there is no information on which either of us can base our statements, which immediately makes it clear you have no information on which to base your claims. You have made a self-defeating agreement. Who is being religiously fanatical?

Whether you have membership in BLM or not you argue for their delusional, unsupported claims that police kill more blacks than whites without justifiable cause. Why shouldn’t I group you in with them?

Yes, I know you can consider yourself in a group without believing everything the group does. But, that doesn’t negate my question, why shouldn’t I group you in with them on this point?

I wasn’t talking about Wasserman’s guilt or innocence. My point is the Left in true Alinsky style lies when it serves their agenda. When she was asked she did not deny the emails were hers. For a year or more the charges have been thrown by Bernie. Now a smoking gun falls out of the sky validating his claims, to a large extent. Wasserman resigns. So, we have a pretty complete case but, not enough to warrant shooting her. So, while I don’t know if she is guilty of fixing the election, all evidence and even just the written evidence shows she tried and apparently succeeded.

You have tried to spin my use of Wasserman to say we can use the same anecdotal and in the news evidence to support the idea more blacks are killed. It appears you are trying to say I am doing with Wasserman what you are doing with killings. That certainly gives us insight into what you know you are doing.

But, I think I have successfully argued there is evidence with way more than adequate context to prove yours and BLM’s and the mainstream media’s claims false. You have nothing but opinion generated by those wanting to divide people. The question is why do you hold so dearly to an unsupported opinion and false claims that divide people?

A note on religious belief. The current propaganda, which you seem to have bought into, paints religious people as following their beliefs blindly. For some that is true. They do exactly what you are doing here, believe without verification or validation and argue unsupported opinion. But, Christians are taught to be able to give a defense of their faith/belief (1 Peter 3:15). Look at any evangelical church’s web site for Apologetics. Then notice throughout history it is the Christian organizations that founded the centers of higher education.

Obama and Hillary are fans of Alinsky and make profuse use of his tactics. D’suza’s movie Hillary’s America covers it. (You should probably see the movie so you’ll know what you are arguing for and supporting as a far Left person.) The book Rules for Radicals Defeated gives an excellent review of the rules as used in the 2008 and 2012 elections. You might find it interesting.

On moving the argument forward… you haven’t. I added new outside supporting material with most of my responses. You couldn’t rebut that information. Each time you have resorted to ignoring the information, unsupported opinion, and additional Alinsky tactics. If you can’t support your position or move forward, give up. It should be obvious only supported facts are going to move me and it is obvious you are stuck in blind belief immune to facts. So, now my tactics need to change. But, ask yourself, do you have anything to present other than opinion?

Comment on Truth and Tragedy by Susan Wilson Tue, 26 Jul 2016 00:14:50 +0000 “Not deserving of death today” is a very broad definition of innocent, I’ll grant. But I’m sure that you have a pretty good idea of what the word innocent means. I felt that was a setup, and that’s why I responded as I did. I’m going to use the word unwarranted instead, for clarity.

As I said before, the reason I said your FBI stats don’t apply is because they show all deaths by cops – they do not show which deaths were unwarranted. That is the only aspect I’m willing to debate with you.

Did it not occur to you that I can be leftist without agreeing with everything that every leftist believes? It’s not a club where you have to swear an oath and are handed talking points. There may even be some things that you believe that I share. You still would still consider me a leftist. I at no point said that less whites are innocent than blacks. Again – my point is that there are substantially more cases of a cop killing a black person when it is unwarranted than there are of cops killing a white person when killing is unwarranted. There are no stats to prove that, just the videos we see online and in the media – mostly shot by ordinary people.

Considering that these days almost everyone carries a phone capable of capturing video, and can share that video on the Internet for all to see, we hardly need to depend on the media to know what is going on. Especially considering the bias of the media – we agree on that. I’m old enough to remember a time when there was no left wing or right wing media, the news was the news and reporters didn’t give commentary, they reported facts and let the public form their own opinions. Unbiased investigative journalism meant something – but that was before the media sold out.

I certainly don’t have your faith in the American justice system. If you can believe – before any investigation has even started – that Debbie Wasserman is guilty (as do I) – then how hard is it to believe that a cop shooting a 12 year old with a toy gun in 2 seconds – no questions asked – is also guilty? Yet the justice system felt otherwise. You have no faith in the media but you believe the justice system is infallible? Wasserman is being judged on leaked emails. My cases have video support.

If you can believe that the DNC was able to sway voters away from Sanders to promote Hillary – a very unpopular candidate – how can you not realize that a jury is also easily swayed? The FBI has announced that they will be investigating the leak of the DNC emails. They are not, at least so far, considering an investigation of Wasserman or the DNC for undermining democracy in a Presidential election.

I agree that I am not advancing my viewpoint. It is like arguing with a religious person from my standpoint and I suspect you feel the same. I also suspect that you are going to vote for Trump so it occurs to me that you may not have a firm grip on reality either. If you are unwilling to believe anything I say I am unwilling to continue debating with you.You have not changed my mind but you have certainly worn me down. Call this a win if it suits you. I thank you for the banter, it was fun while it lasted.

Comment on Photo No Longer Available – Flickr by PIXELPIKLZ Mon, 25 Jul 2016 22:54:29 +0000 EDIT> ROTATE LEFT .>.ROTATE BACK TO NORMAL AND ITS FIXED ..BUT WHAT A BUG ??LOL

Comment on Truth and Tragedy by Nalates Urriah Mon, 25 Jul 2016 17:54:54 +0000 That is an alternative definition of ‘innocent’. Alinsky recommended the tactic of changing the definition of words when your agenda wouldn’t be acceptable or supportable without a change. Alinsky was never one to limit himself be being intellectually honest. But, if we go with your definition, then how do you decide when a police office has the right to defend his or another’s life? How does one decide a person deserves to die when they attack a police officer’s or civilian’s life?

You also follow the Alinsky tactic of repeating unsubstantiated statements. I provided the stats that show police are killing more whites than blacks per capita. The fact seems to scare the Left. You make the claim the FBI stats don’t apply. But, as I continue you’ll see your definition of ‘innocent’ makes then very applicable.

I gave you that holding you accountable for BLM ideology wasn’t reasonable. You write as if I still hold you accountable for their statements. I stopped. But, now you don’t want to be held accountable for what Leftist believe or espouse. If you do not believe what Leftist believe, how can you consider yourself a Leftist?

But, you are espousing both groups claims that police are killing more innocent blacks than whites. Are you being racist and think less whites are innocent than blacks? Do you have any evidence to support that? …other than opinion… If not isn’t that racism? Do more whites deserve to die? How else is one to think you can ignore the stats showing more whites are killed by police unless you think they weren’t innocent?

The only way you can have any chance of convincing anyone of your’s and the Left’s thinking that more ‘innocent’ blacks are killed than whites, is to ignore the stats and go with BECAUSE THERE IS NOT STAT FOR INNOCENTS KILLED and based on a customized-to-debate definition of ‘innocent’ that is rationally impossible to use … why try so hard to eliminate the facts?

You go further and refuse to believe the news media has an agenda and thus under reports killing of whites and over reports the killing of blacks. You’re welcome to do that. Just don’t expect me to believe you have a firm grip on reality. The evidence of media bias is overwhelming. Trying to give you a way to put that in perspective consider, Wiki Leaks just blew D. Wasserman out of the water exposing her year of consistent lies. Director Comey exposed Hillary’s years of lies. How is the media reporting those stories? Look at one of the sites that compares coverage of an issue by time spent or words written media source by media source. Then can you show me why you believe the media has behaved differently (honestly) for this ‘innocent killing’ plank of the party line?

Each case you pointed to did not ‘clearly’ show their innocence. That is your opinion, not a fact, yet. Investigations are incomplete. Society went through the same process in Ferguson. Emotional claims based on opinion with numerous people on the Left pushing for vigilante justice. The completed investigations, grand juries, and trials show they were all wrong time and again. You have 3 cases and I have stats from hundreds per year. Almost 1,000 just for 2015. You have biased news coverage and I have post trial verdicts baked into the stats. But, let’s go a bit farther…

The Washington post has way more information. See: 990 People Shot Dead 2015. If you had given me a definition of innocent that was rational I would likely have used it to defeat your arguments based on direct analysis and numbers. But, I suspect, you know that I would have defeated your argument, so picked a definition you think you can defend from. So, I’ll hit from a logic only viewpoint: by your definition everyone is innocent, as no one deserves to die. So, using your definition, why is anyone in jail? And since your definition makes everyone innocent, we can use the FBI stats because all those killed by police were obviously innocent and thus we have stats on shooting of innocents, as everyone on the list didn’t deserve to die. Ergo: my claim more whites are killed per capita than blacks is substantiated. You might want to re-think your definition.

As to your article, 8 Reasons, the author makes some unsubstantiated assumptions and runs with them. He even uses the Ferguson shooting was an example of a lack of accountability. I assume he and you have to claim a mixed race grand jury hearing is not accountability, only a conviction. When one considers the DOJ and persecutors in that case wanted some conviction to calm things down, the evidence had to be overwhelmingly in favor of the officers. The 8 Reasons are spin based mostly on the writer’s opinion. The writer provides no support for his opinions, so why should I believe him?

You try to get me to prove any of these 3 people you point to ‘deserve’ to have died. Then you’ll change your mind. I already stated these people didn’t deserve to die. They no more deserved it than a person deserves to die in a traffic accident. So, wasn’t that a pretty safe, and I think rigged, way to try and appear open minded?

The videos in Ferguson were generally edited to show what the media wanted. While the wanted part is opinion based on my observation, the fact is they were edited and only a portion of the videos shown the majority of the time. Does one really suppose the media without intent only showed the part that made the officer look bad? All the different networks with near identical coverage? News coverage omitted the events prior to the officer arriving or what was clipped from the videos. The result was people, like you, believing the video proved the point that the officers acted unlawfully. With all the evidence presented to the grand jury they found differently. The Left attempts to discredit the facts by attacking the jury, prosecutors, and system. A standard Alinsky tactic when an argument has no merit/support – discredit inconvenient facts.

You offer up the idea the media ‘just missed those’ killings and missed and some black killings too. Really!?! The killings are all listed in 990. You can look up the news coverage of each case. The media chose to report them or not. In all the cases I checked there was local coverage and a bit of cable coverage. So, it is not a matter of ‘after the event’ discovery by the media when it was no longer news. But, the number of white on black killings going national and black on white killings going national is way out of portion to race and number of events. So, it is no wonder you have lost touch with reality based on their reporting.

Chicago had 5 killed this last weekend with 42 wounded. Did that make national news? No, it is a Democrat/Leftist controlled city and state. I posit the media agenda is Do Not Make a Democrat Look Bad.

At this point you are not advancing your viewpoint or substantiating it. You use Alinsky tactics denying facts, quoting opinion, and redefining words. Why should I believe anything you say? More to the point why do you choose to believe what you espouse here?

Comment on Truth and Tragedy by Nalates Urriah Mon, 25 Jul 2016 16:53:56 +0000 I’ll start a new comment to keep it easier to read. I apologize as I forget the comments narrow down. I get to write from the admin page, so I don’t see the problem unless I go into the presentation pages.

Comment on Truth and Tragedy by Susan Wilson Sun, 24 Jul 2016 16:22:05 +0000 An interesting read while you’re waiting to reply. I’m sure you won’t approve of the source but they make some really good points:

Comment on Truth and Tragedy by Susan Wilson Sat, 23 Jul 2016 12:48:01 +0000 Define innocent? How about not deserving of death today.

You yourself said there are no stats showing how many unnecessary deaths are caused by police so, clearly, you won’t be able to research that.

I’m not going to get into a debate on how my beliefs differ from what Black Lives Matter espouse, as I stated before I’m not associated with them in any way. It is possible to understand that police are unnecessarily killing more blacks than whites without associating with their cause.

If you can’t understand why deadly force was unnecessary in 3 of the cases that I have prevented then I surely won’t be able to convince you. To me it is quite self-evident, and I suspect I’m not the only one considering the uproar these cases have caused in the nation. A cop kills a 12 year old with a toy gun in 2 seconds. A cop pulls over a family with a broken tail light, asks the driver to show his license and registration and shoots him dead. A cop shoots a black man lying on the ground with his hands up. No crimes were committed in either case. No warrants were out for these individuals.

In each of these cases the reason for police engagement is self-evident. In two someone called them with disinformation that required investigation, in the other they pulled someone over for a broken tail light. That isn’t obvious?

The FBI stats are not relevant to our debate because they show all police killings, they do not in any way show which ones were innocent – unnecessary – not deserving of death that day.

I have never said that the system locks up more blacks than whites and will not be held accountable for “often repeated talking points.” Is it possible for you to debate me as a person instead of a “Leftist.” You need to stick to the points relevant to our debate. Yes, I said I am very left-leaning but that doesn’t meant that I am responsible for what every other left-leaning person says or that I believe exactly everything that they do.

Again, I do not believe that the news is just neglecting to report cases of innocent whites being killed by police. You presented one case. I’m sure there are cases of innocent blacks that were killed that the media missed as well. There would be outrage for any innocent being killed by cops. I suspect there would be even more outrage for an innocent white killed by police. You can’t provide any evidence of this because these stats do not exist.

I’m not arguing unions with you either. That isn’t the topic of our debate. Every case I presented was videotaped and clearly showed the innocence of the black person murdered.

I’ve already provided hard evidence in the 3 cases I’ve presented. All were video recorded. If you can show hard evidence that these 3 people deserved to be killed, I’m open to changing my mind.