Neuron

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

It's an indicator of state of mind. Guy comes all the way from another state with an illegal weapon to guard something he wasn't asked to protect against possible property damage by unnamed persons, marching along, unthreatened and apparently unconcerned, with his gun at the ready. Ready for what? It's not self-defence then, no.

So basically he is the first attacker now. The fact that he went armed makes him the one who started the fight, right? What if he didn't manage to protect himself? Would the activists be the murderers, or were the activists the ones practicing self-defense because their threat was him armed?

You find his actions wrong and me too. The difference is that you are trying to misinterpret the law to make him guilty of murdering

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

While that may be true, a couple of posts earlier I mentioned one or two studies that demonstrated that specifically the application of stand your ground laws show quantifiable racial bias. It does not mean it happens in every specific case, but on average black folks are disproportionately disadvantaged when it comes to these issues. This includes either being the shooter claiming self-defence as in the above indicated example or being the victim of a stand your ground shooter.

Thanks for posting statistical data. I have no intentions to deny racism. But I keep my idea about comparisons between cases. It makes no sense to compare. There are too many variables. Also what about cherry picking in doing that and choosing what to compare?

18 minutes ago, MigL said:

I just responded to your claim that racism is not a big deal in Italy as it is in the US.

You made me reconsider my position. Maybe it's better to say Italian racism shows up in different ways. Also it's probably a less perceived problem (for the italians) since the smaller size of the discriminated communities who difficultly can raise awareness as in other countries

42 minutes ago, MigL said:

And this is the first time I've been accused of being in an echo chamber and repeating 'already approved ideas'.

I just wanted to share my perception that the members of this forum are not equally distributed across political areas

29 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Really? I didn't see any. Perhaps you can elaborate?

For example what about witnesses? Also I already pointed out a difference in a previous post but you missed apparently

21 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Usually, one credibly defends oneself from an attack or threat of attack, or at the very least plausible fear of attack; in the absence of either, or any visible sign of fearfulness, it's hard to see how one might be believed when claiming self-defense.

So a picture describes everything that happened that evening. If 5 minute before getting attacked I don't have fear it is not self-defense then?

17 minutes ago, MigL said:

oh sure.
Then why toss bananas on the field when M Balotelli and M Kean are playing ?

BTW,  'Benvenuto paesano'.

It's not about tossing bananas it's about giving my opinion as an Italian and trying to get your opinions, specifically from those who live there. Or maybe I should leave this thread letting you guys keep exchanging your already approved ideas

1 minute ago, Peterkin said:

Um... coz it might be relevant to the self-defense plea?

Ok, how?

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

Since you clearly didn't bother to read the article, Kizer was being sex-trafficked by her abductor. What part of that situation do you think poses less than an immediate threat? When you've been abducted and abused, isn't every waking moment an immediate threat? It may take a different thread, but I'd sure like to know how you're justifying your above comments. They seem fairly reprehensible to me, but I'm sure I've misunderstood you. I hope I've misunderstood you. If a white woman shot her black abductor, does it work differently where you live?

I read that part. What I was saying is that making comparisons between different cases is not so easy as "he is white and has been found not guilty, she is black and has been found guilty, so it must be the race that have made the different". There are many differences. Also I would like to point out that I already condemned what rittenhouse did and now I will also say that yes Kizer has done the right thing to protect herself. But court processes must be based on law and you can't say the two cases are equal under law.

I just don't get why people need to put racism everywhere. I live in a country (Italy) where racism is not a big thing as it is in the U.S. so maybe it's just this

41 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

What he said was prophetic. He clearly saw his weapon as a means to sort his problems out and be more powerful... essentially it extended his immature penis. He was/is a wannabe tough-man. "When you have a hammer, everything is a nail" sort of thinking.

Thanks for the explanation

40 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Note that he is not under attack

Why should we note this?

21 minutes ago, iNow said:

Again, apparently reading comprehension is hard for you. The reference to the AR was a direct quote from Rittenhouse describing his state of mind. I was not discussing either gun policy in the US or the feelings about this modular rifle in particular. If you’re gonna take a shot at me, don’t miss. 

Nor I was saying you did. But since you decided to do nitpicking I must apply my don't-deal-with-internet-trolls policy.

13 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I don't care, I'm just daring to think what you think is unthinkable, neg me all you want...

For me everything is thinkable, but every think is also dislikable

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

Black, life arguably in danger, convicted of killing her abductor/trafficker 

The only difference you noted is that she is black? I don't know how the concept of self-defense is in your country but here, if you are not responding to an immediate threat, you can't call it self-defense. Please let me know if things work different where you live

11 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Bit coincidental that his comments bore fruit. On a side note, I'm glad we didn't pick up this subject until now, after the trial. There would have been endless speculation. We can do a cleaner, more productive autopsy.  

Probably my english is not good enough but I didn't get what you wrote.

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem... 😉

I don't like that this site hides who gives a reaction to a post. Thus for the sake of transparency I let you know it was me who put a dislike because you actually called me a persecutor just because I'm not persecuted. 

21 minutes ago, swansont said:

That’s a generous interpretation, because black defendants aren’t treated the same way. Chrystul Kizer was convicted when she killed her abductor/sex trafficker.

In which way is Chrystul Kizer case related to that of rittenhouse? Seriously asking because I don't know much about the former

11 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I'm guessing you're not feeling persecuted

Don't know why I should but yeah I don't feel persecuted

11 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

but enabled to persecute

And now you are making this bold accusation that require at least an explanation

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

I know reading is hard for some, but you seem to be confusing me with someone else 

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Weeks before he fatally shot and maimed these people in Wisconsin, Rittenhouse was recorded saying he wished he 'had my f---ing AR' to shoot at people leaving CVS

It may also "Doesn’t quite matter" but I supposed you were old enough to play hide and seek like children

22 minutes ago, iNow said:

Our OP has clearly asked that this thread not become (yet another) debate on guns in the US. I know the ability to show respect online is in short supply these days, but perhaps folks could at least attempt to respect this reasonable request. 

I take my responsibility in this. I was misleaded by your previous post about the AR

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It's not the root cause though, he could just as easily, do the same damage with a knife or a big stick he picked up on the way there. 

In my country it's illegal to carry a knife in public if you don't have a valid reason. I think if rittenhouse used a knife it will also have fallen under gun control policy.

Anyway guns aside, I don't think there is much more in this story... 

24 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

He was certainly guilty of shooting 3 people, he was certainly guilty of going somewhere he didn't need to go, with an assault rifle he didn't need to carry, he was certainly guilty of being a spoilt little kid acting out his fantasy's. 

But apparently that's OK, you can actively seek out situations where your probably going to be threatened and stand your ground.

That's not OK. But again, he has been found not guilty because apparently he is not guilty according to law.

It's stupid to wanting a person convicted just because he has done what the second amendment allowed him to do. U.S. people should instead work on changing the law if that law is not OK for them

15 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I was wondering what you guys over the pond think of today's judgement?

I think it's the right verdict. Not guilty

1 minute ago, beecee said:

In essence, I have sympathy more for the victims of crime then those in jail for committing that crime. Again, don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning it at all.

Not sure if you opened the link. They were civils and they were brought to Bolzaneto without a judge sentence. Don't know which crime are you talking about. Many of them were simply journalists documenting the protests at G8. 

11 minutes ago, beecee said:

Have you ever seen police trying to quell a riot or stop an illegal march, having horses assaulted, flower pots thrown at them or ink being splurted all over them?

Not sure what is your point. I support police violence when it is needed. But the beatings I talked about happened the day after the riot was sedated and policemen acted in group against single prisoners, beating them one after one. It was literally a punitive expedition and I don't support that.

18 minutes ago, beecee said:

In my country, as I said previously, they are generally  brought to justice.

Here too, if there are strong evidence.

18 minutes ago, beecee said:

You have any facts and/or figures on that happening more regularly?

There are surely other anecdotical evidence in our history. If you are interested may I suggest reading this wikipedia article, in particular the section about "Treatment of prisoners at Bolzaneto". If you want statistics instead I must search them.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

we still have no definition of torture

I proposed one but apparently for you is not enough. Do you realize whatever definition we take there will always be a certain degree of ambiguity? So why were you questioning such strange and unrealistic situations?

Have you ever seen police quell a riot slapping prisoners hands? Why don't you prefer talking about more realistic example such as the beatings up of prisoners that happen more regularly? We still don't have your opinion after all

23 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Do you happen to know how the video was made? Sight unseen, I'll guess it was done secretly and the person who made it was taking a risk. And it was probably illegal, so if that person is caught and convicted, he'll suffer a most unenviable fate. Not sure we can categorize that as Justice.

This might work.

We are talking about the same episode. The video I posted is an edited mix of various footages recorded by the prison security cams (doing so knowing of being recorded also helps understand how untouchable policemen thought to be)

27 minutes ago, MigL said:

Doesn't that depend on the reason for doing it ?
If you smacked a prisoner's hand every day, for the period of his incarceration, would that be torture ?

If I have time I will search the link but I remember the topic about using educational violence on children has already been discussed. And, from my interpretation, the conclusions were along the line of "violence is bad but children don't have the understanding of a grown-up so sometimes slapping them is the only way to go". 

You asked about a specific case (teaching a child to not put a fork in the electric outlet) and in that case the law allows that (based on my knowledge).

It's unlawful if you slap your child too often without need, slap a prisoner once, or slap a prisoner every day. Whether it's torture or not I don't know.

13 minutes ago, MigL said:

Again, that depends on your definition of torture.

Since you want an explicit definition of torture I will use the definition of art. 613 bis of our penal code.

Putting it simple: slapping a child hand is not torture, beating up prisoners because you are frustrated and your life sucks and you are sadistic is torture.

13 minutes ago, MigL said:

and I still don't since I cannot watch your video link

Don't worry, you missed nothing. Just one of the many beating up of prisoners that rarely (according to police) or often (according to every other evidence) happen.

27 minutes ago, MigL said:

All depends on your definition of torture.
If your two year old child, being curious, wants to stick a fork in the electrical outlet, do you slap his/her hand  hard enough that they remember the pain and never do it again, or do you explain the dangers of electricity to them, and hope that they understand, and don't kill themselves the next time you're not looking ?

Are you seriously comparing torture to slapping a child hand in order to teach him a lesson? I don't have a formal definition of torture but certainly that was not what I was thinking about.

That's how italian police treats prisoners. It's what came to my mind when the OP asked whether we should use torture for criminals or not. A system like this creates even more criminals and probably contribute to the anti-social behaviours of detainees. Does a criminal feel in peace with society once he get out of prison, the same society that convicted him to that destiny?  How can cruel violence contribute to re-education? There aren't many situations in life where answers are simple but for me this is one of them.

8 minutes ago, beecee said:

Nice, great to see! But still we will always have some who will never be re-educated or reformed...In fact some will certainly attempt to use that part of the Italian constitution, or any similar part of any Nation's constitution for their own benefit.

You can't know beforehand who is re-educatable vs who is not, so everyone should be given the opportunity to re-education. For people who keeps reiterating crimes the problem is different and surely complicated. But anyway I am still against torture even in those cases because I doubt it works on a practical level. There is a concept, typically propagandized by italian right-parties, that if you want to keep people from committing crimes you should raise the punishment. I think it's a blind way to see things because it doesn't take into account why people do certain things and the entire context of people lives. It's not a simple positive vs negative benefits of committing crime that cross criminals' mind.

9 minutes ago, beecee said:

Some would see any imprisoment as torture, particularly in cases from fellow inmates.

I agree. Many treatments may be considered torture, in fact the concept is somewhat ambiguous. But the OP was talking about physical torture and I was still (implicity) talking about that. I think there aren't many doubt about what physical torture is.

Art. 27 c. 3 of Italian Constitution says:  Punishments may not be inhuman and shall aim at re-educating the convicted.

I can't agree more with our constitution. We shouldn't even discuss torture as a punishment in a civil world.

Edit: Spelling error

11 hours ago, Saiyan300Warrior said:

I think things like memory, eyes seeing different textures, objects, more than 1 thing and way brain functions factors for how there is variety in knowledge but simple linear thinking seems to be pattern in all knowledge based on my own self-understanding... here to there, this step after that, point a to point b etc

What do you mean by "linear thinking"?

I was more interested in what happened after the big bang rather than before (if there was a "before")

On 4/30/2020 at 11:20 PM, Strange said:

All we know is that it was once in a uniformly hot, dense state and then it expanded and cooled

Why is not homogeneous anymore? How did the expansion perturbate that state?

MigL hypothesis looks plausible but I understand a better theory is needed before being sure.

22 hours ago, Strange said:

I don't think that is a question science can answer. It belongs in the realm of philosophy (or religion, if you prefer)

I think a unified theory will provide an answer.

12 hours ago, Strange said:

This is unknown, currently. All we know is that it was once in a uniformly hot, dense state and then it expanded and cooled. How it got to be in that state is unknown. One of the challenges is how it came to be so homogeneous. Inflation is one hypothesis. But if the universe is cyclic (the "big bounce" model) then that could explain it too. On the other hand, some attempt to add quantum theory to the equation suggest that the universe could be infinitely old, which would also allow it to become homogeneous.

That's interesting, thank you

12 hours ago, MigL said:

That pesky quantum uncertainty at the scales of the Planck era, toss determinism out the window.
( until we can force Quantum theory and GR to 'play nice' )

Wow, I never thought about this. Is this mathematical demonstrated/demonstrable?

Hi everyone,

Reading other threads in this forum, like https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/120772-please-tell-me-we-have-free-will/, it seems to be well-accepted that our universe is almost completely (except for quantum uncertainty) deterministic.

My question is, what determined the inital state of the universe? I mean, where did all the initial information come from?

Thank you for reading.