Full police report on the Harvard Professor

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's not a legitimate question in these circumstances. We are not owed an answer from those who can give us one, and we will not get one, therefore the 'pure conjecture' is what we are left with. No agenda can be pushed on conjecture.

It is a legitimate question as this guy could have very well used the situation to promote his own cause. That is, made something out of nothing. The facts do lead to this concussion considering his second comment was one branding the police a racist.

Well if you think its legitimate - please explain how someone would go about answering it.

Even if you asked the guy directly, he can only speculate as to his own behaviour. If its useless asking *him* the question, what exactly do we get from asking other people about the behaviour of someone they don't know?

[Heracles 417]

BY, you can pose the question all you like but you can't get an answer that will provide a basis for further constructive comment.

As such, you cannot prove that this professor of doucheness did not have an ulterior motive and use his situation to his advantage.

[Peikko 1,575]

In your mind - assuming the point of view of individuals and how they might behave in a given set of circumstances is a legitimate way of addressing a wider topic.

You've proven it here - by a ridiculous assumption of what you think my views on this subject are. You are, of course, quite wrong - but you don't want to hear that.

Considering I am wrong, surely, you have evidence of your own to prove that he wasn't taking advantage of the situation. Until proven wrong, any and every angle is valid.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

In your mind - assuming the point of view of individuals and how they might behave in a given set of circumstances is a legitimate way of addressing a wider topic.

You've proven it here - by a ridiculous assumption of what you think my views on this subject are. You are, of course, quite wrong - but you don't want to hear that.

Considering I am wrong, surely, you have evidence of your own to prove that he wasn't taking advantage of the situation. Until proven wrong, any and every angle is valid.

You're using what I wrote to force a discussion on things I haven't commented on. My point was quite clearly that:

1) you think a question that requires rampant speculation and wish-fulfillment as to its answer is a legitimate argument.

2) your assumptions of my views prove validate this, and that they are entirely wrong as I do not hold those views.

[Peikko 1,575]

BY, you can pose the question all you like but you can't get an answer that will provide a basis for further constructive comment.

As such, you cannot prove that this professor of doucheness did not have an ulterior motive and use his situation to his advantage.

Of course I can't but what does that prove, exactly? It proves what Pike said five minutes ago, all that will result from such questions is conjecture. No basis for further constructive comment.

[Heracles 417]

Well if you think its legitimate - please explain how someone would go about answering it.

Even if you asked the guy directly, he can only speculate as to his own behaviour. If its useless asking *him* the question, what exactly do we get from asking other people about the behaviour of someone they don't know?

Therefore, don't rule out ulterior motives. His actions certainly lean towards ulterior motives. It is not as if he cooperated with the police officer. Or is he above the law because he's black? As he said to the officer, that he doesn't know who he is messing with.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

BY, you can pose the question all you like but you can't get an answer that will provide a basis for further constructive comment.

As such, you cannot prove that this professor of doucheness did not have an ulterior motive and use his situation to his advantage.

Which of course, was completely missing the point that she made.

You're also assuming what she thinks about this professor - when the only argument that has been made is an unbiased one - that noone can reasonably answer the question Danno posed.

[Peikko 1,575]

How much of a wander down speculation road are you going to go BY?

[Heracles 417]

You're using what I wrote to force a discussion on things I haven't commented on. My point was quite clearly that:

1) you think a question that requires rampant speculation and wish-fulfillment as to its answer is a legitimate argument.

2) your assumptions of my views prove validate this, and that they are entirely wrong as I do not hold those views.

What you have done is played the stereotypical and default black = good while White = bad and racist stance.

If this guy had been white and the officer black you would have said nothing. Actually, I will go a step further and say you would have insulted the white guy.

Edited July 24, 2009 by haza

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well if you think its legitimate - please explain how someone would go about answering it.

Even if you asked the guy directly, he can only speculate as to his own behaviour. If its useless asking *him* the question, what exactly do we get from asking other people about the behaviour of someone they don't know?

Therefore, don't rule out ulterior motives. His actions certainly lean towards ulterior motives. It is not as if he cooperated with the police officer. Or is he above the law because he's black? As he said to the officer, that he doesn't know who he is messing with.

How does what you wrote relate to my post?

I haven't ruled anything out - I'm saying "I don't know". I'm saying that because I honestly cannot know and that I think speculation on the issue is a pointless exercise.

If you were honest, you would hold the same opinion - but instead you're off the reservation with the same tired old argument you've been spewing for the last 2 years.

[Peikko 1,575]

You're using what I wrote to force a discussion on things I haven't commented on. My point was quite clearly that:

1) you think a question that requires rampant speculation and wish-fulfillment as to its answer is a legitimate argument.

2) your assumptions of my views prove validate this, and that they are entirely wrong as I do not hold those views.

What you have done is played the stereotypical and default black = good while White = bad and racist stance.

If this guy had been white and the officer black you would have said nothing. Actually, I will go a step further and say you would have insulted the white guy.

Clearly, there is no stopping you once you set off on the road to speculation

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You're using what I wrote to force a discussion on things I haven't commented on. My point was quite clearly that:

1) you think a question that requires rampant speculation and wish-fulfillment as to its answer is a legitimate argument.

2) your assumptions of my views prove validate this, and that they are entirely wrong as I do not hold those views.

What you have done is played the stereotypical and default black = good while White = bad and racist stance.

If this guy had been white and the officer black you would have said nothing. Actually, I will go a step further and say you would have insulted the white guy.

Then you would be wrong. Again.

[Niels Bohr 72]

I find it funny. Generally, it's the lower class that creates rhetorical ideas.

[Heracles 417]

I haven't ruled anything out - I'm saying "I don't know". I'm saying that because I honestly cannot know and that I think speculation on the issue is a pointless exercise.

If you were honest, you would hold the same opinion - but instead you're off the reservation with the same tired old argument you've been spewing for the last 2 years.

Your not saying you "don't know", you are saying Danno's question is invalid; which it is not. If the black officer present at the time had knocked on the door, this professor would have said nothing.

The police either need portable cameras attached to their uniform or black officers present at every arrest. No other way to solve the you're just against or targeting black people issue.

Edited July 24, 2009 by haza

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You're using what I wrote to force a discussion on things I haven't commented on. My point was quite clearly that:

1) you think a question that requires rampant speculation and wish-fulfillment as to its answer is a legitimate argument.

2) your assumptions of my views prove validate this, and that they are entirely wrong as I do not hold those views.

What you have done is played the stereotypical and default black = good while White = bad and racist stance.

If this guy had been white and the officer black you would have said nothing. Actually, I will go a step further and say you would have insulted the white guy.

Clearly, there is no stopping you once you set off on the road to speculation

Jesus Christ - his whole reasoning process is one big gut.

He's be a terrible engineer - don't look at what's actually going on, you can solve any practical problem with "I have a hunch".

Columbo, he ain't.

I haven't ruled anything out - I'm saying "I don't know". I'm saying that because I honestly cannot know and that I think speculation on the issue is a pointless exercise.

If you were honest, you would hold the same opinion - but instead you're off the reservation with the same tired old argument you've been spewing for the last 2 years.

Your not saying you "don't know", you are saying Danno's question is invalid; which it is not. If the black officer present at the time had knocked on the door, this professor would have said nothing.

The police either need portable cameras attached to their uniform or black officers present at every arrest. No other way to solve the you're just against or targeting black people issue.

Yes.... because as I told you, quite clearly, noone can reasonably answer Danno's question, except in terms of individual bias.

You have absolutely no way of validating what the professor would or wouldn't do in a certain set of circumstances, and neither do I.