Police Shootings: Are Cops Usually at Fault? No. Some Facts - National Review

[SteveB]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...utm_term=NR5PM

[Nephrology]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...utm_term=NR5PM

Yeah, I made this comment in another related thread here on P-F. I scrolled through the Counted quite a bit, and while now and then there would be someone who genuinely seemed to be a victim in some sense of the word, the vast, vast majority of the people in that list were scum.

[Chance]

I love data, but the facts don't matter in social justice warrior crusades.

[TR675]

Scott Adams (of Dilbert) has an interesting series of blog posts about "Master Persuaders" and specifically about Trump.

The analysis he keeps repeating: in politics

Identity beats analogy
Analogy beats reason
Reason beats nothing.

In my experience appeals to reason are effective only to a very thin slice of the population. Facts are nice but not enough to be persuasive.

[Shellback]

An article about police shootings, that were listed in another article, from the month of December 2015, isn't the most conclusive thing I've ever read.

[Hambo]

An article about police shootings, that were listed in another article, from the month of December 2015, isn't the most conclusive thing I've ever read.

I wouldn't say it is either, but the question would be: how much data will be enough to convince you? TR675 is right on with his post. Once people have been convinced by actors, media, politicians of something that is untrue, it's virtually impossible to show them the error.

[Shellback]

I wouldn't say it is either, but the question would be: how much data will be enough to convince you?

Convinced of what exactly? If you're referring to the majority of police shootings being reasonable, I'm already convinced. However, if the article had a negative slant towards police it would be attacked due to it's bias, lack of data, facts, etc. But, because it's a pro-police article everything is accepted at face value because it supports the majority's position on PF.com.

The article specifically states:

Most of these reports are based largely on the accounts of eyewitnesses and the officers involved and so might not include all relevant details, such as results from ongoing police investigations...

The article is based on media reporting, and eyewitness statements, and we all know how accurate both of those are.

[DacoRoman]

Scott Adams (of Dilbert) has an interesting series of blog posts about "Master Persuaders" and specifically about Trump.

The analysis he keeps repeating: in politics

Identity beats analogy
Analogy beats reason
Reason beats nothing.

In my experience appeals to reason are effective only to a very thin slice of the population. Facts are nice but not enough to be persuasive.

I agree. You have to win the emotional argument first, and then be prepared to win a fact based argument.

This Ben Shapiro piece on winning arguments with leftists is worth reading:
http://www.truthrevolt.org/system/fi...stroy_them.pdf

[Totem Polar]

^^^That Shapiro piece was worth reading.

[voodoo_man]

I agree. You have to win the emotional argument first, and then be prepared to win a fact based argument.

This Ben Shapiro piece on winning arguments with leftists is worth reading:
http://www.truthrevolt.org/system/fi...stroy_them.pdf

Thats a good link, thanks for posting.