Up to a point. I had “street” birria once, and only once. I had nuclear diarrhea for several days.
2 Likes
No, I am claiming that physically attacking the gunman increases the hazard of the situation just as being drunk increases the hazard of driving. Driving sober is an inherently hazardous situation, just as an armed robbery is inherently hazardous. Driving while drunk increases the hazards inherent to driving, just as attacking the gunman increases the hazard inherent to armed robberies.
This is completely formally valid as far as I can tell.
In this case, hopefully you can accept my correction of your understanding of the structure of my argument.
Of course, honeybees are not humans. Above, you critique my analogy and determine it not to be formally valid on quite spurious grounds. Well, how much less valid is the analogy of a beehive to human society! Surely there are similarities, but there are many more differences, and I contend that the differences are very relevant to the discussion at hand.
That’s a shame. I’d be quite interested in your analysis! That is exactly the sort of “local conditions” that, as a previous commenter noted, could very well invalidate or at least cast doubt on the probabilistic arguments I have made. Unfortunately, I have no way of corroborating the credibility of your analysis. Nonetheless, I’d be happy to consider it on its own terms.
That’s begging the question, though, since it’s Mr Mustache’s conduct which is exactly the matter under scrutiny. Furthermore, I see no corroboration of his credentials as a credible expert.
Since you’ve already accused me of “armchair quarterbacking”, I’d like to point out that you have no basis for making such a determination. I’m not, in fact, invested in law enforcement, security, or self-defense, except to the extent that I’ve done the last as a hobby for several years (I claim no expertise for myself in this area). I was not familiar with any of the experts I cited before I found them via the google query “what should I do in an armed robbery”.
Of course, you have just as much access to google as I do and you’ve been free all this time to try to find statistics to either confirm your opinion or mine. Since you suggested that the statistics don’t exist (“or we might have seen them by now”), I have graciously performed this research for you. The top google result for the query: “armed robbery injury death statistics” returned the following result. I invite you to look at the table on page 18 for the relevant empirical statistics on the matter.
https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1204&context=facpubs
I think this is quite a good argument in favor of my position on the matter, but I do invite you to make the same google query and look through some other sources – a single study is never definitive and if you happen to find a lot of countervailing studies it would be very worthwhile to note that fact!
Given that I’ve now provided strong empirical evidence that active non-cooperation (in the terms of the study cited) is even more incredibly hazardous than I have previously suspected, are there any further arguments that my position on this is dead wrong and obviously so?
3 Likes
4 Likes
No one argued that your position was dead wrong. We’ve been arguing that calling our Mr Moustache for his actions as being stupid is what is wrong. There is a difference between presenting the information that resistance increases your chances of harm and “What an idiot. He could easily have gotten that woman or anyone else in the store killed.”. The former is advice that may help someone. The latter is in fact armchair quarterbacking and victim blaming. Several people have attempted to help you understand this difference via diverse methods like humor, counter argument, or simply pointing out that it’s a douche move. You’ve stuck to your guns kept repeating that you are supported by facts and experts but none of that matters. Calling a victim of a crime an idiot for how they reacted to a deadly threat is indefensible even when you have experts to back up your claims of increased risk.
This is probably as blunt as I can be on the subject while still keeping some veneer of civility. If you want to say “Hey guys, if this happens to you, this is the best way to react” that’s fine. Doing it by calling a crime victim an idiot is not.
For my part, I’ve attempted to defend the actions of the victim because he deserves defense from people who might call him an idiot for not behaving the way experts suggest they behave while hoping you might stumble upon some humility and feeling for your fellow man without success. I’ll leave you the last word and hope that some self awareness might seep in and afford you what you seem to be missing.
2 Likes
@LeopardSeal I invite you to either explain how my conduct in this thread constitutes “driving trollies” or to present valid evidence or argument against my position.
I’ll just note again that:
- I’m the only one who has cited any relevant, credible expert opinion on the subject.
- I’m the only one who has presented any empirical evidence on the subject.
- Nonetheless, I’m the only one who has made any concessions that people on the other side of the discussion have some valid points.
In fact, many people seem to me to have done so. Many people have suggested, for example, that we should not trust expert opinion in determining whether fighting back against an armed robber is advisable – you among them! This is not a defense of the morality of Mr. Mustache’s actions (see below), but a defense of the actions themselves.
On the contrary, I’ve conceded many times now that the man’s actions are defensible on the grounds that the situation was very emotionally charged and it would have been difficult if not impossible to apply reason in the heat of the moment. In every case that someone has pressed the argument that his actions are defensible on those grounds I have agreed that this is a good point.
I have, however, defended the claim that the actions of the man were stupid, even if defensible. The arguments I’ve pushed back against are those that his actions were not stupid.
When I watched the video, my immediate reaction was “wow, that guy could easily have gotten that woman killed that way!” My initial comment was indeed heavily colored by that initial impression, and was unfair to the mustachioed gentleman – as many people have subsequently pointed out, and which I have repeatedly conceded. Would you like me to go back and edit that comment? Or is it more honest for me to leave it in place along with my subsequent concessions as to the defensibility of the man’s actions in the moment?
Perhaps you are simply upset about the fact that I have not directly come out and said: “I was wrong to call the man an idiot.” Very well: despite the stupidity of the man’s actions, I appreciate that they were performed in the heat of an emotional and volatile situation and I was wrong to call the man an idiot.
2 Likes
I don’t think evidence is something for both ‘sides’ to look at, in the discussion your’re part of there.
He never even lost his hat.
5 Likes
Count me in the camp of putting other folks lives at risk by attacking the robber and generally suggesting that is not a good choice, but of course it is understandable, just does not make it a good choice.
For reference:
What happens when victims resist robbers? Logistic regression analysis of over 4500 sample robbery incidents reported in the 1979–1985 National Crime Surveys reveals the following about various forms of victim resistance. Self-protection (SP) of any kind apparently reduces the probability of the robbery being completed, i.e., the robber getting away with the victim’s property. Armed resistance is more effective than unarmed resistance, and resistance with a gun, though relatively rare, is the most effective victim response of all. Resistance with a gun also appears to reduce the likelihood of the victim being injured, while two types of resistance appear to increase it: (1) unarmed physical force against the robber and (2) trying to get help, attract attention, or scare the robber away. The robber’s possession of a gun appears to inhibit victim resistance, which can sometimes provoke a robber to attack; robber gun possession thereby reduces the probability of victim injury. However, even controlling for victim resistance, robber gun possession, is associated with a lower rate of injury to the victim.
Source: Victim resistance and offender weapon effects in robbery | Journal of Quantitative Criminology
Interestingly you are less likely to be injured if the robber has a gun.
Not a perfect study, and I am not being critical of the guy’s actions, just pointing out that generally, not a great idea to attack an armed robber if the goal is overall harm reduction.
4 Likes
hey man, incorrect and wrong are related, but quite different things. I thought you were incorrect to assert an alternate reality to assess the video. You’re free to have and share your opinion though. As is anyone.
I didn’t think you were ‘wrong’ until about 4 combative name calling finger pointing messages later where you started having and sharing OTHER PEOPLES opinions.
But thanks for saying.
We need a word that means “agree not agree”, a word that one could use to address that the principle behind a statement might be sound but might not apply to the current situation.
The problem I have is that basing courses of action on reason seems reasonable, but it is actually extremely vague.
The idea that reason must compell to a singular course of action is baloney, reason is more methodology than concrete evidence, applying correct reasoning to incorrect facts will not provide a reasonable output. Furthermore reason cannot override values, if I value my life and the well being of others above all, then reason will lead me to a different course of action than somebody who does not consider their own safety something they value above all else.
Reason is something you value and you can speak for yourself, taking that value and applying it to other people is completely unreasonable which is why I can be pretty sure that you are not acting on reason alone and undermines the very idea that your course of action is as reasonable as you believe.
Which is not to say that you are wrong, rather that reasoning you lay out for believing as you do does not hold sway over other people that have different experiences as you and that value things differently than you do.
Interesting question. What indeed do you hope to gain out of this if indeed you are already correct?
We seem to be reenacting the video with much lower stakes, if you were the guy in the hat and found yourself in front of a desperate man threatening you with stupidity, could you be the kind of person that lets things go?
2 Likes
Who likes to create bad situations for others using violence (physical or conversational), and then judges them for their reactions of not having used wise thought through responses in that moment, created and defined only by the one judging?
We all know who.
Next up: badass Danny Trejo as badass mustache man in straw hat.
2 Likes
Taking off my glasses
Stepping forward
Waiting for dumbfark to turn arou-
BAM!
1 Like
Several times now you’ve told me you’re not discussing the issue further with me. No problem. That’s absolutely your right – and as a result I’ve ceased to direct any arguments your way. But isn’t it a little cowardly to continue to criticize my statements but refuse to engage in discussion of how your criticisms might be misplaced?
- Are you really drawing an equivalence between physical violence and verbal argument? On what grounds?
- Let’s suppose that it makes sense to draw such an equivalence. In what sense have any of my statements been “violent”? I think realistically I have been much more polite to you than you have been to me, and that if we’re going to refer to anything as “conversational violence”, your remarks are much better candidates than mine.
Go ahead and tell me you’re not talking to me further, but again – if you’re going to accuse me of “conversational violence” then it’s pretty damned cowardly to turn tail and run when I challenge you on that accusation.
This is an excellent point! However, I have at least strongly implied the value judgment on which my reasoning is based: namely that I think it’s immoral to gamble with other people’s lives. To be more explicit, I think preserving human life in situations like this is the most important consideration, and on that basis I think that not actively resisting the gunman is the correct action. I’ve provided empirical evidence that resisting the gunman is more likely to result in loss of human life than not doing so, so my conclusion is consistent with this value judgment.
I agree that if someone else valued e.g. macho credibility above human life then they might reasonably disagree with me that not resisting is the correct course of action.
Well, I’ve already stated what I hoped to gain: I am obviously capable of error, and if I was incorrect in this instance then exposing myself to critical perspectives is a very good way of discovering this fact. In fact, this happened – people pointed out that I was judging the gentleman too harshly because of the immediate and emotional nature of the situation and I had to concede that was correct.
I don’t really understand the comparison, to be honest – I don’t see how this discussion is anything like being subject to an armed robbery. This discussion is an exchange of opinions and ideas with no explicit or implicit threat of violence involved.
To answer your question, though, I’ve been accused of cowardice, driving trollies, lack of self awareness, logical inconsistency, tone policing, envy, and more and I haven’t taken much of it personally – though I have civilly challenged the premises of many of these accusations and invited my accusers to support their statements. I don’t think this implies that I can’t “let things go”, but as with all these accusations I am open to arguments to the contrary. 
2 Likes
Well it’s certainly not peach fuzz.
On the merits of choosing to either fighting robber or just comply until they hopefully leave, context might be different here.
If this is in an area where police are less reliable and violence is worse, the math changes. There is much less certainty that the crime would stop with robbing the store and civilians would otherwise be unharmed.
Don’t bring a gun to a straw hat fight.
4 Likes
I ride a bicycle to and from work every day in heavy traffic. Statistically this is a very dangerous thing to do, but I am good at what I do and I know how to make it safe. So should I give up bike riding, on the basis of statistics?
Statistics may say that 1 in 20 solder joints will result in a dry (bad) joint. But I know that I am worse than that. 1 in 5 of my joints are dry. Should I offer to fix somebody’s amplifier, working with the assumption that 19 of 20 joints I solder will be perfectly fine?
Oh excellent, you’re still using statistics to forecast the outcomes of uncertain events, but you’re introducing extra information to create more fine-grained models!
That’s a great strategy. If you would care to apply it to the situation under discussion, maybe you can come up with a more specific argument that would make my position untenable.
As it is, we have a situation where the best analysis we have given the data produced is that it is very dangerous to resist during an armed robbery. I think it’s clear based on what we know so far that at the very least, my position (that it is much more dangerous to actively resist an armed robber and that therefore Mr. Mustache put everyone in the store in danger) is reasonable. No one who has argued with me has even been willing to concede that much. Will you be the first? Or alternatively will you be the first to actually produce data to provide a counterpoint to my arguments?
Some people have skills which they use in the real world, like cycling, soldering and tackling armed robbers.
There was this situation in the news here some time back where a man got into a robbery situation similar to this. He took cover for a while, moving around and tackled the guy with the gun, resolving it before the police arrived. Now thats a dangerous thing to do for most people but the person in question turned out to be Sargent in the army, and totally relaxed around small arms. He knew what he was doing.
As others have said, it looks like the person who did the tackling in this case also knew what they were doing.
1 Like
