Originally posted by hardcore trancer
Ok fine then let’s assume that their secondary job was to protect the city, again they failed. You telling me 1 Billion dollars couldn’t stop a few hundred kids from trashing the city? Was their job was to protect these "leaders' then why did they go on a in rampage the next day and arrested everybody?
Those People that weren’t even close to where the leaders were staying so how do you justify it? How were all those protestors and ordinary citizens on Queens Park on Sunday posed any threat to the leaders?
OK, so you're talking about SUNDAY.
I'm talking about THIS VIDEO.
My frustration in this thread comes from the fact that you take every opportunity, every angle, to trash the police for (from what I can see anyways) just their behavior on Sunday at Queen and Spadina. Most people generally agree that the culprit on Saturday were the people lighting on fire and breaking windows, and that the police were generally "well behaved."
Why does anything happen in front of a police officer? It takes a split second for someone to light something on fire, that's why. To prevent this kind of thing would have involved premptively using force to disperse this crowd BEFORE IT HAD DONE ANYTHING WRONG - which you would have ALSO been upset over.
$1Billion did not all go to paying cops to stand around and do nothing. It went to a lot of other things as well - that was the total cost of both summits.
It is known as the backfire phenomenon: misinformed people who are given correct information not only reject that information, but end up believing the wrong information even more strongly.
Political scientists Jason Reifler and Brendan Nyhan began looking at the “backfire” phenomenon because both were interested in improving political debate.
The “backfire” phenomenon can be seen in everything from different views on a call in a hockey game to the so-called weapons of mass destruction that were alleged to be in Iraq prior to the 2003 U.S. invasion, said Reifler, an assistant professor of political science at Georgia State University.
“We wanted to address ways in which citizens could essentially agree on what the basic facts in a political debate are,” he said. “And then we can disagree on the policy solution.”
In a recent study published in the journal Political Science, the pair looked at ways to “help correct people when they believe things about the world that aren’t true.”
The political scientists worked with a group of 150 psychology students. The students were given a newspaper article from the 2004 presidential campaign
about President George Bush and his position on why the U.S. was going to war with Iraq. In it, he was quoted as saying there was a real risk that Sadam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
Half of the students who read the article were also given a correction: an additional paragraph saying that, according to the Duelfer Report, while Iraq had aspirations to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction program, it did not have any weapons of mass destruction during the U.S. invasion in 2003.
The other half did not receive that information.
Here’s what they found: Those who got the correction and identified themselves as liberals now believed there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Those who got the correction and identified themselves as conservatives were much more likely to say that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
In fact, said Reifler, those receiving the correction moved even more vehemently in the wrong direction.
Simply put, the correction backfired.
“This is a behaviour that is widespread,” said Reifler, “and it isn’t limited to political conservatives.”
Part of this response can be attributed to a common psychological phenomenon known as motivated reasoning.
“One of the things. . . when people encounter discordant information is to find a way to deal with that information in a way that doesn’t threaten what they already know or believe,” Reifler explained. .
The pair is now studying the reaction of participants to the U.S. healthcare bill and the debate last summer that focused around “death panels,” which conservative ideologues suggested would mean mandatory meetings in which the elderly or sick would be counselled to accept euthanasia because they had become a drain on society.
Anyone who read the legislation, Reifler said, would have seen that no such clause existed.
“What the legislation did say was Medicare would pay for consultations if people wanted to meet with somebody to discuss issues related to end of life, like a living will,” he said. “The government insurance plan for seniors would have to pay for that.”
Endlesswave
quote:
Originally posted by Swamper
A timely article. Lots of examples of 'motivated reasoning' happening in this thread alone.
It is known as the backfire phenomenon: misinformed people who are given correct information not only reject that information, but end up believing the wrong information even more strongly.
Political scientists Jason Reifler and Brendan Nyhan began looking at the “backfire” phenomenon because both were interested in improving political debate.
The “backfire” phenomenon can be seen in everything from different views on a call in a hockey game to the so-called weapons of mass destruction that were alleged to be in Iraq prior to the 2003 U.S. invasion, said Reifler, an assistant professor of political science at Georgia State University.
“We wanted to address ways in which citizens could essentially agree on what the basic facts in a political debate are,” he said. “And then we can disagree on the policy solution.”
In a recent study published in the journal Political Science, the pair looked at ways to “help correct people when they believe things about the world that aren’t true.”
The political scientists worked with a group of 150 psychology students. The students were given a newspaper article from the 2004 presidential campaign
about President George Bush and his position on why the U.S. was going to war with Iraq. In it, he was quoted as saying there was a real risk that Sadam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
Half of the students who read the article were also given a correction: an additional paragraph saying that, according to the Duelfer Report, while Iraq had aspirations to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction program, it did not have any weapons of mass destruction during the U.S. invasion in 2003.
The other half did not receive that information.
Here’s what they found: Those who got the correction and identified themselves as liberals now believed there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Those who got the correction and identified themselves as conservatives were much more likely to say that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
In fact, said Reifler, those receiving the correction moved even more vehemently in the wrong direction.
Simply put, the correction backfired.
“This is a behaviour that is widespread,” said Reifler, “and it isn’t limited to political conservatives.”
Part of this response can be attributed to a common psychological phenomenon known as motivated reasoning.
“One of the things. . . when people encounter discordant information is to find a way to deal with that information in a way that doesn’t threaten what they already know or believe,” Reifler explained. .
The pair is now studying the reaction of participants to the U.S. healthcare bill and the debate last summer that focused around “death panels,” which conservative ideologues suggested would mean mandatory meetings in which the elderly or sick would be counselled to accept euthanasia because they had become a drain on society.
Anyone who read the legislation, Reifler said, would have seen that no such clause existed.
“What the legislation did say was Medicare would pay for consultations if people wanted to meet with somebody to discuss issues related to end of life, like a living will,” he said. “The government insurance plan for seniors would have to pay for that.”
I'd say,
The aspirations to develop WMD's override the actual fact of how Iraq/Saddam Hussein did not have any (at least that's how I'm taking the conservatives reading of the article/correction).
So weird.
hardcore trancer
quote:
Originally posted by Skipper
OK, so you're talking about SUNDAY.
I'm talking about THIS VIDEO.
But thats the whole point, the Police used this event as an excuse to go after everyone the next day.
quote:
My frustration in this thread comes from the fact that you take every opportunity, every angle, to trash the police for (from what I can see anyways) just their behavior on Sunday at Queen and Spadina. Most people generally agree that the culprit on Saturday were the people lighting on fire and breaking windows, and that the police were generally "well behaved."
I'm trying to show all sided and angles of this story. I just can’t understand how in hell can 80% of Canadians support the police after all the proofs out there showing them abusing their own powers and walking all over our civil liberty and our democracy. My issue here isn’t just about "The Queen and Spadina" but about the entire Police tactics used during the G20.
In regards to your "well behaved" comment, I don’t understand that mind set. The Police had a job and responsibility to protect this city and they didn’t and they used the Saturday violent as an excuse to go in crazy on people the next day.
The Police and this Government crossed the line and they must pay for it and many of us refuse to just sit back and let them get away with it.
quote:
Why does anything happen in front of a police officer? It takes a split second for someone to light something on fire, that's why. To prevent this kind of thing would have involved premptively using force to disperse this crowd BEFORE IT HAD DONE ANYTHING WRONG - which you would have ALSO been upset over.
We had 17,000 Police officers plus the Army and you telling me none of them could have stopped any of this? They had enough intelligence and enough cameras in every corner of downtown to prevent anything but they didn’t. My question again is WHY?
quote:
$1Billion did not all go to paying cops to stand around and do nothing. It went to a lot of other things as well - that was the total cost of both summits.
1 Billion is an outrageous amount of money and that money came from me and you and other hard working citizens in this country. You won’t hear this on the media but most of the Billion dollars went towards many upgrades to the RCMP and OPP and not for the G20/G8 summit directly.
infinity HiGH
quote:
Originally posted by Skipper
The primary job of the police in the G20 was to ensure the safety of the leaders. Not to disperse and play fireman to protect a burning cop car FFS. The car was already on fire! I really fail to see how when these anarchists set a cop car on fire, it's the cops fault.
So when the cops beat the out of the peaceful protesters and innocent bystanders they were protecting world leaders right??
-g-
the purpose of the police force is most certainly not the protection of the leaders - they have ample resources in the form of CSIS, CIA, FBI, Secret Service, etc. for those purposes.
no, the purpose is to serve and protect the citizens of this country, as it has always been. this includes - but is not limited to - the protection of our inalienable rights as citizens of Canada.
infinity HiGH
quote:
Originally posted by -g-
the purpose of the police force is most certainly not the protection of the leaders - they have ample resources in the form of CSIS, CIA, FBI, Secret Service, etc. for those purposes.
lol exactly. Along with private security groups, those guys are able to do a much more effective job of protecting world leaders than power-tripping meat heads from Toronto Police.
hardcore trancer
quote:
Originally posted by -g-
the purpose of the police force is most certainly not the protection of the leaders - they have ample resources in the form of CSIS, CIA, FBI, Secret Service, etc. for those purposes.
no, the purpose is to serve and protect the citizens of this country, as it has always been. this includes - but is not limited to - the protection of our inalienable rights as citizens of Canada.
Well said. It seems like so many have forgotten a lot of things in this country like our values or our civil rights. If people don’t think of them as important matters then I don’t know what is. I find it shocking that most dont even know that the role of the Police anymore and they allow them to do whatever the they want to us.
hardcore trancer
Steve Paikin describing attacks to the journalists by the Police. I wonder if the Police were protecting the leaders from the journalists too.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
jester
Burnt cars, broken windows and bones. Nothing special there. Just a nice little burden on my wallet, but hey. No one got frag'd in the process.
Skipper
quote:
Originally posted by infinity HiGH
So when the cops beat the out of the peaceful protesters and innocent bystanders they were protecting world leaders right??
Never once have I said police were not in the wrong over the course of that weekend. I definitely believe lines were crossed and there ought to be an inquiry that provides answers to the public and the people detained. So back off on that front.
However, the argumentative tactics hardcore trancer uses in this thread are all over the place. He is the jayx1 of the G20...G20x1, as it were.
If the police had pre-emptively stopped all of the looting, vandalizing, and car burning it would have involved using force against those who had not yet done anything wrong. It just drives me nuts that when some idiot throws a molotov cocktail into an unattended police car, it's the police force's fault. That does not make sense.
