Bells
Staff member
I second this!
George Floyd trial,could you make a case for the defendant not being guilty of the charges?
- Thread starter Seattle
- Start date
Think if we auto tune it we can get it to go viral?
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
Wow, you're not even reasonable enough to realize that ending up "on the tar" would prove it completely possible for Floyd to accomplish, knowing that officers are right there to catch him (or being too desperate/drug-addled to care).
Another, equally incapable of applying simple reason.
I've shown you ample evidence, from all body cams and CCTV footage, with time codes. If you still refuse to acknowledge the facts, physics, and physiology, that's your own willful ignorance and motivated reasoning.
Since when are "the uncoordinated and mentally fraught" (your words) known for having their own safety in mind? I would hazard that the "mentally fraught" are the most predisposed to self-harm. And again, "never came close to getting past" is very far from being under complete control, otherwise, they'd have already had him secured in the vehicle. More of your ignorance of real world situations on display there.
Again, your own dumb contention, by assuming an officer, who could not get Floyd secured in the car with the help of two other officers, could yank him out so suddenly with only one hand...but for some reason (completely beyond your reasoning skills or ability to even justify), immediately try to push Floyd back into the car.
Again, you prove you're completely ignorant of the facts, even when clearly shown to you by CNN:
I see. Now you're going to pretend I didn't link the body cams of ever officer involved, with time codes: http://sciforums.com/threads/george...ty-of-the-charges.164217/page-36#post-3682295
You're going to play make believe (or just outright lie) that I only posted the CCTV footage. Good luck getting anyone but those too lazy to simply click the link to believe that nonsense. Just more evidence of your complete disregard for intellectual honesty, actual evidence, and reason.
Then you're blind and/or deaf. That's the only way to explain how you fail to see Floyd open his door upon hearing the officer, says "alright" in direct response to the command, and eventually complying with the exact orders given by the officer, saying "yes sir." Starting @1:35:
You're either lying again or have no clue what you've watched. Floyd only mentions "I got shot the same way, Mr. Officer, before," after the gun is drawn, and after looking directly at the officer several times. Floyd only says "please don't shoot me" after the officer has holstered his gun, as evidence both his empty hands seen in the video @2:33:
Oh? Is that personal experience? Or do you have any video evidence to support that otherwise bare assertion? If not, you're just making unsupported proclamations again. If so, are the white guys as big or resistant as Floyd? And if not, you're obviously making a faulty comparison. But I expect you'll just ignore this whole line of questions, as you're wont to do.
He didn't die from passing a fake twenty. He died from health conditions resulting from his drug use and repeatedly resisting arrest.
We know that you're shite at observing video evidence, remembering what's already been shown to you, understanding very simple physics and physiology, and making even the least bit intellectually honest arguments. The "talk" is wholly a product of black crime rates. If enough of your demographic peers are criminals, you have to be extra careful not to be mistaken for one. 13% of the population committing over 50% of all murders is something you cannot honestly brush off with the mere proclamation of racism and no supporting evidence.
Floyd literally said he'd been shot by a cop before, although I'm not finding any corroborating evidence of that (which could make it just more typical criminal bargaining). And all of your appeal to popular opinion is a fallacy, not evidence. There were plenty of rebutting witnesses, including many of the prosecution's own, under cross-examination.
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
I really can't help you if you flat out refuse to acknowledge what is repeatedly clear in the body cam footage. Didn't comply with commands, took two cops to get him cuffed, three cops couldn't get him in the car, etc..
That’s not the end of the story, though and not everyone interprets Floyd’s apparent discomfort with resisting arrest.
The story continues with Floyd unconscious towards that last few minutes of being held down. Why don’t you address that point? Why are you fixated on everything other than the nine minutes that followed? Going with your posts, are you saying if you were allegedly resisting arrest (not assaulting police but “resisting”), you would deserve the worst treatment possible, leading up to your death? That if you died while handcuffed on the ground, no longer resisting, we should blame you?
Police officers still have a code of conduct to follow while they’re arresting someone, to ensure that they do what is humanly possible to ensure the person doesn’t die in their custody. (unless it’s a true self defense situation which Floyd didn’t present a life threatening situation to anyone, let alone the officers)
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
Like it or not, noncompliance is resisting, no matter your subjective opinion. Three officers had a very hard time getting him that well restrained, and zero luck getting him fully and safely secured in the car and on his way to medical attention. Why are you fixated on making excuses for everything that led up to him being restrained? It was a full 10 minutes, from the time officers approached Floyd's car until they had him laying on the ground, in which Floyd could have started fully cooperating. It took three officers to get him restrained on the ground, demonstrating that he was still resisting. If you are not fully secured in custody, police have the authority to do everything they can to make you comply. The only other option is to let criminals go free. Personally, I wouldn't even be capable or resisting three officers. If I were, I'd expect them to elevate their response to meet my level of resistance. But then I wouldn't be doing drug, that sent me to the hospital only weeks earlier, passing counterfeit bills from my drug dealer, or resisting arrest at all. If you would do all those things, I guess it makes sense why you'd identify with Floyd.
I’ve never done drugs nor have been arrested, but that doesn’t mean I can’t speak into this story, feeling empathy for George Floyd.
If you as a civilian were to restrain someone for nearly ten minutes until he/she died, you’d be arrested and charged with murder. If you couldn’t prove that your life was in danger, you would likely be convicted (charges would vary depending on why you were restraining the person). Shouldn’t we hold police officers to the same, if not higher standard?
Floyd’s behavior up to the point of being put on the ground and restrained isn’t irrelevant, but it shouldn’t have led to his death.
If you as a civilian were to restrain someone for nearly ten minutes until he/she died, you’d be arrested and charged with murder. If you couldn’t prove that your life was in danger, you would likely be convicted (charges would vary depending on why you were restraining the person). Shouldn’t we hold police officers to the same, if not higher standard?
Floyd’s behavior up to the point of being put on the ground and restrained isn’t irrelevant, but it shouldn’t have led to his death.
And we can't help you if you refuse to admit that the officer was found guilty of murder by a court of law. You made a big point that he was not guilty until proven guilty. Now he has been. A jury with far more information than you have considered the case and found him guilty on two counts of murder and one count of manslaughter. That's the final word.
you make a great point. why are the supposedly trained to deal with this people held to a lower standards than people with out training? every other case the trained people are held to a higher standard.
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
It does if your empathy overwhelms your understanding of the law, standard police procedure, physics, physiology, etc..
As a citizen, I do not volunteer to work in a regularly life-threatening job. We do hold them to a higher standard. The higher standard of regularly risking their lives for relatively little pay or acclaim. How many lives have they saved by taking violent criminals off the street? I certainly haven't. That's why they deserve the benefit of the doubt, in the form of qualified immunity. But go ahead and demand they not only work a dangerous job but also fear for their livelihood and potentially even their freedom for making mistakes. Once you've driven out all the good ones, you'll only be left with the corrupt and power-seeking, much like the police in South America.
You're right, it shouldn't have. But he made a series of very bad choices, which he apparently had a history of doing, which was bound to catch up to him, whether by violence, OD, accident, etc..
I've never denied it, so you're obviously imagining things (as we all know you can't find any quote of mine to support this sad little straw man). Yes, a local jury, who were afraid of their own neighborhoods being trashed by looting and riots. And apparently you've never heard of appeal.
Bells
Staff member
On the contrary.
I can say with absolute certainty that most here would love to see you do it.
Oh hey, look! Gaslighting!
You do realise that this latest performance makes you look silly, yes?
Not according to the black people who find it necessary - or the white people who are caring for young black men. They say it's a product of police violence against young black men, which is often lethal and even more often crippling (a significantly underreported aspect of all this - concussions, for example, such as people disabled by drugs and/or handled roughly by police often suffer, correlate with a variety of cripplings including subsequent personality changes, mood swings, and irrational violence. You can learn about stuff like that from applied CRT)
- - - -
I provided you with the body cam footage that showed how Floyd was handled.
That's why I mentioned it, yep. The police are supposed to prevent that - not amplify it. The public - even the racially black fraction - is supposed to be able to call the police when people they care about endanger themselves or others.
You seem to think you are objecting to my post, there - are you reading my posts in "opposite day" mode again?
Not assume - observe. (Not that it wasn't obvious already).
Floyd resisted being put into the police car. He did not resist being removed from the police car (He couldn't, even if he had wanted to - he had no leverage, and the cops could use his handcuffed arms (which would hurt him if he resisted, as they had demonstrated while getting him into the car).
That was the second time, btw. The first time they pulled him out of a car - the other car - it took one hand from each of two officers, intermittently, maybe because he was resisting to some degree, was not handcuffed, and had leverage.
It's not that obvious - they were saying "fucking (this and that)" and "Jesus Christ" in elevated tones - but as I posted I do give them that credit: Yes. That's what I posted - as a part of what I would built a defense around, in a trial of the two subservient officers. The OP, remember?
I'm not sure why you bother to repeat my assertions, other than that you appear to have once again read things into one of my posts that are the opposite of their content.
There is no evidence that any officer ever thought Floyd was "pulling a gun".
For one thing, they had been told by the victim and other witnesses that Floyd carried no visible weapons, and had threatened nobody -. For another, Floyd was apparently cooperating to the best of his erratic and drug-addled ability up until they put him into the police car - by which time he was handcuffed, obviously under the influence of some drug or mental problem (at least two officers mention that) and in fear of being harmed (justifiably, as it turned out).
You can see on the body cam footage (around 32.20 on) that the officer with the flashlight had his hand on his gun as he walked up to the window,
that the gun was loose in its holster and ready to fire on a trigger pull before he rapped on the window, that he took the hand off for only a split second to wave the hand as empty in front of the camera, that he immediately replaced it on the gun, that Floyd could not hear the initial command(s) to put his hands up, that Floyd apparently responded to the first command he could hear by raising both his hands apparently unaware the right hand was hidden from the policeman, that as soon as Floyd heard and understood the commands he did show both his hands, put them both on the wheel, put them both on his head, put them back on the wheel, etc, while obviously distraught and mentally disturbed for some reason,
and so forth. The officer did not say "Simon says" at any time in the proceedings.
They removed him from the car (he did not resist that), immediately pushed him over unto the street (he seemed to be trying to keep his feet under him, but he was handcuffed and thrown off balance), held him prone on the tar, and spent the next nine minutes killing him by suffocation (knee on his neck etc) instead of providing medical care or placing him under arrest in the back of the police car.
Eyewitness. Consistent and circumstantially supported anecdotal evidence over my entire residence in Minneapolis and Saint Paul. Police confirmation when justifying their behavior.
Occasionally bigger, often military trained, almost always more resistant. White guys on some drugs are dangerous. (Floyd was never a serious threat to any of the four officers on scene)
- - - -
That the officer was acquitted is common and fully appreciated knowledge in the local community - especially the local black community. That the officer did not scream obscenities until after he shot the guy is a version of the event believed by few informed people. That the Minneapolis (and Saint Paul) police often begin encounters with black men via shouting, obscenities, and/or derogatory accusations - even in traffic stops - is common knowledge, thousands of people's personal experience, and the context in which many residents evaluate conflicting versions of such events.
Not at all. I'm merely observing that you do not appear to have seen the footage I linked, which contradicts your claims here.
James, these are discussions familiar both in society and at Sciforums over the years. It's also the sort of thing you've made excuses for in the past, e.g., the member was just that ignorant. I only recall that episode from last year because the basic sketch, here, is the idea that people trot out these old tropes, and require the same discussion over and over again. This, for instance, is a more numerically-laden version of the 「Black people are scary」 pretense some would offer to justify prejudice by law enforcement.
But the basic closed loop on this describes that such recyclings strive to avoid particular critical readings of history; when it was libertarians complaining about sheeple, we used to hear lamentations about a lack of critical thinking, and the thing about that is yes, it is possible that identifiable frameworks for critical thinking about particular questions of history can gain a name; after all, if people are going to discuss something, they need to be able to discuss it.
Not all critical thought is Critical Race Theory; in the thread on that subject, for instance, we find early discussion↗ includes examples of how Critical Race Theory works, and how Critical Theory or, as such, critical thinking, can be applied in different aspects, and it is worth noting that in the question of how history makes anyone feel so existentially badly as our neighbor describes, the response↗ is simply to deny the history°.
It's one thing to ask Vociferous about the detail behind his argument, but it occurs in a range where we don't really require a rational argument. So if I look back to earlier this year and the suggest that you're still missing something°°, we happen to be at one of those intersections. If I say this is what we gave away rational discourse for, this is an example: Some arguments are harder to justify rationally than others; an unresolved question considers why we cut certain ranges of those arguments a break, why we need to constantly throw bones for their comfort.
The thing is that if we don't require, but simply ask, that people support arguments like what Vociferous brings, they never actually have to do anything but repeat themselves. You once suggested that you don't bring a certain level of argument because the theists at Sciforums aren't worthy, and I want you to hold that point in mind as you consider: In order to rationally support his underlying argument, Vociferous must put in some effort, and actually change his manner of presentation, perhaps even alter his underlying thesis; also, consider the range and scale of what Vociferous, or any of his predecessors even in our own community, demand. Can you imagine the posts people would have to put together to answer last year's blind-ignorant revisitation of redlining? What manner of critical analysis can people provide to answer questions about crime rates per subpopulation? Remember, as it is, Vociferous can simply wave away any component of that analysis he doesn't like by saying there is no such thing.
As you're aware, Vociferous contextualizes his statistical evidence dubiously; it's one thing to ask as you do, but look at the demands of his argument. When he already precludes the historical analysis that would address those demands, what what answer do you think would actually ... what, succeed? ... communicate? ... educate? ... provoke a functional response? ... I mean, y'know, what?
In this sense, James, recall the notion of a worthy audience: If we consider another member, last year, going on in apparent ignorance about baby daddies and redlining and the emotional fragility of police amid inherently scary places full of black people, and, okay, let's just start with redlining. Compared to, say, Billvon's notes on the subject last year (1↗, 2↗), and again recently (3↗, 4↗), what sort of posting do you think would be needed for the community to overcome this sort of crackpottery? To wit, a postdoctoral survey of the relevant literary range describing the history of redlining is probably asking a bit much. But even still, would it be enough to justify, well, what outcome, as such; and consider the outcome insofar as it is much more likely that such an effort would be insufficient to discourage the behavior; and there will always be someone to make an excuse about not suppressing people's views, but part of the problem is that the notorious argument isn't really any argument at all: How deeply can that argument run if our excuse for the behavior is that the other is simply ignorant?
Look at Vociferous' refusal↑, and you'll see how it works: He won't provide any statistics, because "we should see similar stats by comparable socioeconomic class of every race", which is in turn fallacious, but while he's fallaciously refusing to bring those numbers he would be "happy" to see you put in the work to disprove a dysfunctional assertion. And then he will go on to demand you do something for him↑, so here we have an application for what I'm asking about, James: What evidence are you going to provide for him to support the observable proposition that "race and socioeconomic status tend to be linked in the United States"? Remember, he's not going to support what he says because he thinks you should have to run down whatever information he demands. So as you run to and fro for the sake of his satisfaction, what do you actually expect to persuade him to accept?
Now, we all get, James, that you're not going to run hither and yon just because Vociferous says so, but why should anybody else? Do you really think you can persuade him? Because, really, the bit with refusing to support his argument while demanding more and more of others is not something that just Vociferous does; it's actually kind of common around here. And, y'know, in terms of what we've cultivated over the years, and how our decisions and actions affect what goes on around here, I've always wondered why we treat this as a legitimate argumentative form, and what those boundaries are, because it's not uniform.
For instance, do you think he will be able to explain whence comes his implication that poorer socioeconomic status is somehow inherent to black people? Does he need to be more blunt when accusing you of being a racist, or do you accept the straw man he raises? Or, how do you intend to answer it, James, because Vociferous already rejects what would answer his straw°°°.
And if you choose to undertake his demands, remember, he hasn't really made a coherent assertion; if you answer according to the most obvious meanings and implications of his words, you're going to be just as wrong as if you picked anything else to address, because distracting threads by demanding you run around fulfilling obscure, poorly defined needs is part of what we've cultivated; the general form has emerged over the years as one of our community's most influential contributions to rhetoric and discourse—e.g., try to figure out what he means by "inherent" when he says you "imply that poorer socioeconomic status is somehow inherent to black people". Remember, the purpose of his retort was to accuse you of racism, and if we observe it does not justify an inquiry about biological inherence, we can also note he already rejects the more appropriate consideration because it is a critical examination of history; how the implication he fallaciously suggests actually works remains a mystery. To the other, he doesn't really need to explain it, because around here nobody who works that circuit ever does.
Anyway, I mention it largely for the sake of the record, because you're asking if he has spent any time considering what he already rejects out of hand according to fancy, and whatever answer he brings I really want to know how it measures up to your expectations.
____________________
Notes:
° The inquiry: 「Is it true that a man's salary offer is, by habit, higher than the woman who would be doing his job? In these United States, it is likely true. If it is true, does that make him feel bad? And to what degree is that bad feeling his own infliction upon himself? And does he teach it to his son? Does the history of wage discrimination make his son feel badly about being a boy?」
The response: "There is no wage discrimination." We are as such unable to establish the relationships between certain elements of his apparently fallacious argument, and he is either unable or unwilling to tell us.
°° "On 'Cancel Culture'", #3663694/#163↗: "You were serious about wanting 'proper scientific arguments' for white supremacism, then? I assumed that was you being sarcastic."
°°° Hint: Note Vociferous' affirmative assertion that "we should see similar stats by comparable socioeconomic class of every race"; he cannot explain why we should expect that similarity, but the historical discussion addressing his claim would be a critical examination of history, and Vociferous has already made clear that he rejects critical thinking about racism in history.
So to summarize your position is:
1) You claim you have never, ever, ever suggested that he wasn't guilty.
2) He was found guilty by an ignorant and fearful jury.
3) Chauvin will likely be acquitted on appeal, at which point he won't be guilty.
Never change. You are a textbook case of Dunning-Kruger.
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
Anecdote, argumentum ad populum, and devoid of evidence.
As if one somehow completely absolves you of being ignorant of the other. That's how quasi-religious ideology works. So yep, checks out.
As usual, you completely miss the point, which was that Floyd likely didn't have much regard for his own safety when lunging out the other side of the car head first. Glad to hear you wholeheartedly agree. You just miss the fact that police have a right to defend themselves first, and hope to make it back to their families that night.
Contrary to every body cam, at the time codes I even spoon fed you, and a basic understanding of physics and physiology.
You're the one who brought up Castile, again completely ignorant of the sequence of events. Lane didn't use any expletives or "Jesus Christ" until after Floyd repeatedly failed to comply, reaching around in the vehicle for a potential weapon, for all Lane could possible know.
If your going to bring up Castile, and I reply with a video of that incident, at least have the wherewithal to comprehend what I'm referring to, you know, not Floyd. Officers have to be prepared for the worst.
You're lying again. Lane's right arm was not bent enough to be on his weapon as he approached, as proven at exactly 1:35 in the video, where you can clearly see the grip of his gun, which would be obscured by any hand on it (if you can even manage to comprehend that much about guns).
At this point, it's abundantly clear that you do not comprehend the least bit of what you've seen, can't keep it straight in your head long enough to get the simple sequence of events right, and just blithely make up whatever gaps that leaves you from your imagination and motivated reasoning. Since you obviously have a very contentious relationship with reality, I think I'll stop abusing the incompetent.
Oh, I don't doubt your vindictiveness. What I was doubting was your understanding of very basic physics and physiology.
That's some impressively taciturn projection.
Go ahead, show us all where I supposedly denied that Chauvin was found guilty. You can't, because it only exists in your imagination.
Appeal to ridicule is one of the resorts/dodges of the intellectually lazy or dishonest.
Well, you're obviously projecting your own Dunning-Kruger effect, as you couldn't even manage to read the simple English you purport to be replying to.
I've never denied it (it being, in your own words, "that the officer was found guilty of murder by a court of law"). I have repeatedly said I thought he was innocent of the charges, but that's a completely different thing from denying the actual verdict that happened. It's a real shame that you can't differentiate those two. That I disagree with the jury verdict doesn't erase it from having occurred, and the consequences of that verdict will persist unless or until a successful appeal is made. IOW, I've never denied that he was found guilty in the eyes of the law. I just disagree with that finding. Is having an opinion other than what you're told really that novel of an idea for you? I've never once said Chauvin would "likely" be acquitted on appeal. Again, read the words that are actually written, not the ones you imagine. I have repeated detailed all the "grounds for appeal." Please learn to comprehend simple English before continuing to make a fool of yourself. The only saving grace seems to be that many here are equally lacking in that department.
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
Try really hard to keep in mind what it is that you're purportedly replying to here.
The second is not part of a dichotomy, as it entails both "the merits and faults." That is objective analysis. I assume this is all completely lost on you though. You'll either ignore it, backpedal, or do the pinnacle of foolishness and try to deny it (in which case, you can't be taught simple English, much less more complex or nuanced differentiation).
What I've denied is what no has managed to produce, evidence to connect the dots to present day. Quasi-religious proclamations that "it just does" are not arguments, they're bare assertions. Again, I'm not sure you know the difference.
Really? You think a recitation of simple facts is this projected boogeyman of yours? http://www.sciforums.com/goto/post?id=3682623#post-3682623
Neither CRT, CLS, nor Critical Theory involve critical thinking. You seem to be conflating this on the similarity of the words alone.
critical thinking - the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment
CRT, via CLS, is functionally Critical Theory↑, "an approach to social philosophy that focuses on reflective assessment and critique of society and culture in order to reveal and challenge power structures." Where critical thinking is objective analysis, CRT/CLS/CT are critiques in order to challenge, i.e. activism, and as such have plenty of uncritical baggage, the most obvious being the foregone motive to "critique." In case you need it spelled out, that's motivated reasoning, not objectivity. You see, the adjective "critical" has more than one meaning. 1. expressing adverse or disapproving comments or judgments.
"he was critical of many U.S. welfare programs"
Opposite:
complimentary
2. expressing or involving an analysis of the merits and faults of a work of literature, music, or art.
"she never won the critical acclaim she sought"
You see, the first is necessarily "adverse or disapproving," as opposed to "complimentary." This is the "critical" used in CRT/CLS/CT."he was critical of many U.S. welfare programs"
Opposite:
complimentary
2. expressing or involving an analysis of the merits and faults of a work of literature, music, or art.
"she never won the critical acclaim she sought"
The second is not part of a dichotomy, as it entails both "the merits and faults." That is objective analysis. I assume this is all completely lost on you though. You'll either ignore it, backpedal, or do the pinnacle of foolishness and try to deny it (in which case, you can't be taught simple English, much less more complex or nuanced differentiation).
Remember, James literally admitted that I gave him statistics. They were just the facts, as undisputed by him, you , or anyone else. So this bit about "don't really require a rational argument" would seem to be projection. The simple facts do not assert reasons. They just are. James then asserts that they have particular reasons, which would be the claim requiring support. Mine claim is that they stand on their own, which is the null hypothesis (oops, other term I know you don't understand, sorry).
You also seem to have real trouble telling the difference between a fact and a claim. I've given sources for these statistics before, in this very thread. Here and here. What I've yet to see is any evidence linking these facts to claims made by James or any other CRT advocate. So we're right back to your projection.
Where have I denied any history? Go ahead, you have all these links to posts. Certainly you can dig that up, right?
What I've denied is what no has managed to produce, evidence to connect the dots to present day. Quasi-religious proclamations that "it just does" are not arguments, they're bare assertions. Again, I'm not sure you know the difference.
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
Cont...
Yes, I would be happy if anyone could either refute the facts I've provided (which no has) or provide any supporting evidence for their own claims beside vague arm waving at "history." If you understood what critical thinking was, you'd know that doesn't cut it.
There you go again, conflating (or dishonestly equivocating) two very different meanings of "critical." At this point, the most charitable thing to do is presume you're ignorant of the distinction.
And just keep intoning "historical," as if it were a mantra to ward of evil spirits. Because aside from what ever benefit your psyche derives from it, it's a wholly vacuous bare assertion.
There's no need to be so defensive. You don't have to make up bullshit about me supposedly denying racism in history. Since I haven't (and you really should quote where you imaging I have), it just exposes your lack of argument...what this whole little projecting post of yours is really all about.
Again, remember, James literally admitted that I provided statistics. So your confirmation bias is apparently so strong that it can erase what you're supposedly replying to. Or are you really that unaware of those statistics?
Yes, I would be happy if anyone could either refute the facts I've provided (which no has) or provide any supporting evidence for their own claims beside vague arm waving at "history." If you understood what critical thinking was, you'd know that doesn't cut it.
More projection, as I've given the statistics and gotten zero supported argument in return. Just vacuous puffery like these long, meaningless posts of yours.
Okay, how is something "inextricably linked" without being in some way inherently so?
inextricably - in a way that is impossible to disentangle or separate
inherently - in a permanent, essential, or characteristic way
"Impossible to separate" is "permanent or characteristic." So how do you disentangle James' own words? inherently - in a permanent, essential, or characteristic way
Apparently James' only defense is projection, according to his screed in the CRT thread trying to convince anyone I'm racist with zero evidence (notice how he can't manage to quote anything I've said to that effect). But, to be fair, he could just be lazy. Fending off the actual accusations of racism might be too taxing on him.
I didn't say "biological" inherence. Try not to straw man while accusing others of straw manning. Between that and me not denying criticism of history↑, you sure seem to be making a lot of crap up today.
"Likely true" is not an argument. At best, it's a wishy-washy bare assertion. A red herring about fictitious feeling toward an unsupported claim doesn't help it either. The lack of a thing is, again, the null hypothesis (default assumption, for the scientifically illiterate). You're "apparently fallacious argument" is pure, transparent projection. You do realize that a positive claim of wage discrimination is the one that bears the onus of evidence, right? Oh wait, you don't know what critical thinking is, so of course you don't. You'll just have to take my word on that, I guess.
The "why" is the part of that quote you dishonestly omitted: "If it's socioeconomic factors then that's a matter of class, not race,"
There you go again, conflating (or dishonestly equivocating) two very different meanings of "critical." At this point, the most charitable thing to do is presume you're ignorant of the distinction.
And just keep intoning "historical," as if it were a mantra to ward of evil spirits. Because aside from what ever benefit your psyche derives from it, it's a wholly vacuous bare assertion.
There's no need to be so defensive. You don't have to make up bullshit about me supposedly denying racism in history. Since I haven't (and you really should quote where you imaging I have), it just exposes your lack of argument...what this whole little projecting post of yours is really all about.
Bells
Staff member
Vociferous, I'll be honest.. You aren't a very nice person. You are racist and a bigot. Given your ongoing commentary, you are the absolute last person to accuse anyone of vindictiveness.
The fact that you have gone on for pages arguing for the justification of Floyd's murder, shows you for who you are.
See, this is what I am talking about in my previous post.
This slimy disingenuous shit show that are your posts here..
You have danced around it.. How to say someone is not guilty while not saying they are not guilty:
Slimy and disingenuous..
Especially when you already established very early on that you did not think he was guilty. And page after page of you arguing as such..
We can all see through you. You're just another run of the mill bigot who thinks he's smarter than everyone else and is just really bad at it.
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
Oh, I get how the ideological have to see simple disagreement as evil. That's how they maintain their ideology. You have to pretend (or convince yourself) that I'm bad, without ever being able to point to anything actually racist or bigoted. You just proclaim it enough that you believe it's true. Even here, I haven't once justified Floyd's death. It was a completely avoidable tragedy. I just think there's no actual evidence of any intent to kill him. I'd have the same opinion if Floyd were white.
I've been completely transparent throughout this thread. If you haven't been able to glean my very obvious position, that's on you.
I'm not sure why it's so hard for some people to understand that, yes, Chauvin was found guilty of murder, but no, I don't agree with that verdict.
I presume you'd say the Supreme Court decision on the Texas abortion law was a miscarriage of justice, so you should be able to comprehend the basic idea of simply not agreeing.
Sorry you don't like the facts. That's your own personal problem. Here's one on the first page of this thread: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/ge...ng-guilty-of-the-charges.164217/#post-3670276
If you missed it, again, that's on you. But I suppose calling people names makes you feel better.