Total posts: 4,833
-->
@Lemming
I'd say they're relevant with defining consent.But then,You and I don't agree on the definition of consent either, I seem to recall.
It's more like I have a definition and you have a jeopardy question. i.e. you know what you want the concept of consent to imply, but you can't give a coherent definition that actually fits the bill without also implying absurdities (Or simply asserting the results).
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
In case of consent with partial knowledge vs. no consent at all, consent still wins.
What no one else in this thread has succinctly communicated (although it was implied many times) is that consent does not always win.
Consent is one part of objective morality, not the whole. They (most posters in this thread so far) are currently stuck in a conceptual car crash caused by a combination of judicial macgyvering and sexual liberation propaganda. They're trying to fit a round peg in a square hole. That's why they cite studies relating to psychological harm in the same breath they talk about "informed consent" as if the presence of harm proved there was no consent. Relatively informed people harm themselves by their own decisions all the time.
Harm is the problem, not a symptom.
The unique quality of the adult citizen in human civilization is that as peers no one is permitted to tell them what they may or may not do, even with the best intentions. The adult is allowed and should be allowed to shoot themselves in the foot. That is why consent without fraud is "good enough" in most cases.
Children are not and should not be allowed to shoot themselves, at certain ages letting them hold a gun is parental negligence. Doctors are another example, if you take an oath to not harm consent is not enough (something transgender surgeons should reflect on).
(I am in no way implying that the line in the sand set as the age of majority is objectively justified)
Created:
-->
@Lemming
- Wikipedia Informed consent- reddit r askphilosophy comments 3dgitu- hopeferdowsian
You should have stuck with studies on suicide, random assertions aren't particularly relevant.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
This is you confusing your unnatural desire with logic and morality, if you think you can justify it here and then act on it, then you weren't treated badly enough in prison.
I think you're confusing torture with logic and morality.
There is no connection between being raped in prison and being morally wrong.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
My advice for everyone is:Never go to prison.
Geez the novelty and depth of your wisdom....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
This does not address the question in the slightest.Again, why aren’t Chovin’s attorneys or any attorney out there petitioning the medical community to have the expert witnesses in the Chovin trial arrested for perjury? Why is it that the only people who seem to understand and care about the obvious objective factual errors presented in the trial are right wing internet forum warriors?
It answers the question completely. Read more carefully.
It is in fact my attendance of arithmetic (long before puberty) and statistics lectures which allowed me to confidently understand a distribution chart, not my handiness.Ok cool. So since your arithmetic and statistical skills outweigh a college degree and years of experience in the field, I’ll be sure to call you instead of my doctor the next time I’m feeling ill.
If neither you nor your doctor can calculate an average, that might be wise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
First admit it does not need to be explained in order to conclude that norfentanly is almost always present in overdose victims, then I'll speculate.Yes, I admit that the former does not need to be explained in order to conclude the latter, because these are two separate conversations.Your turn.
The question:
So the expert witness lied on the stand, under oath, resulting in the unjust imprisonment of a man for 22 years, in the most followed trial of the decade. And they lied about data so easily verifiable that anyone with an internet connection can easily prove it wrong…Please explain to me why Chovin’s lawyers are not petitioning every expert in the country to declare a mistrial and get their client out of jail.No seriously, explain that.
The quoted text contradicted itself, a ratio was mentioned. When pressed I'm sure the speaker would say that he misspoke, or misused exaggeration when he claimed norfentanyl was rarely found in overdose victims. I would say that such a "mistake" from a genuine expert is unlikely without the hope to give a certain impression and that bias introduces an element of dishonesty.
I do not remember that exact text being spoken, but I would not be surprised if on cross examination this was clarified. If it was thus established that the presence of norfentanyl in no way precludes or even renders unlikely the possibility of an overdose there would be nothing to appeal.
However, the propagandized mass of left-tribers would hardly have been led to that follow up. No more than they would have googled and seen that the concentrations were well within expected for an overdose.
Thus it would be copy-pasted by the glorified bloggers the left-tribe calls "reliable sources" and then copy-pasted everywhere on the internet like so many out of context disinformation is. Fortunately for the objective, informed, and generally educated observer this particular copy paste contained a contradiction and thus could be identified as misinformation right away.
I assume if this was called out often enough the BLM crusaders would remove the segment referencing a ratio.
My DIY passes inspections first times, and his professionals often have to come back. He has spent over a hundred thousand on renovations, I have spent less than twenty for similar levels. I think it is an excellent analogy.Well that probably explains it. Presuming your portrayals are accurate, you have a skill when it comes to handy work which has given you an over inflated sense of personal abilities that you apply here to toxicology. That bloated sense of superiority has justified in your mind placing yourself on such a pedestal that you don’t just disagree with the findings of those who have spent their lives in the field, but can confidently assert that those who understand the subject and disagree with you are lying in a massive political conspiracy - because that explanation along with the silence of the rest of the scientific field who would know better requires far less assumptions than the possibility that you just might not understand what you concluded based on your Google searches.Ok bro.
rofl, it was your analogy <kanuk accent>Buddy</kanuk accent>
It is in fact my attendance of arithmetic (long before puberty) and statistics lectures which allowed me to confidently understand a distribution chart, not my handiness.
Created:
As oromagi said, practicing to be a politician..
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Inflation taxes poor the most. This is basic knowledge. If price of bread goes from 2$ to 6$ I really dont care if I have 100000000000$. I will still have everything I need. Will the poor?
It's proportional to every dollar held, so the rich lose more in absolute terms and exactly the same in proportional terms. Equal proportional theft may have a disproportionate effect on quality of life. However you have to look at where the stolen wealth is going, and in many cases the printed money is loaned to the government, to poverty alleviation credit programs, and sometimes to state proxy corporations.
Printing money and loaning that money to some poor person to buy a house is no different from a proportional tax on every dollar holder and giving the money to the poor person.
The reason it harms the poor (and everyone else) is because somebody actually had to build and maintain that house, and now they did it for someone who didn't provide an equal or greater value in trade.
Less production = less production / person = more absolute poverty
The money taken from the rich and given to the poor doesnt tax the poor in any way.
Of course it does, the economy is trading. A society that taxes the rich until the poor aren't poor any more is sending the artificial signal to the market "Don't produce more than others", then production slows down, then when the poor run out of the redistributed pieces of paper they're still poor but now there are no jobs and even if they find a job it doesn't pay enough to live.
This is true in theory (sound economic theory unpolluted by Keynes) and true in practice (dozens of major examples over the past 120 years and beyond).
You assume that the rich, if left untaxed, will use all that money to help the poor.
Outside of government corruption and unhindered fraud the rich are rich because they helped someone already; and statistically speaking they probably helped a lot of poor people already.
You got the order of events backwards, the rich are rich because they are owed much for what they have already done. They don't need to give back, they need to be given back; that's what the accumulation of currency means.
Some (most) use what they're owed to help even more people; and that's better than buying some giant useless gas guzzling toy, but it's not a duty.
Created:
Posted in:
Snarky political mode: If the media bias of the magnitude required to report Trump endorsed bleach injections or slanderously claim he supported neonazis at Charlottesville was turned on Biden they would say this is an admission of pedophilia.
Tounge-in-cheek mode: I wonder if the site rules now prohibit anyone from supporting Biden?
Objective mode: This combined with the diary, the sniffing, the pool story, the lack of Epstein related prosecutions all combine to give the pedo witchhunt crowd plenty of material to work with; if he had any marbles left he would be extra careful but he doesn't. The man is not responsible for what comes out of his mouth at this point, he belongs on the rocker; and saying "we go way back" is hardly an admission of pedophilia.
Created:
lol, inflation is taxing the rich.. and everyone else too; and taxing the rich taxes everyone else too. It's all related you see by this thing called the market.
There is no accounting trick to get around the problem of taking a bunch of production and dumping it down a deep dark hole. That's what the government is doing, that's what any organization that is rewarded for waste would inevitably do. The solution is to stop doing that. The way to motivate that change is to reward failure with rejection and reward success with more resources. The way to do that is to remove the power to steal from the government. When the public decides what is worth it and what is not their vigilance will prevent waste, is the only thing that will prevent waste because the public, individually, are the only ones who are genuinely motivated to not waste their own resources.
Created:
Posted in:
I would even debate with you that I am not wasting my life here as it's almost a gym session for the brain
Since you are the only one with direct access to your brain it would be foolish to debate that you aren't getting a workout.
You have to handle a lot of things here that translate well into the real world; such as handling unfair losses and no-vote ties. It's a great thing, it's like mental Karate.
...and what is putting someone on ignore and then conversing with them analogous to? Refusing to make eye contact?
Created:
Posted in:
It's new york, getting a majority of new yorkers to execute Trump would probably work. Trump needs to move his assets (and ass) out of TDS states like the Jews needed to flee Germany in 1932.
Created:
Posted in:
Demeaning? To go straight to that I suspect your thoughts were on the word already.
When people start to believe the player is more important than the game it corrupts both. The nobility is in the game, and this sounds an awful lot like offering autographs to fill the bleachers. Analyzing a debate is a lot of work, and it's not something that should be done for petty and contrived social status. You don't want people to be thinking "just get it over with" while they're doing it.... and I don't think anyone is going to do it for the dubious honor of making you perform a circus trick (something you predicted by preempting pedophilia and racism).
No one would be online trying to argue with people if they didn't get something out of it. I don't think what you're getting out of it is healthy, just a hunch nothing I could write an essay on.
Debate what you believe in, and if you lose change what you believe. There is something worthwhile to do and it has nothing to do with a integer in some website's database.
Created:
Posted in:
Can I sell one of these coupons on ebay?
Created:
-->
@Shila
In a billion years Covid was relatively unknown. How does the human immune system deal with the unknown?
This is why people on your side trust "experts", you haven't a clue how things work nor it seems a clue how to begin to determine what makes sense and what doesn't.
It's essentially a system for extremely rapid mutation of potential binding sites. A great number of antibody types are released, the ones that work are targeted for further production.
Created:
-->
@Shila
The original solution proposed by Trump to deal with Covid was injecting disinfectants,
No the original solution he parroted was a lock-down "two weeks to slow the spread".
somehow getting sunlight into our bodies
Not an idea he came up with, those vaunted experts were the ones trying to run blood through UV dialysis. Laugh at them if you want to laugh.
and finally herd immunity.
Which is by definition the only final solution.
Trump proposed more solutions for Covid than Biden. But it was Biden who get Covid under control.
The human immune system (thank you a billion years of evolution) got covid under control, there was some slight support from vaccines. The vaccines were made by vaccine specialists, not ancient politicians of questionable character and cognition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I claimed that if that person did know better then he/she did lie; because the fact remains that anyone with an internet connection (and has retained Bio 101 knowledge) can spend a few minutes on Google and pull up the data proving them wrong.So the expert witness lied on the stand, under oath, resulting in the unjust imprisonment of a man for 22 years, in the most followed trial of the decade. And they lied about data so easily verifiable that anyone with an internet connection can easily prove it wrong…Please explain to me why Chovin’s lawyers are not petitioning every expert in the country to declare a mistrial and get their client out of jail.No seriously, explain that.
First admit it does not need to be explained in order to conclude that norfentanly is almost always present in overdose victims, then I'll speculate.
This is the same mistake made by every do-it-yourselfer who royally fucks up a task they decided to take on themselves.
You know I have this argument with my father all the time. My DIY passes inspections first times, and his professionals often have to come back. He has spent over a hundred thousand on renovations, I have spent less than twenty for similar levels. I think it is an excellent analogy.
Credentials are no guarantee of quality. I've talked to electricians and plumbers who knew plenty and I've talked to some who are ignorant of the difference between dynamic and static pressure, between power and energy.
You may not know what you don't know, that's true; but you do know you don't know something when you have a clue... like an argument (or instruction manual, or codebook) that says things which you don't understand. There are people who react to the confusing by assuming its wrong and there are people who aren't confused. You can't categorize them unless you're one who isn't confused.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
So you feel comfortable contradicting experts so long as there is only one in your field of vision?Your entire argument here is that the toxicologist who actually examined the body is wrong about his findings.
No toxicologist examined the body, the coroner examined the body and she found no bruising of the windpipe. My argument has nothing to do with her, I commented that I believed she was politically motivated but that speculation is not part of my argument concluding that Floyd killed himself with drugs.
That argument relies on no authority save for the authority of the cited study to publish raw data.
I’m not the one contradicting experts
If you're saying someone can be suffocated due to a force from behind you are.
I’m merely pointing out that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Well you're asserting that claim, you have not done anything to support it.
The reason I emphasized “one” is to show that what I was about to point to is the only reference point you had in the trial. In other words everything you claim to have gotten from the trial is limited to this one individual, so the rest of your assertions don’t get to hide behind the veil of expertise.
This one individual was not the only one to testify at the trial, that's why cross examinations exist; to expose contradictions, lies, and other relevant facts even from witnesses that were called by the opposition.
so the rest of your assertions don’t get to hide behind the veil of expertise.
I never hide behind the veil of expertise, I leave that to the pretenders. If I claim to be an expert on some things it is mere commentary and no substitute for an argument.
I make arguments and I evaluate arguments. That is what intellectually honest people do if they wish to confront others with disagreements.
If he/she was knowledgeable, was mistaken otherwise.Your position is that the facts asserted by the prosecution’s expert witnesses are so easily verifiably false that anyone with an internet connection can spend a few minutes on Google and pull up the data proving them wrong. To claim this is a product of them just not knowing any better is ridiculous.
I didn't claim the person who made that claim (as quoted in this thread) didn't know any better, I claimed that if that person did know better then he/she did lie; because the fact remains that anyone with an internet connection (and has retained Bio 101 knowledge) can spend a few minutes on Google and pull up the data proving them wrong.
The defense witness cited a study which all but proved what millions of people with human bodies already know from extensive personal experience; you can't suffocate someone with a 200 lb weight from behind.You are the one citing study’s on fentanyl to prove Floyd overdosed. That’s what we’re talking about.
You forget the context. You claimed that there was no point debating this because we are not experts. I asked you why you are trying to debate it if you believed that to be the case. I asked why you feel that as a non-expert you can choose which experts to believe, because that's essentially what you're telling me I'm not allowed to do.
You should make up your mind on google, when it comes to Ukraine it's infallible;This is a blatant strawman and you know that.
I truly do not know that.
when it comes to toxicology....Toxicology is a field of medical science. If all it took was an hour or so on Google to qualify yourself students wouldn’t spend ten years of their lives getting their degrees.
That's ten years wasted if they can't avoid contradicting a large data set I would say.
This is an entirely different thing from determining whether the international community wanted Victor Shokin fired.
Indeed, one is simply related quotes and assertions of related quotes. Hearsay to the 2nd and sometimes 4th degree. The other has hard data, charts, math. I called the Ukraine debate fuzzy logic. Disproving a statement like "overdose victims rarely have norfentanyl in their system" is not fuzzy at all.
You may have noticed I reject the irrationality of authority based epistemology.Yes, I’ve definitely noticed that. It’s kind of the hallmark of conspiratorial thinking.
As if there was only one type of thinking possible outside of your carefully tailored application of faith.
What you are calling “authority based epistemology” is just the recognition that people who have spent their entire lives studying a given field probably know more about that field than you do, so all you’re really rejecting is the possibility of your own ignorance.
No, what I am calling "authority based epistemology" is the belief (or behavior consistent with the belief whether consciously admitted or not) that the truth value of an assertion depends on the quality of the asserter, good or bad.
I am rejecting the possibility of non-axiomatic knowledge that has no supporting argument. If there was an argument I could not understand because it referenced too many concepts I was not familiar with I would admit that it could be sound but my ignorance prevents me from determining whether it is so.
That is what ignorance looks like. It does not look like a so called expert making an assertion, providing no argument; and dismissing contradicting arguments. It certainly does not look like a third party claiming someone else is an authority so everything they assert is beyond question.
That's unearned certainty, and the province of fools and zealots. If you believe "experts" would be able to explain how it is that a distribution clearly shows norfentanyl being present at ~50% the mass ratio of fentanyl in overdose victims is consistent with "overdose victims rarely have norfentanyl in their system" you are entitled to whatever articles of faith you may wish to keep; but I am not obligated to share them.
It's not like you can argue the science right?I can argue the science but that is pointless since neither of us have any expertise so neither of us really knows what we’re talking about.
So you can't prove I'm ignorant, but you feel entitled to contradict my claims because you believe I'm ignorant; despite the fact that I make all arguments publicly and link to hard data.
I'd say that qualifies as wasting everyone's time.
Here’s the thing, if you were, say studying toxicology because you interested in going into the field I would be more inclined to hear you out and go back and forth with you.
Yes, that is the hallmark of authority based epistemology as opposed to rationality (rational epistemology = all knowledge arises from logic applied to evidence). To you the frock is more important than the sermon.
I do find it especially ironic that people in your political camp call their enemies "conservative" while having the most inflexible of philosophical cores: orthodoxy (which is inherently an authority based value systems). I wonder how many remember that it was through defying authority with strong arguments that the decaying mountains of reputation upon which academia rests were originally built.
I wonder how many would continue to treat diplomas like a sacred mark if enemy political tribes gained controlled of the universities.
The only reason you are googling studies on the ng/ml levels of fentanyl in overdoses is because this subject has been politicized and you are trying to prove the point you already believed.
My motives are as irrelevant as the coroner's to the truth of the matter.
You don’t really care about this, so digging through studies to show you you’re wrong is pointless.
Or impossible, guess "we'll" never know.
They weren’t what convinced you, so they’re not going to change your mind.
Convenient theory.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Why do you feel comfortable contradicting the defense expert witnesses, the studies they cited?The defense provided one expert witness;“David Fowler, a retired forensic pathologist said that the manner of Floyd's death should be classified as "undetermined" rather than "homicide".”
So you feel comfortable contradicting experts so long as there is only one in your field of vision?
Your claim is that the expert witnesses for the prosecution lied about easily verifiable data, in the most watched trial in a decade, that put a man in jail for over 20 years.
If he/she was knowledgeable, was mistaken otherwise.
And not only did the defense fail to go after these experts for perjury, which would easily get their client out of jail
Nothing would have easily gotten their client out of jail, he was the witch of 1/3 of the country; and 3/4 of the local area.
but the one expert witness they were able to recruit to sell their narrative could do no better than to argue; ‘meh, who knows?’
This is another example of a false statement being either ignorance or dishonesty. Maybe you didn't watch the trial, in which case your misplaced trust in wikipedia authors has led you to this description. Maybe you did watch the trial and don't care to remember. Maybe you know this is false but are repeating a lie hoping you start to believe it.
The defense witness cited a study which all but proved what millions of people with human bodies already know from extensive personal experience; you can't suffocate someone with a 200 lb weight from behind.
It is a fallacy to create a false dichotomy, and in this case the false dichotomy is between knowing what didn't kill him and knowing what did.
And so in the absence of qualified experts explaining in detail how the prosecution lied, you, with no medical expertise beyond that fact that you used to wrestle, have taken to Google to do your own research and present that as informed criticism of the persecutions expert testimony.
All that in addition to the cross examinations, but you wold have to have watched the trial and not just read cherry picked information off wikipedia to be aware of those parts.
You should make up your mind on google, when it comes to Ukraine it's infallible; when it comes to toxicology.... Then again it's not the search engine that's the issue. A single ledger of hard data is worth a thousand blogs and bare assertions if you ask me.
Oh and
...of the persecutions expert testimony.
I have to make a dig about freudian slips.
And your explanation for why you seem to know so much better than those who have spent their entire lives studying this is that everyone’s lying. And how do you know they’re lying? Because your wrestling background informed Google searching said so.
I don't need an explanation. If they're wrong they're wrong no matter the reason. You may have noticed I reject the irrationality of authority based epistemology. I don't have to hate religion to not believe in the bible and I don't have to assassinate the character or education of people to disagree with them, or prove them wrong.
Also note that there was only one definite falsehood in a quote provided in this thread. Your continued implication that it was more than one person is an attempt to appeal to a bandwagon.
If you want to see a real dichotomy, simply review this thread. There is a dichotomy, either the person who said there is rarely norfentanyl in overdoses is wrong or the study I linked to is wrong about its data.
This is why “conspiracy theorist” is a derogatory term.
Ad homs are popular, and you may as well make them interesting right?
It's not like you can argue the science right?
Created:
-->
@oromagi
I'm not practicing for democracy, I'm trying to find the truth.....and yet all you do is talk about yourself.
Well you seem to enjoy the subject to since you keep switching to it.
Do you have any opinion about QAnon you'd like to express?
Yes: Whatever they are and believe, the FBI can't be trusted to report it.
What are you talking about here? If you're talking about Igor Danchenko then every claim you've just made is just popular fake news from this weekend.
You're telling me not to trust credible authorities? Why should anyone care what your opinion on that is?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Everyone on the stand LIED regarding Floyd’s obvious overdose. He took it as cops were walking up and died of respiratory distress and heart failure DUE TO FENTANYL OVERDOSE MIXED WITH ORHER ILLICIT DRUGS. period. Fact. Period.George Floyd’s family was awarded 27 million dollar settlement in recognition of the injustice in his death.qHere is a diagnostic question: If Rittenhouse sues for defamation and wins millions of dollars, what will that mean?There is evidence he shot 3 people. But he claimed it was in self defence. So he admitted to shooting them.
Yea, he clearly shot three people; that wasn't the question. What would it mean if Rittenhouse won a civil suit for damages caused by defamation, say in regards to some anchor saying he was a white supremacist.
Would that mean he's not a white supremacist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Isenschmid’s testimony never suggested that the norfentanyl levels should be zero. He said that they are rarely present in overdose cases and that death often occurs before norfentanyl could be produced. Translation: it does in fact happen. So you have already begun your response with a strawman.
Not present = 0, and it's false that it's rarely zero or significantly lower than what was observed in Floyd's blood. See https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29408723/ (2nd post of this link)
Not a strawman, still a lie.
Your own ratios therefore support the opposite of your point. The numbers you found showed 13.2 vs Floyd’s levels which was 11, so Floyd had less fentanyl in his system than the mean. Meanwhile his nor fentanyl levels were 5.6 vs the mean of 4.6, so he had well more of it broken down.This shows the opposite of what you claim.
I claimed that Floyd's results were within a standard deviation of the overdose distribution. This does not show the opposite of that, there is no opposite of that.
So given that the experts have weighed in on this in the trial and outside of it concluding it was not the fentanyl that killed him, why are we, who have no expertise in this field, arguing about this?…
I don't know why are you arguing about this if you think you are unqualified? Why do you feel comfortable contradicting the defense expert witnesses, the studies they cited?
Everyone on the stand LIED regarding Floyd’s obvious overdose.Of course.It couldn’t possibly be the case that perhaps you just don’t understand the medical science on this. It must be that the entire toxicology field is in on it.
See now that is what a strawman looks like. 2 prosecution witnesses in an ultrapolarized national spectacle of a trial is not equivalent to "the entire toxicology field".
In fact part of the toxicology field is right here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29408723/
and TWS isn't saying they're lying.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Call it a game if you like but it's the game that forms the basis of all law and legislation in a any democratic society.
Let's recall that "it" is what you call a debate. Do you believe Donald Trump won "the debate" in 2016? If you can stomach that one how about Adolph Hitler in 1932?
All games are practice for societal skill sets.
Generous interpretation.
If you aren't willing to play by the rules, if you aren't willing to risk losing, then you aren't really practicing for the real thing- which in the case of debating is democracy.
You're right I'm not practicing for democracy, I'm trying to find the truth. It's not a game to be practice at something real, it is the real thing. It's called debate.
If I wanted to "win" democracy I would act like a politician. I would never expose my widely unpopular opinions, I would pretend to agree instead of picking at contradictions and mistakes, I would subtly manipulate people by making them feel especially appreciated or victimized even when I believed no such thing.
It's an experiment I've done, my theories on it were 99% accurate and it made me feel dirty. You may continue to play your game without me, I garner no satisfaction from it. Please continue to insinuate that I'm a coward for not participating, every time you do is another opportunity to remind any reader that ad populum is a fallacy.
In the mean time, perhaps you would like to explain why I should trust the FBI as an authority on QAnon when they have so often displayed either incredible incompetence or else malice... such as when they paid an accused Russian spy in regards to an investigation over evidence he planted at the ultimate behest of the Clinton campaign.
If one man's lies can cause the FBI to generate enough unfounded chatter to keep the russiagate collusion hoax alive for multiple years; what does it take to mischaracterise a small minority internet community? A single post wouldn't surprise me.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Yet I debate all the timeA debate is an argument formalized by rules and limits ending with a vote or other formalized decision.
That's a game, a game with a debate at it's core but a game none the less. It is a game I will not be goaded into playing by tactless and desperate stabs at my courage.
You say this only because you have run out of anything else to say. You failed to poke holes in my critique of your use of appealing to authority, and you probably know that my explanation on the pattern of authority-based fallacies is spot on. But you will ignore it and attack the man because you, just like everyone else; look for excuses to maintain your preferred narratives.
What makes someone an honest debator is the willingness to admit when there are no good excuses.
Created:
Democracy = 1 citizen : 1 ballot : 1 vote
Republicans are more committed to than than democrats, democrats are committed to: [redacted] : [don't look here] : 50,000 votes at 3 AM
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Looks like I'm in for an enormous embarrassment just as soon as you post this quote (in full context) with link.The truth value of the assertion does not depend on the asserter.vsappealing to authority is not fallacious as long as it is understood that it is an inductive argument the strength of which rests entirely on the degree of trust in the authority.backtrack
Consistent
appealing to authority is a fallacy no less than appealing to popularity or appealing to force. They are all proxies of various kinds, proxies for the best argument and proxies don't beat the real deal. In almost any other context using the fuzzy logic of proxies could be forgiven, but not in debate. Debate is the one time to set aside as much fuzzy logic as can be set aside given the subject.vs.appealing to authority is not fallacious as long as it is understood that it is an inductive argument the strength of which rests entirely on the degree of trust in the authority.It's like relying on a weather forecast for the current moment instead of looking out the window. Raindrops falling on your head beat a theory that there wouldn't be any precipitation
Consistent, notice how in this very thread you attempted to imbue the populum with authority: #13
Sure that doesn't mean the majority is always wrong or must be mistrusted as source of wisdom.
No less a fallacy. You still refuse to understand.
It's like relying on a weather forecast for the current moment instead of looking out the window. Raindrops falling on your head beat a theory that there wouldn't be any precipitation[strawman because nobody goes to a weather FORECAST for the current weather but also a swamp dweller who relies on his senses to predict hurricanes dies in the flood]
An analogy is not a strawman. "Nobody" does it because it is an obvious error, it is an instance of the category of error: bring an inductive argument to deductive fight. If the category was as obvious nobody would do it, but people do. People, it appears, like you.
[and yet you are terrified of debate]
Yet I debate all the time. If you or anyone else is terrified of debating me without some kind of formalized fallacy clouding the scene, I suggest you are afraid of the truth.
Created:
Posted in:
Everything DeSantis has done benefits illegal immigrants in general and these people in specific.
Specifically they are in the national lime light and democrats wouldn't dare mistreat them.
Generally, and this is far more important, he's exposing the dynamics. Everything he did is exactly what Biden and other coyotes have been doing. They've been moving people around and dropping them off without warning.
So long as people are being let in and allowed to wander around looking for homes and jobs they will keep coming. They will keep dying on the way. They will continue to overwhelm social services along the southern border.
Now I know people high on kool aid won't be told that Biden was doing the exact same thing to a much greater degree, but independents will notice; and everyone will notice that the first and only response that the compassionate elite democrats could come up with was immediate deportation.
I am heavily reminded of when pro-abortion people ask "will you take care of the child?", as if a refusal is equivalent to condoning their termination. Ron DeSantis asks: "Will you take care of the immigrants?"
The solution to unwanted pregnancies is to not have them (contraception, condoms).
A solution to immigrants you can't take care of is to not let them in the country, and if you do that for a couple of years they will stop coming.
If we were prosperous we could be generous, but that won't happen until economic liberty is restored.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Everyone on the stand LIED regarding Floyd’s obvious overdose. He took it as cops were walking up and died of respiratory distress and heart failure DUE TO FENTANYL OVERDOSE MIXED WITH ORHER ILLICIT DRUGS. period. Fact. Period.George Floyd’s family was awarded 27 million dollar settlement in recognition of the injustice in his death.q
Here is a diagnostic question: If Rittenhouse sues for defamation and wins millions of dollars, what will that mean?
Created:
Posted in:
There are errors in post #91 that do not affect the conclusion.
I divided fentanyl mass rate by norfentanyl mass rate. Norfentanyl is missing a benzene ring on a stick and would be 69% the weight of any fentanyl it came from:
It appears to be false that norfentanyl is not a metabolic product of fentanyl https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8886601/.
As TWS said it is a drug in its own right, norfentanyl has many of the same affects as fentanyl so when I implied that it couldn't kill you that was wrong.
It is therefore especially non-sensical to claim that a fentanyl overdose must be rapid. Even after this metabolization the net affect would not be reduced. It's simply a question of how quickly the pill or paste or what not he swallowed was dissolved into his blood stream. If you mixed fentanly into gum and swallowed it, it would release much more slowly but that would only prolong your suffering if the rate of release was higher than the rate of neutralization.
There is no way a responsible honest pharmacologist could testify that a drug overdose MUST occur within a certain time frame or overdose has to be ruled out. The only way to rule out an overdose is by establishing that the symptoms did not exist, and they most certainly did. He said he couldn't breathe. He said he didn't want to die.
Created:
Posted in:
Isenschmid also showed that Floyd's blood ratio of fentanyl to norfentanyl, the molecule fentanyl is broken down to once in the body, was lower than the average ratio both for people who died of overdoses and those arrested for DUI who lived. Overdose victims who die rarely have norfentanyl in their blood, since death often occurs before the body can break the drug down, he said
This paragraph contradicts itself. A ratio is a division. If there was no norfentanyl that would be division by zero. Thus we can see that if there is an average ratio overdose victims often (always) have norfentanyl in their system.
On the face of it this is a doomed argument. To illustrate consider the possible characterizations of nine minutes in metabolic terms.
If there is normally almost no norfentanyl in overdose cases and there was norfentanyl in Floyd, that implies that in overdose cases people die faster than Floyd died.
We know the difference in time from ingesting the drugs and death is roughly ten minutes. If ten minutes is enough time to process 5.6 ng/mL we're looking at 0.56 ng/(mL * min).
This allows us to set an absolute maximum time someone could take to die from fentanyl overdose since obviously they can't die if it took so long that they processed the drug into an inactive version. If 7 ng/mL is the lower limit of lethality then (7 ng/mL) / (0.56 ng/(mL * min)) = 12.5 minutes.
Keep in mind we know that anyone who survives longer than 12.5 minutes would have 5.6 ng/mL or more and the claim of the paragraph is that this is not observed.
Is it true that all fentanyl overdoses occur within 12.5 minutes? I would be very surprised. It makes far more sense that the lower the dose the longer you can live without dying and the more of the drug you will metabolize. If the absorption rate from whatever medium the drug came in roughly matched your metabolization of the drug you could have huge amounts of the by product build up while the active form of the drug suppresses your breathing slowly.
That is of course the basis of the field of anesthesiology.
That was logic, for those who don't feel comfortable with logic there is googling:
Mean fentanyl: 13.2ng/mL
Mean norfentanyl: 4.6ng/mL
Going to bring in some of my own "inexpert" math here: 13.2/4.6 = 2.87 = average ratio of fentanyl to norfentanyl.
George Floyd had a ratio of 11/5.6 = 1.96
So my fact check of the bolded paragraph is FALSE, and if it was said by a knowledgeable person it is a LIE.
Created:
Posted in:
[ADOL] Isn't it obvious to you that the next step to cutting Floridians and Texans off from federal benefits would be Floridians and Texans stop paying money to the federal government?What do you think happens next?[IwantRooseveltagain] They would get assessed a bunch of fines and penalties and then have their wages and bank accounts garnished.
Ok, so then people in Florida start using cryptocurrency and local Floridian banks. To steal from them the IRS would have to physically show up to try to take tangible assets.
Florida's government says that anyone who attempts to take property without going through Floridian courts is a thief and they arrest IRS agents.
Feds move? Your move?
Created:
-->
@oromagi
a significant backtrack by you.False.Yesterday it was' all argument from authority is fallacious.' Today, it is 'depends on how much you trust that authority.'
Looks like I'm in for an enormous embarrassment just as soon as you post this quote (in full context) with link.
You may take as given I trust the sources I cite, just as I take it as a given you will deny any source that refutes your bias.
Indeed, you theory of other minds is definitely beyond the toddler level; but there are a few more crucial observations you need to make.
Now you can take your toys and go play in a corner, or you can understand that your mind doesn't work so differently from others. If they immediately look for reasons to distrust authorities that contradict their belief system can you really blame them? Do you do any different?
If you think you are any different you are dangerously deluded. You did it in post #5. You ignored the link and started trying to de-legitimize me, poison the well because the well water was threatening to your narrative.
What's the next step after you understand you are the same? What can bridge the gap of preferred narratives? Why is it that some people believe one thing while you believe another? How do you know you're right and the other person is wrong?
All of these questions should have been answered before you went looking for a debate. Instead you roll around hoping that if your vocabulary and rhetoric is elegant enough you would never have to do anything but dismiss anyone who doesn't share your preferred set of authorities.
A people who share the same set of trusted authorities is a fairly good definition of a religious community by the way, that's why OG objectivism smelled like a cult despite never once suggesting a supernatural anything and never advancing as an article of faith that Rand's authority was absolute. Simply the fact that everyone in the community shared that belief in her authority and could hardly tolerate someone who didn't produced the exact same dynamics.
[ADOL] Why is ad populum fallacious? Because it's about authority, the presumption is that the majority is an authority and truth or falsehood depends on their authority.[oromagi] Sure that doesn't mean the majority is always wrong or must be mistrusted as source of wisdom.[ADOL] *whoosh* <- the sound of you dodging[oromagi] Dodging what, I wonder? Consensus and conventional wisdom are extremely useful sources of knowledge for the open minded.[ADOL] Why is ad populum a fallacy?[oromagi] I agreed with you and you called it a dodge.
You can agree with me and dodge at the same time, which is what you did. Deflecting to a different context, in this case a related observation.
Argument establishes a conclusion from premises. A failed argument does not establish the conclusion is wrong.
Ad populum is a fallacy because it does not establish the truth. People can be wrong. One person, many people. Ad populum is a listed fallacy because history proves so many times that the majority is not reliable.
You dodged by saying "yea but sometimes they're right", irrelevant to the claimed inference. Ad hom, ad populum are fallacies of authority. You cling to the faintest band in the established pattern of unreliability of authority in the commonly listed fallacies.
Appeal to priesthood should quickly be added to fallacy lists so that people who cannot derive fallacies themselves, like a child rote learning times tables, will stop digging themselves deeper.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
appealing to authority is not fallacious as long as it is understood that it is an inductive argument the strength of which rests entirely on the degree of trust in the authority.a significant backtrack by you.
False.
*whoosh* <- the sound of you dodgingDodging what, I wonder? Consensus and conventional wisdom are extremely useful sources of knowledge for the open minded.
Why is ad populum a fallacy?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
What would someone who speaks only falsehoods say the purpose of this thread is?
Created:
-->
@oromagi
m in the middle of a debate on the Biden corruption scandal.Not on this site, you ain'tThat's debate. It's not pretty but it's debate.That's a good example because that is no kind of debate.
And why should I give that opinion any weight?
At least if you did a real debate, at the end somebody would take the time to explain your headless state to you.
Heh, so that's not a real debate because I'm in a headless state but if I did a "real" debate someone would explain my headless state, but it wouldn't be a real debate due to my headless state...
Your no-true-scotsman fell apart quickly.
Always about authority with you isn't it. It's an epistemological disease that they pound into you.After all, who needs knowledge when you can just churn out opinion, right?The sole means of attaining true knowledge is reason, that is objective observations + logical inference.obv false. There are many types and source of knowledge.
I cannot make an argument proving that argument is the only source of knowledge; that would be circular. Logic (non-contradiction) is an axiom. The premise of a shared singular reality is an axiom.
Anyone who agrees with you that this is obviously false is beyond the realm of reason and reasoning. No further dialogue is fruitful.
If you need knowledge you need logic.seldom true
The faithful have this delusion yes.
Authority and logic do not interface except through the medium of trust.obv false. Logic does not give a shit about authority or trust.
Then all your appeals to authority would be truly dead on arrival.
A dozen informal fallacies are variants of the fallacy of authority based epistemology.We've long established you have little comprehension of fallacies, formal or informal.
I don't share faith in your establishment.
There is no such thing as a fallacy of authority-based epistemology.
.... the irony of you talking about "little comprehension", have you have see an organized religion?
To claim that all knowledge from expertise or testimony is fallacious
Assertions are never fallacious on their own, only purported arguments.
is mentally ill.
If mental illness had an objective measure such as the harm it does society and the individual few would have caused more than faith because faith allows for the maintenance of delusions on a massive scale; a critical component of practical collectivism.
You could not learn the English language without relying on knowledge from expertise and authority.
You could have thought of a better example, a language is a medium of communication. A person needs to trust no authority when he observes that a language is being used as a medium of communication first hand.
A better example would be someone claiming to be from a distant land offering to teach you the language of that land. He could be lying or insane and you would have no direct evidence to reveal it.
Most criminal convictions rely on knowledge from expertise and testimony, are all criminal convictions therefore fallacious?
As I have explained to you three times, appealing to authority is not fallacious as long as it is understood that it is an inductive argument the strength of which rests entirely on the degree of trust in the authority.
The fallacy is believing that it could ever match a deductive argument or that you can, by force of will, inject trust for an authority into others.
If someone does not cede the authority in your argument, your argument is dead; period. The only way to establish that the authority was right is to argue the conclusions directly at which point you don't need an authority any more. If you can't argue the conclusions directly that's it, you should walk away because anything after that is preaching faith.
Criminal convictions based on testimony rest may rest on a jury or judges trust in the witness. If however a sound argument is brought forth that the testimony was false all inductive arguments (including an appeal to authority) fall.
Why is ad populum fallacious? Because it's about authority, the presumption is that the majority is an authority and truth or falsehood depends on their authority.Sure that doesn't mean the majority is always wrong or must be mistrusted as source of wisdom.
*whoosh* <- the sound of you dodging
That's what you perceive when I say something, an authority vying for your faith.No. I don't do faith.
I've seen enough of your statements to know that is wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
[IwantRooseveltagain]To respond, Biden should direct the Treasury Secretary to delay social security checks and Medicare benefits to people living in Florida and Texas because those folks don’t support big government socialism. So let’s fuck with them and laugh and laugh as they suffer in their poverty.
So punish someone for spreading the pain caused by the federal government failing to do it's duty, you suggest that the federal government fail its duty not only in omission but also by commission by betraying an entitlement made by congress....
Isn't it obvious to you that the next step to cutting Floridians and Texans off from federal benefits would be Floridians and Texans stop paying money to the federal government?
What do you think happens next?
Created:
-->
@oromagi
I'm in the middle of a debate on the Biden corruption scandal.Not on this site, you ain't
That's debate. It's not pretty but it's debate.
Always about authority with you isn't it. It's an epistemological disease that they pound into you.After all, who needs knowledge when you can just churn out opinion, right?
The sole means of attaining true knowledge is reason, that is objective observations + logical inference.
If you need knowledge you need logic. Authority and logic do not interface except through the medium of trust.
A dozen informal fallacies are variants of the fallacy of authority based epistemology.
Why is ad populum fallacious? Because it's about authority, the presumption is that the majority is an authority and truth or falsehood depends on their authority.
Why is ad hom fallacious? Because it's about authority, the presumption is that the man is an authority and you want to de-legitimize him:
It's not as if there's some reason to give your opinion any weight.
That's what you perceive when I say something, an authority vying for your faith.
You don't see arguments, you see authorities. You can probably list fallacies but you do not understand why they are fallacies. You think fallacies are a sacred list from an authority, that is why when I first came to this site the first comment you had was to suggest that I had to submit to some notion of burden of proof you found on wikipedia.
All fallacies were derived. The mechanics of burden of proof are derived. From non-contradiction, ad absurdum is the root.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Hi remember me? Yea I was the guy who would double check if the FBI said the sky was blue. The reasons were legion. Here is another:Sure but you're so allergic to facts and reason that you won't even engage in debates.
I'm in the middle of a debate on the Biden corruption scandal.
It's not as if there's some reason to give your opinion any weight.
Always about authority with you isn't it. It's an epistemological disease that they pound into you.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
In the Summer of '21, the FBI's assessment of QAnon potential for violence was:
Hi remember me? Yea I was the guy who would double check if the FBI said the sky was blue. The reasons were legion. Here is another:
Created:
Posted in:
[IwantRooseveltagain] Oh really, by saying she may be carrying explosives?
By implying the mob was what was dangerous, in the context of a woman with a knife being harmless. Harmless woman + mob = dangerous => shoot woman.
[IwantRooseveltagain] You took his statement as your own when you chimed in with this:
Nope
[IwantRooseveltagain] His (TWS) position reflects his belief in white supremacy and his belief that most Black people are on drugs.
Or perhaps that George Floyd was on drugs because that's what the toxicology report said. Simple explanations....
The speculation of concealed deadly weapons hasn't saved any of the BLM witchhunt victims.The BLM protesters weren’t in a highly restricted, highly sensitive (the seat of our government) building, hunting the top leaders of our government.
Witchhunt victims = cops and civilians BLM called racist and unforgivably got unjustly imprisoned using terror campaigns.
Created:
Posted in:
[ADOL, sarcastic mocking] Babbitt was a woman... without a knife..... Oh I get it, woman with knife harmless, woman without knife.... kung fu genius; very dangerous.[IwantRooseveltagain]You are dense. Babbitt was part of a mob of hundreds breaking through an entryway. A mob of hundreds, even a mob that includes women, is very dangerous.
If you were a defense lawyer for the cop who shot Babbitt you could take a slam dunk case for justified killing and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
You just implied that Babbitt was no threat to him, but he needed to send a message to those who were a threat so he choose her as the example execution.
And the cop didn’t know what kinds of weapons or explosives the first person through could have been carrying in the storming of the Capital.
The speculation of concealed deadly weapons hasn't saved any of the BLM witchhunt victims.
I have to believe your judgement (lack of) is clouded by your bigotry: Trump mob good. Black woman, no value.
And you inferred that from what?
But most of the racism is in the leadership at police departments"Is a positive claim. If only that was what you were demanding proof for, then you have the BoP correct.your statement, that came out of your ass is:Racism is in the leadership of police departments not the average cop on the street.What are you basing this statement on?
Nothing, I didn't say that. Public choice said that.
I say the overwhelming majority of cops (99%+) have no active hatred or dislike of any race. They may be racist in the democrat party style of low expectations and general collectivism but they have absolutely no desire to hurt someone on account of their race.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Was that a 27 million dollar mistake, toxicology incompetence or police brutality against blacks?It was fear of a terrorist organization willing to burn down city blocks in the context of prosecutors who won't charge them.The prosecutors were black charging white police for killing George Floyd and winning a 27 million dollar settlement for George Floyd’s family.
The prosecutors were not parties to a civil case. It was the city attorneys who choose to settle.
Created:
Posted in:
[public-choice] But most of the racism is in… the leadership at police departments, not the average cop on the street.[IwantRooseveltagain] This is a positive claim. What proof do you have? It sounds like nonsense.
"But most of the racism is in the leadership at police departments"
Is a positive claim. If only that was what you were demanding proof for, then you have the BoP correct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Was that a 27 million dollar mistake, toxicology incompetence or police brutality against blacks?
It was fear of a terrorist organization willing to burn down city blocks in the context of prosecutors who won't charge them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Fentanyl by itself no. It seems to be the case that the amount of fentanyl found in his system was not enough to be typically considered a lethal dose by itself. It's quite possible that the other drugs in his system in combination with the fentanyl could've been lethal, however there's no definitive line here for drug combination lethality as everyone tolerates drugs differently.
Underlined part is correct, it's a distribution; a fairly standard Gaussian I believe. Italicized part is wrong given the underlined part, it was within a standard deviation of the median lethal blood concentration.
On the other-hand, it's also quite possible that being held in a chokehold for too long results in death.
Yes, but we can rule that out since he was on video and we would have seen a chokehold. As much as some people might want to consider kneeling on the shoulder-blades and upper vertebrae was equivalent it is not. The clavicle, several ribs or possible the entire jaw would have to be shattered before pressure from the back would apply pressure to the windpipe.
Created:
Posted in:
Floyd himself testified that he could not breathe before he was put on the ground.[IwantRooseveltagain]That’s a lie.
Any other takers? Does anyone else believe it's a lie that Floyd said he couldn't breathe while he was sitting in the backseat of the car? I want to get you all on record before I hit you with almost absolute proof.
[IwantRooseveltagain] What a dummy you are Gay Parrott.
What do you have against the gays?
[public-choice] But we also must agree that most cops are not racists. Some are. But most of the racism is in selective community policing, police policy, and in the leadership at police departments, not the average cop on the street.[IwantRooseveltagain] What evidence do you have of this? Cite your sources or are you just talking out of your ass?
This is why the burden of proof is on the positive claim, not the extraordinary claim. If a false claim becomes ordinary, then someone with that belief will demand the proof of a negative.
Can you prove the gods don't demand blood sacrifice to make the sun rise?
Can you prove the cops aren't racist?
[IwantRooseveltagain] One black woman with a knife should not be a threat to a male cop or more likely several cops. If they can’t handle one woman with a knife without using a gun then they shouldn’t be cops.
...... because women are just that weak? Knives just bounce off the male skin when wielded by a woman? What life experience has led you to the point where you can say this. Go look in the mirror and admit you have a problem.
Also if this is the case I think it is the lady was going after another female, not the cop directly. Now I don't know how this works, does the weakness of the victim cancel out the weakness of an attacker? The knife thinks to itself "Ah pathetic woman flesh, I can do damage now!"
but wait.... Babbitt was a woman... without a knife..... Oh I get it, woman with knife harmless, woman without knife.... kung fu genius; very dangerous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I guess everybody's done trying to defend Ashli Babbitt cause they immediately changed the subject to black people.
George Floyd is George Floyd not "black people", try to keep the racism under control please.
The subject is the intolerable double standard. People will not forever live under a social contract that is constantly broken to treat them worse than others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
And this is being alleged by someone who, despite having no relevant medical expertise…Well I have had relevant medical experience, I've wrestled;And I stayed at a Holiday Inn express last night.
Then you should know from personal experience that Holiday Inns do not cause asphyxiation.
You seem to have forgotten the fact that Biden’s actions...
yea yea yea, I'll respond in the right thread when I have hours to pour over your repetitive and tail-eating constructs.
Floyd just happened to take a drug known to kill people by heart attack before dying of a heart attack, just happened to report symptoms of that kind of overdose before being pinned to the ground.Both coroners who examined the body found that there wasn’t enough fentanyl in his system to cause a heart attack, and also pointed out that
Well how about those coroners take the same dose of drugs and I'll have someone kneel on my back for nine minutes and we see who comes out alive?
In court evidence was shown that that dose was well within the lethal range, especially in combination with other drugs and with a heart condition. The fact that prosecution expert witnesses did not know this is how I know there were political motivations.
his breathing stopped slowly which is consistent with asphyxiation and not consistent with a drug overdose.
What a ridiculous statement. The only reason it would matter if the coroners said it, your vaunted opinion writers said it, or you just made it up would be to know just how deep the subversion goes.
Is there any point in going out and finding data? Will you care? Or will you just say "well experts said it so I'm sticking too it"?
Before you said this did you think about the fact that variable drug absorption rate from the stomach, if nothing else, would render that statement nonsensical? What exactly do you think the symptoms of fentanyl overdose are? You can google this, you remember google? You loved it so much when you were finding second hand reports about why someone was fired.
Oh yeah, and you left out the knee to the guys throat for 9 minutes.
Shoulder blades and upper vertebrae actually. I repeat: the throat and windpipe is anterior to the spinal column.
Your arguments are predictable
The obvious so often is.
Created: