Total posts: 5,890
-->
@Tarik
But I asked for a definition, which you’ve failed to elaborate on.
Now you are just straight up lying.
the mere fact that morality could be taught is exactly why it’s an objective fact, you can’t teach a subjective opinion
Q1: Is language objective or subjective?
Q2: Can languages be taught?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Everyone recognizes the FBI and DOJ are out of control. Well, at least in Texas.
It is perhaps Trump’s greatest accomplishment that he named to warp the minds of half the country into thinking the way to evaluate whether something is political is not to look at the case being brought, but to look at who it’s being brought against.
“I’m the victim of political persecution” is a tired old tactic fascists have been using for decades.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Have you somehow failed to learn that DeSantis did twice what the Biden Administration has been doing since Biden took office?
Provide one example where the Biden administration lured migrants onto a plane with false promises so that he could unexpectedly dump them in a red state while notifying no one except a left wing news network in order to make a political point. I’ll wait.
The only difference is that when DeSantis put illegals on a plane…
These were migrants waiting their asylum trials. They are in the US legally. You might want to think before you accuse someone else of being misinformed.
Here's the bottom line: Every time you have an opinion on any issue, how you talk about the underlying issue betrays the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Blah blah blah. Let me know when you have something to contribute to the conversation. Until then feel free to go troll somewhere else.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Ruling in favor of the DoJ surfing through attorney-client privilege documents. Welcome to the new America
Trump has provided no reason whatsoever to believe anything in that pile is subject to attorney client privilege, and so far the special master he hand picked and the 11th circuit - half of the judges he appointed - unanimously agree.
This is a stall tactic plain and simple. Any idiot can see that.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Is that why you are finding it difficult to apply the two to anything?
This is why for the most post I ignore your posts. Let me know when you have something useful to say.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
True, but like I said that’s not the point of contention here.
That’s what you made this conversation about. I gave you a detailed breakdown of my position on morality. Your response to all of that was to question objectivity/subjectivity itself.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
That’s not the point of contention here, it’s your appliance to morality.
You have to understand what objectivity and subjectivity is before you can apply it to anything.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
Whereas you believe Trump started the controversy, I believe biased reporting and quote mining started it, and references to such have continued ever since.
What you are calling quote mining is just the manifestation of the greater issue - in March of 2017 we saw one of the most overt and disgusting displays of racism and bigotry we’ve seen in decades culminating in the death of a counter protestor. And how did the President of the United States react to this? By blaming “both sides”.
Let me re-quote Trump’s words which you seem to think makes your point…
“You had a group on one side that was bad,” Trump said. “And you had a group on the other side that was also very violent.” He added, “I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups, but not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch.”
Why is it that Trump cannot just condemn racism and white supremacy, why is it that he always has to add to his condemnation by also condemning the “other side” from those he supposedly condemns or by going out of his way to defend the theoretical people who are not really white supremacist’s but just innocent bystanders who got caught up in it?
Answer: Because it’s not really a condemnation. It’s lip service. If you watched the news conference the following day, all of Trump’s emotion was directed at “antifa and the alt left”. He demonstrated very clearly that this is what he was really upset about. I don’t have numbers to quote for you, but I would challenge you to try the following experiment; read the transcript of that news conference, then count how many words Trump directed towards attacking the “Neo nazis” and compare that to how many words he directed towards attacking the people protesting them. Spoiler alert, it won’t even be close.
Condemning racism is (or at least used to be) the easiest task in politics.
Fact checking an accusation is… a fallacious distraction from addressing that accusation?
No, not fact checking “an accusation”, it’s about cherry picking the accusation you wish to fact check on the grounds that it technically fails while ignoring the greater issue.
This is like me pointing to a room with 100 people in it and saying everyone here is under age, then some idiot comes along and says “dUh, not everyone” because one person in the room just turned 18 yesterday.
The controversy around Trump is not that he has never before uttered the words “I condemn white supremacy”. Anyone can say that. It’s that he’s never conveyed that he condemns it and in fact has conveyed the exact opposite time and time again. If you want evidence of that all you have to do is go to any white supremacist event and take note of their attitude towards him.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Ken Paxton, the Trump-backed attorney general, was indicted and arrested on criminal securities-fraud charges that are still pending. He has faced calls for his resignation after several of his top aides claimed he abused his office by helping a wealthy donor. And he has been serving as the state’s top lawyer while under threat of a possible new indictment, as the F.B.I. investigates the abuse-of-office and bribery accusations.And he’s still going to win.
Which is quite an indictment of the people who continue to support him. Yourself included apparently.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Alleged. Until the trier of fact says guilty, he is innocent, and the allegations are just that, alleged.
As far as the jurors in a court of law are concerned, of course.
This isn’t court of law. Any reasonable person can see clearly that this man has spent his life running a fraudulent business. Whether that matters to you is a different question.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
Here’s something ya don’t hear everyday… or ever:“Trump Has Condemned White Supremacists”But don’t let facts get in the way of a highly effective narrative (well, except for all the POC who voted for Trump)…
Condemnation isn’t about reading words off a piece of paper that someone else wrote in response to controversy you started. It’s about how you conduct yourself and what you display to those who follow you.
The fact check is a red herring, of course Trump has met the technical definition of issuing a condemnation, that doesn’t mean anything to anyone except people like yourself trying to gaslight others.
If you want to know what Trump has done to send the message that he condemns White supremacy, just ask the white suprematist who coincidentally vote for him in droves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It won’t for reasons I already explained. You could at least pretend you are reading and absorbing the arguments you are responding to.
Feel free to go troll somewhere else.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Is there a point you’re trying to make?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Not to be that guy but if this conversation really is pre grade school then why are you having such a hard time demonstrating? Just asking 🤷🏾♂️
Everyone else reading this conversation understands the difference between objective and subjective. 3RU7AL even had to use the ‘my left is not your left’ example and you still don’t get it. This isn’t a me problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Nice to know that you think migrants are the equivalent of excrement lol. If this is the comparison we’re making…
It’s not a comparison we’re making. The whole point went over your head.
Taking a shit on your neighbors lawn is analogous because it’s an example of an action that is not intended to solve any problem, but is instead nothing more than an attempt to stick it to your neighbor.
There is absolutely nothing about this advancing the best interests of the people who elected him, unless the people who elected him did so because it was in their minds, in their best interest to have a governor who owns the libs. Hence the point of this thread.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
When you are ready to have a post grade school conversation let me know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Far from an empty gesture it helped to shift policy by winning votes
Exactly.
What Desantis did was the political equivalence of taking a shit on your neighbors lawn. The fact that you and every republican here saw that and thought “that’s why that guy should be president” is the entire point of this thread.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
No major banks will do business with Trump because he is notorious for not paying people back, and that was before the campaign. Not to mention he currently owes $1.3 billion in loans.
His crimes also include under inflating his assets to cheat on his taxes.
Not that reality matters.
Created:
Posted in:
Myself and many others on this site have been saying for quite some time that the Republican Party is at its core not about policy but about sticking it to the other side. Ron Desantis’s recent stunt shipping migrants to Martha’s Vineyard is a perfect illustration of this.
So if republicans were about policy, what would this have looked like? Well, the debate here is over the southern border and whether we as a country are doing enough to stop the flow of illegals/migrants into our country.
It is common sense that if you want to get people to agree with your position you have to start by getting them to agree that the problem you are proposing solutions for is itself a legitimate issue.
So what the governors could have very easily done was reach out to blue states across the country and tell them they are overflowing with migrants and need help relocating them. This would have created a win win; if blue states say yes and take the migrants, they red state governors get to declare victory to their voters by showing how they were able to shift the excess migrants elsewhere. If blue states said no, they get to use that to win the national debate by showing that even blue states are saying we cannot handle this influx and thus making the irrefutable case that we need to tighten up the border.
But they’re not about policy, so what did they do instead?
Lured a bunch of migrants into a plane and then dumped them in another state telling no one… Except Fox News.
Anyone with a grade school level of psychology knows what happens next… when you piss off your opposition all you’re going to do is give them more reason to oppose you.
But when all you care about is owning the other side, this strategy makes more sense.
They’re not about policy.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Political witch hunt. That is all this BS is.It is a waste of time, manpower and taxpayer money.
The lawsuit goes into great detail to list Trump’s crimes, including the fact that he listed one of his penthouse apartment’s at 33,000 square feet to dramatically over inflate its value when it was closer to 11,000 square feet. His personal attorney for 10 years and man at the center of much of these crimes has gone on the record to explain in detail Trump’s involvement in them and how he runs his organizations generally.
But as usual, with no thought whatsoever, Trump cultists just hand waive it all away by calling it a political witch-hunt. Why am I not surprised?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Well you're asserting that claim, you have not done anything to support it.
You made that claim yourself when you cited your background in wrestling as the extent of your medical expertise.
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.
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.
In other words, if there was something about this you don’t understand you would know you don’t understand it.
This is the same mistake made by every do-it-yourselfer who royally fucks up a task they decided to take on themselves.
Did you soak up anything I pointed to with regards to the Rowbothom example? I would really love to hear you explain what the lesson should be from that.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
In subjectivity there is no right or wrong answer because the answer is subject to the individual.This sentence alone is exactly why your position makes no sense, is there an answer or not?
Are you trolling? Because I am having a very hard time taking you seriously at this point.
When I say there is no right or wrong answer, I’m talking about an absolute right or wrong, as in right or wrong regardless of what one thinks about it.
When I say the answer is subject to the individual that means a given answer is right or wrong in the opinion of the individual.
“The earth is round” is right regardless of what one thinks about it.
“Ice cream is delicious” is right for some, for others it is not.
The former is therefore objective, while the latter is subjective.
We learned this in third grade.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
My retort to that was that’s the literal definition of nihilism because they too don’t believe in right or wrong answers, now you’re saying peoples opinions have no bearing on objectivity which I agree but that wasn’t the original narrative, the narrative was what nihilism was not whether or not it was true.
My position has always been that objectivity was not subject to anyone’s opinions. It never changed and if you thought it was ever anything else that’s because you were making it up.
Your argument on nihilism is just one big false equivocation. Essentially, if the definition of nihilism includes no right or wrong answer, and the definition of subjective includes no right or wrong answer, then they are both the same.
This is absurdly false and I’ve already explained why multiple times.
Nihilists don’t believe in right or wrong because morality has no meaning to them. In other words, they don’t care.
In subjectivity there is no right or wrong answer because the answer is subject to the individual.
If you can’t tell the difference between these two things you have serious issues. This is like claiming the guy who pushed the old lady to the ground for fun and the guy who pushed the old lady to the ground to move her out of the way of an oncoming bus are the same because they both pushed an old lady to the ground.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
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. I’m not the one contradicting experts, I’m merely pointing out that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
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.
I also emphasized “one” to point out that the only individual the defense could find to argue your side would not even go as far as you have, again further demonstrating the silliness of your position.
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.
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 should make up your mind on google, when it comes to Ukraine it's infallible;
This is a blatant strawman and you 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.
This is an entirely different thing from determining whether the international community wanted Victor Shokin fired.
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.
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. There’s nothing rational about that, in fact it’s an absurdly irrational position when applied to a field of study that’s been built on generations of discovery.
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.
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. But you have no interest in that. 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. You don’t really care about this, so digging through studies to show you you’re wrong is pointless. They weren’t what convinced you, so they’re not going to change your mind.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
I reject your premise “morality is objective” as a false statement. That’s about logic, not meaning.Oh the contrary, it’s about both because there’s nothing meaningful about false statements, therefore there meaningless.
Is the truth value of 2+2=4 dependent on whether one considers the statement to have meaning? Yes or no?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Why do you put emphasis on this “meaningless” point anyway since when does anybody reject anything they find meaningful?
I put emphasis on the meaningless point because that’s literally what a nihilist is which you injected into this conversation despite its irrelevance, so I’m explaining what it is about nihilism that makes it irrelevant.
You are applying a double meaning to the word “reject” and fallaciously using it interchangeably.
I reject your premise “morality is objective” as a false statement. That’s about logic, not meaning.
The concept of meaning has no place in this conversation. If you are claiming something is objective then it must also be, in theory, objectively verifiable. 2+2=4 is objectively verifiable; I can put two marbles on a table, put two more marbles next to them, then count them to show that we now have four marbles. Whether that experiment has any meaning to you is a completely different conversation.
Objectively verify that it is wrong to steal. Show me what facts are attached to that statement.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
To claim something is subjective is to claim that there is no right or wrong answer.In the words of you
What do you think subjective means? Seriously, define it. Don’t Google and quote a dictionary definition. Explain what, in your mind, the word means.
Thank you, the management.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Except nihilists have a thinking mind and they still reject it, how do you explain that?
A thinking mind is required in order to recognize what morality is and determine whether it has any meaning.
Nihilists use their thinking minds to determine it has no meaning to them.
What about that do you think needs explaining?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Nothing I’ve said remotely resembles that. If you have to flat out lie in order to keep pretending your position is supported with facts and logic, maybe you should just change your position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I’m just going to leave this here.
“Fentanyl, and other opioids, cause the exact opposite effect. Opioids act on the brainstem, the part of the brain that controls breathing, to suppress breathing. Not only do opioids suppress breathing, opioids also suppress respiratory drive; they take away even the desire to breathe. We commonly prescribe opioids to help people who are dying or suffering from serious respiratory problems to stop them from feeling “air hunger.” In other words, opioids like fentanyl actually prevent people from knowing they can’t breathe and from feeling like they can’t breathe.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
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 let’s recap;
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.
And not only did the defense fail to go after these experts for perjury, which would easily get their client out of jail, but the one expert witness they were able to recruit to sell their narrative could do no better than to argue; ‘meh, who knows?’
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.
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.
This is why “conspiracy theorist” is a derogatory term.
Since you enjoy googling so much, try keying in Rowbothom.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Well in order for morality to be objective it must have MEANING right?
No.
If morality is objective, then that means any given action is or is not moral regardless of what anyone thinks about it.
Meaning is necessarily the product of a thinking mind.
These are two logically contradictory ideas.
Nonetheless a definition is what I asked for, so you can keep your “phrase” or define that too while you’re at it.
I’ve already provided you a definition. What is so difficult about this?
Morality is a system by which we judge actions as right or wrong.
We judge those actions against a core standard (aka a moral standard).
That standard is chosen by the individual doing the judging, making any such determination necessarily subjective.
The challenge and goal is therefore to agree on a set of core standards. Those standards reflect our values. Because we have most of the same basic aspirations (self preservation, liberty, prosperity, etc.) core values are generally not that hard to agree upon, which is what allows us to live together, work together, and prosper together as a society.
This is really basic stuff. If you still do not understand what I’m telling you then that is by choice.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
More specifically we’re talking about morality a notion (which I’ve already stated) nihilists reject.
They reject it on completely different grounds so this point is irrelevant. Once again, nihilists reject morality as meaningless. We’re talking about whether morality is objective. These are not the same conversation. At all.
Again, what is a moral standard? You can’t include the word itself in the definition, how helpful would that be?
My god dude. I’ve already explained this. Multiple times. In depth.
Moral standard is a phrase, not a definition.
It is the thing you are measuring everything else against in order to determine whether something is moral.
The word “moral” in “moral standard” is not a description of the standard, it’s telling you what the standard applies to. It means “standard for morality”.
It’s just a phrase.
What is so difficult about this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Again with the reductionist broad partisan statements.
This conversation is about broad partisanship. The one sentence that started this off was clearly not intended as an in depth analysis of every individual American.
I never said they are going to be breaking into homes stealing guns.
I didn’t say you did. But that is the core belief that has right wingers all over the country running to the voting booth. And it’s not just the uneducated sideline observers, you hear this in right wing punditry all the time. It is normally couched in slippery slope fallacies in an attempt to sound more intellectual, but is very clearly the major selling point on this issue.
With that said, of all the items you listed gun control is in my opinion the most valid, as there are real world proposals that could become law which many on the right oppose. But I doubt you can argue that banning extended magazines or expanding background checks is really what is driving opposition to democratic policies on this.
35% of Democrats support the government being able to prevent people from saying things "offensive to minorities". Democrats are therefore much more likely to support government banning and punishment of speech.
What is that supposed to prove? You’re talking about an issue that 60% of democrats oppose and is blatantly unconstitutional.
This is not a real world issue anyone on the left is actually talking about. It’s another right wing bogeyman.
Saying that trans women aren't women isn't racist, violent, or dangerously false. Yet that'll get you censored real quick.
I would tell you to show me examples of people who were band for saying only that, but that misses the point. Even if your premise is fully accurate… what is the solution driving right wing voters to the voting booth here? What will they do, pass laws telling tech companies that they’re not allowed to create and enforce their own terms of service? How is that not a violation of their sacred freedom of speech?
Uh-huh, just trying to bankrupt Christian bakers with lawsuits for not supporting lifestyles contrary to their beliefs.
Ah, so they want the freedom to discriminate. Ok, I suppose that’s a legitimate issue that affects them.
So? Maybe Republicans aren't as selfish as you and support policies despite not directly benefiting from them.
The premise you are refuting is that broadly, right wing voters do not primarily vote based on what impacts them.
How about you bless me with your unbiased, all knowing wisdom
“WHEREAS, The RNC enthusiastically supports President Trump and continues to reject the policy positions of the Obama-Biden Administration, as well as those espoused by the Democratic National Committee today; therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the Republican Party has and will continue to enthusiastically support the President’s America-first agenda;
RESOLVED, That the 2020 Republican National Convention will adjourn without adopting a new platform until the 2024 Republican National Convention”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm sorry, but yelling and screaming that you cant breathe isn't a "rational response." That's a man's body instinctively telling everyone he is dying before he was put on the ground.
Right. So damn the toxicologists, the pulmonologists, doctors, etc. You saw with your own eyes that he said he couldn’t breath, so you know what caused his death.
Ok Rowbotham.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Nihilists literally reject the notion of morality meaning they also reject the notion of right and wrong which is what morality is about, that’s not applicable to everything.
Nihilism is about rejecting various ideas as meaningless. We’re talking about truth and logic. These are not the same thing.
Your begging the question here, how do you adequately define those judgements we’re making?
In accordance with our moral standards. There’s nothing about this begging the question. You begin with a moral standard, you then judge actions against those standards. If they align with them then they are moral. If they conflict with them then they are immoral.
The standards are always the starting point. And the standards are chosen, subjectively, by the individual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Does gun control not affect GOP voters? Free speech? Social media censorship? Religious rights? Taxes?
These are all bogeyman items that either have little to nothing to do with real world government policy or aren’t under actual threat.
No one is coming to take your guns.
Right wingers do not believe in free speech. They believe in the freedom to force others to give them a platform.
Social media censorship is just another bullshit talking point. Stop saying racist violent and dangerously false things and you won’t get “censored”.
No one is trying to take your religious freedom.
The vast majority of right wing voters do not make enough money to be impacted by the tax increases the left is proposing.
The party offended by damn near everything votes on what affects them and not what offends them?
Of the two major parties, remind me which one has an actual policy platform?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
@TWS1405
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 saidThis 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.
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.
Let’s recap what we know/understand:
When fentanyl enters the human body, the body will break it down into nor fentanyl.
Overdoses typically happen before or very early on in this process, so the less nor fentanyl in one’s system the more indicative it is of an overdose.
Conversely, the more nor fentanyl in one’s system the further along their body has gone in breaking it down, which is less indicative of an overdose.
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.
Q2: How much fentanyl is enough to be considered lethal?
Your source specifically states that 7ng/ml is lethal with the use of poly substances.
“While it’s true Mr. Floyd had small amounts of methamphetamine and THC, the primary psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, in his blood — 19 and 2.9 nanograms per milliliter, respectively — those numbers strongly suggest he hadn’t used them in at least several hours, maybe a day.
Also, Mr. Floyd’s methamphetamine levels were far below those I have found, in my laboratory research on dozens of participants, necessary to induce significantly elevated cardiovascular activity: greater than 25 nanograms per milliliter. The amount of methamphetamine (and THC) found in Mr. Floyd’s blood was too low for it to have had any meaningful effect on him…
So, what does 11 nanograms of fentanyl tell us about Mr. Floyd’s mental and physical state moments before his death? Not much, because the same amount of fentanyl that produces pleasure in a tolerant user can result in an overdose in an infrequent user. That’s why, together with the toxicology report, we have to interpret Mr. Floyd’s behavior shortly before he was killed, which is a barometer of a person’s impairment.
We saw that he was emotionally appropriate and behaving rationally, considering the circumstances. Minutes before his encounter with police, he purchased an item from a deli and was about to leave when officers asked him to get out of his car. Together, these observations suggest he had developed some level of tolerance to fentanyl-related effects and show how unlikely it is that drugs played a role in his death. People on the verge of dying from an opioid overdose are inactive and look visibly drowsy. He was neither.”
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?…
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Trump’s handling of Covid and living in denial got him voted out.
Among everything else. COVID was just the point where many could no longer kid themselves into thinking he was a normal human being.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
most democrats realize that most of what impacts the economy is beyond the president’s control,Is this why they don't care when an administration prints 20 trillion dollars? Because they were taught that it would not affect the economy? It all makes sense now.
Do you know what the word “most” means?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Okay, but that doesn’t apply to morality and even if I agreed this argument is apropos with nihilism not whatever position you’ve been taking.
It has nothing to do with nihilism, and applies to morality just like it applies to anything else.
It’s logic 101. To assert something is X, you need to first define X. Morality can’t be defined objectively because it is a human construct. And just like anything else, it is only once you define X that you can objectively determine whether and how something else compares to it.
I don’t think YOU even know what you mean.
You can keep your projections to yourself.
Created:
-->
@Shila
What is an objective right?
Why are you asking me? You’re the one who asserted it…
Post 265
And it can turn out to be moral because it also aligns with an objective right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
Floyd died of a LETHAL OVERDOSE of fentanyl
Q1: How much fentanyl was in his system?
Q2: How much fentanyl is enough to be considered lethal?
Q3: Do you have any medical expertise in this field, and if not, what is your source for this claim?
Q4: The toxicologist at the Chovin trial stated: “Overdose victims who die rarely have norfentanyl in their blood, since death often occurs before the body can break the drug down”. How does your position take this into account?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The entire 2020 election was built on Orangemanbad offense.If you ask any Democrat in 2022 how the Economy has impacted them, they will lie and say it is fine just so they don't get labeled as one of those "magas"
Trump wasn’t voted out because he offended people, he was voted out because he was a childish self serving incompetent buffoon who’s biggest accomplishment was to turn half the country into reality denying conspiracy theorist nut jobs.
Unlike the MAGA crowd, most democrats realize that most of what impacts the economy is beyond the president’s control, and even if we were to say that presidents have a great deal of control over the economy then all Trump did was keep Obama’s economy going.
Created:
-->
@Shila
There’s no such thing as an objective right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
The opposite speaks for itself, if a black man has views that are not of the Liberal agenda, the left excommunicates them WORSE than anyone on the MAGA side
Nonsense. At best, you can say they are excommunicated just as bad, but I would still disagree with that.
The context here is important though, as you are implying the left is “more wrong”.
Politics for black people is a matter of real life, as the black community suffers far worse than any other community in every measurable indicator of societal health. Whatever your attitude towards the cause, the effect is an objective fact. So when one “defects”, there is a real world implication to that.
Politics for the MAGA crowd is all about owning the libs in a sick form of team sport. That’s why flying human beings across the country and dropping them off in liberal areas despite the exorbitant costs to this crowd is a brilliant move and a reason to go out and vote for those behind it.
One of Bill Maher’s guests I think last week put it best when he pointed out that the left votes based on what impacts them, the right votes on what offends them. I’ve never heard the stark difference between the two sides made so succinctly.
Created:
-->
@Shila
If one’s belief as to whether an action is moral is subjective, then it cannot by definition “turn out to be moral”.
For it to turn out to be moral implies that there is an objective right or wrong answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
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.
Biden just happened to take actions that resulted in his son's promises coming true out of all the countries in the world, out of all the prosecutors in the country, out of all the companies that prosecutor could seize the assets of.
You seem to have forgotten the fact that Biden’s actions were in alignment with US policy, the EU, the IMF, and much of Ukraine. All of the available evidence tells us this. None of it conflicts.
You also ignore the fact that there was no indication that Burisma saw a Shokin as the threat to them they needed to worry about or thought getting rid of him would have solved anything. Ramshutu has been pointing this out to you for days as well.
So you do what you always do, cherry pick the parts of the story that support your narrative, then pretend that everything which conflicts with it is nothing more than the product of politically motivated actors duping the world into believing their ruse. It’s a tired old game.
And here’s another example…
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 his breathing stopped slowly which is consistent with asphyxiation and not consistent with a drug overdose.
Oh yeah, and you left out the knee to the guys throat for 9 minutes.
Your arguments are predictable, and it’s clear that reality is not your concern.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Yea I watched the whole trial and read all the documents already. I'm afraid science, common experience, and the full video record outweigh politically motivated opinions regardless of the source
So now the coroner performing an autopsy and issuing his findings as to the cause of death… is a politically motivated opinion.
And this is being alleged by someone who, despite having no relevant medical expertise, has “read all of the documents” and “watched the whole trial” to arrive at his own conclusion as to the cause of death.
But it’s the coroner who’s politically motivated here.
This reminds me very much of arguing with 9/11 truthers who, despite having no expertise in physics or structural engineering, would spend untold hours reading the National Institute of Science and Technology’s report and refuting it by explaining how the mechanics of building collapses don’t work the way they claimed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
we have footage of Floyd suffocating from his own drugs for over 9 minutes.
I’ve never witnessed someone suffocating from their own drugs so I didn’t know what that looks like. Imagine my surprise to learn that the visual of this occurrence includes a police officers knee to the throat.
you put more faith in AP opinion than the order of events limiting the possible chain of causality.
The projection is astounding. Imagine being so reliant on being told what to believe by others that one cannot recognize the logical connection between someone dying of suffocation, and that same person having a knee to their throat for 9 minutes at the time of their death.
And then there’s this…
Created: