General butthurt & pc faggotry etc

[deutscheasphalt]

Sorry I don't wanna dissect this too much but I feel there's a lot mixed up in what you said.

"If you shoot heroin ten times a week there's a real possibility you will become a heroin addict and live in a shoe."
"SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENT!"

Not a great example for potential slippery slope. You could back that claim up with actual data to put a number to that "real" possibility. To me it's just a fancy sounding way of stating the invalidity of an argument whereas many people fail to present the actual flaw and just leave it with saying "SlIpPeRy SlOpE dUuDe".

- almost nothing in the realm of manifest reality and time follows logically from anything else -

that's why we have probabilistic logic

but the argument is still a very pertinent to the question of whether you should be shooting heroin regularly or not.

If you introduce a premise that leads the argument towards heroin addiction being bad within a deontic system sure. But I can just reject that premise and all your normative claims with it.

[Yrjö-Koskinen]

Not a great example for potential slippery slope. You could back that claim up with actual data to put a number to that "real" possibility. To me it's just a fancy sounding way of stating the invalidity of an argument whereas many people fail to present the actual flaw and just leave it with saying "SlIpPeRy SlOpE dUuDe".

I used an exaggerated example to illustrate my claim, but the possibility of data and additional arguments was exactly what I was trying to get across. Lazy and useless slippery slope accusations are most commonly leveled against claims which can be supported/disproved by empirical information, or at least made more or less likely through additional arguments.

Statements such as "Cannabis is a gateway drug", "Accepting censorship of Nazis opens the possibility of censoring anyone opposing the status quo, and will increase censorship", "Advocating child rape may lead to an increase of actual child rape", etc may be true or untrue, but none of them can be discredited on their inherent structure alone. And leveling a charge of "slippery slope" in any real world argument is basically an attempt to pretend that they can. Once again: most political change take place through "slippery slope" processes. That is at least one of a few reasons why American public discourse is so preoccupied with Socialism, White Nationalism and Islamism, rather than any of the political currents that actually run American society.

If it was unclear, the heroin example included an unstated "deontic" context. It would be rather senseless to argue that multiple heroin injections are negative because of their addictive qualities in a discussion with, say, an addict who rejected the premise that heroin addiction is bad at all. Point taken, though.

[APPLE]

Today I have read in various places that Facebook are combatting the prescence of hate on their platform by indiscriminately removing thousands of profiles belonging to skinheads (and seemingly also those who just like skinhead related pages).

This purge has included black ska musicians such as Neville Staples, and the page for Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice.

"Crucified" indeed!

[EID/MAR]

Here's an interesting, clearly written article discussing George Floyd's toxicology report. The writer provides evidence showing   Mr. Floyd was overdosing from Fentanyl and in the throes of  Excited Delirium Syndrome when he was being arrested and detained...

https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/

[FreakAnimalFinland]

Today I have read in various places that Facebook are combatting the prescence of hate on their platform by indiscriminately removing thousands of profiles belonging to skinheads (and seemingly also those who just like skinhead related pages).

This purge has included black ska musicians such as Neville Staples, and the page for Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice.

"Crucified" indeed!

I think a lot of profiles are back now.
Lots of people who were barely posting anything "offensive", or ever voicing opinions of anything. Just somehow linked to skinheads. Temporarily just about anything was (temporarily) suspended.

[Zeno Marx]

Does it matter that he, or anyone for that matter, who dies in that fashion was on drugs or had a syndrome?  Red herrings.  He died from asphyxiation, after nearly 9 minutes of having upwards of 100LBs of pressure on his neck.  It's not as if he tapped out in a time frame that is abnormal.  Can anyone live through that?  I don't ask that rhetorically.  I mean, scientifically, wouldn't most, if not all, humans asphyxiate in that physical situation?  Maybe some free divers.  I think the record for holding their breath is like 22 minutes or something.  We have to ask ourselves as a culture, is being on drugs, or being on drugs with health issues (physiological or mental), a justified death sentence.  As far as I know, neither is.  If you want to have that discussion, then we should have it.  Same for disobeying the police or running from them.  Not on the books as death sentences.  Not to get too sidetracked, but I feel similar about sex offenders.  If you want to give them a life sentence, then let's have that specific discussion.  It's unjust to make them register, making them unable to get jobs, rent homes, etc and give them a passive-aggressive life sentence that makes it impossible for them to live a normal life.  Hand down a sentence.  Serve it.  Now, you're free.  If you want to forever punish them, that's another discussion about things other than sentencing.  Let's have that discussion.  Let's not tag all this bullshit onto issues and avoid the real questions.

[BlackSunAndSteel]

discussion!

[Zeno Marx]

Do you mean the entirety of the U.S. or what? Is the U.S. completely culturally homogeneous?

a national discussion and then through voting.  I hope I didn't imply in some way any expectation of total agreement on a subject.  Some clearly have endorsed being tougher and tougher on crime, which I hope is coming to an end, but even in that direction, I feel we've missed key questions that could still be asked and answered.

*I forgot to answer you about reading the article.  I did.  I didn't read it as cold hard facty as maybe some have.  I found a fair bit of conjecture and loosely worded.  In a nutshell, it didn't convince me of anything, other than a jury is going to have a good time, and I'm grateful I'm not going to be on it.

[BlackSunAndSteel]

Here's an interesting, clearly written article discussing George Floyd's toxicology report. The writer provides evidence showing   Mr. Floyd was overdosing from Fentanyl and in the throes of  Excited Delirium Syndrome when he was being arrested and detained...

https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/

Unfortunate that this article isn't more popular, I'd love to see/hear someone(s) dispute some of what's presented here.

Very suspicious about the claim that Floyd was on a lethal dose of Fentanyl. I haven't found a 100% confident source that claims that a dose of >4.6ng/mL in plasma is lethal (only things like "2mg dose is lethal"), however the study referenced in the article is NOT a valid source either IMO: just because people in that study died from 4.6ng/mL does not make it the official lethal dose nor the reason Floyd died. Also calling 53ng/mL "super lethal" later on sounds quite anti-scientific and it is admitted people have survived similiar doses.
The article's use of this study thus seems like a straw-man to push some political agenda. If something this doubtful is used to make such a huge claim I'm having a hard time believing the author's weren't biased.
"Would Floyd have died from a Fentanyl overdose if the officer didn't kneel on his neck?" <- hard to answer?
"do people die from being kneeled on the neck for 9 minutes?" <- YUP!

[Zeno Marx]

If you're interested in another article and interpretation of the situation, here you go.  They're endless, and I've never heard of this site.  Seemed like a decently fair analysis though.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/working-stiff/86913

[aububs]

Does it matter that he, or anyone for that matter, who dies in that fashion was on drugs or had a syndrome?

Yes

why?

[Theodore]

Does it matter that he, or anyone for that matter, who dies in that fashion was on drugs or had a syndrome?  Red herrings.  He died from asphyxiation, after nearly 9 minutes of having upwards of 100LBs of pressure on his neck.  It's not as if he tapped out in a time frame that is abnormal.  Can anyone live through that?  I don't ask that rhetorically.  I mean, scientifically, wouldn't most, if not all, humans asphyxiate in that physical situation?  Maybe some free divers.  I think the record for holding their breath is like 22 minutes or something.  We have to ask ourselves as a culture, is being on drugs, or being on drugs with health issues (physiological or mental), a justified death sentence.  As far as I know, neither is.  If you want to have that discussion, then we should have it.  Same for disobeying the police or running from them.  Not on the books as death sentences.

Thing is that if you are on drugs, and depending the drug, you may have different reactions than normal. For example, panic ! With unpredictable results for your body. Heart attack, difficulty to breath, whatever. So i guess the question in the court wont be if he died by overdose but if drugs played a role to his death ...

I havent ever been in US but i, from the other side of the planet, know if i resist arrest there or run away, it's very likely to get shot on my back ! And the fact that policemen get away with this tells me that they are allowed to do so. Here for policeman to shoot he has to be shooted first ! So that's the rules, you know them, i know them, wanna risk ? Fine. - Do americans wanna change these police rules / practice ? Try it. I am afraid then you will complain about crime increase and lack of policemen. No sane would like to wait to get shooted first in order to be able to defend himself, in US specificaly where it's very likely the person you deal with he carries a gun.

You are policeman. You arrest mostly black guys. You know it's more likely to be shooted by black than white. That's not stats only, it's their experience, their life. So yes, naturaly they have different treatment for black people, and be more suspicious with them indeed. Before anyone accuses them easily, it's better to think yourself in their shoes for a moment. You are dealing with a giant like Floyd, what you do ? You do what they have trained you for such cases. The knee ! For sure the policeman in this case kept it for very long, wasnt necessary for that long. - But it's obvious he didnt have murder intentions [in front of camera ? Come on !] , he made a mistake [he stubbornly kept doing the knee, like he was sure nothing bad will happen] , under pressure , while he was applying the most suitable / light practice for the case. That mistake, helped by Floyd's drug use or not , led to death . Obviously he is not capable / suitable to serve anymore. I believe he has to do some prison time, cause a life is lost and he was involved, but he doesnt deserve to be treated like cold blood murderer cause he is not !

[aububs]

Entering a high stress situation/altercation and getting a knee on your neck for a while certainly doesn't sound like much of a remedy for that disastrous cocktail either

agreed

[Zeno Marx]

Nearly everyone over the age of 35, maybe 40, has some sort of chronic disease or health-related predisposition of some sort, be it genetic and/or via eating and living like shit.  Then you get into things like grocery store deserts, economics, etc and health.  It's difficult to factor, and they're often entered as red hearrings into court cases.  Like with rape, "Was she drinking?"  It's a tactic that works (no shit, Sherlock), but it's also bullshit...social bullshit, playing with jurors' stiff and feeble minds.

[yosef666]

If you're interested in another article and interpretation of the situation, here you go.  They're endless, and I've never heard of this site.  Seemed like a decently fair analysis though.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/working-stiff/86913

I'm interested in any article that doesn't exist for the sole purpose of sucking any one group's cock, I'm not so rigid about this particular situation but we live in bizarro-world where getting authentic information is becoming increasingly tough, I will give this a look at some point.

Perhaps trusting information from the Unz Review isn't the best idea... it's pure lunatic fringe nuttery. Some recent top articles:

"Is Jeffrey Epstein's Boss Ghislaine Maxwell Helping Mossad Run Pedophile Rings for Prince Andrew and the Ruling Elite"
"Are the Democrats a Political Party or a CIA-Backed Fifth Column?"
"American Pravda: John McCain, Jeffrey Epstein, and Pizzagate"
"Top 3 Reasons to Doubt the Ahmaud "Just a Jogger" Arbery Narrative"