(06-02-2020 04:16 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 01:03 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 12:47 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:

Quote:I am glad you inately know so many things without a smattering of facts... Quite the fing gift. Can you give me some stock tips?

Yes. You should invest in Plaquenil. It definitely cures coronavirus.

I'll take that as a 'no you wont give me some stock tips from that fountain of prescience and omniscience'.

Quote:

Quote:And more humorously you imply later that you couldnt imagine *any* facts that that might occur that would change your mind.

Did I miss anything from those first two or three posts that are germane at this point? I dont think so.

I'm still learning here, Tanq. It seems that responding "LOLOLOL" is completely offensive and could be referred to as "berating".

Funny, the LOL to a statement that one would prefer facts instead of kneejerk crap does seem berating of the open-mindedness that facts bring.

If you saw a cop shoot George Floyd in the face would it be a knee-jerk reaction to say “That cop killed George Floyd!”?

What if a witness were to say, “Let’s not rush to judgement here. Let’s wait until we have the final autopsy report before we assign blame to that police officer.” Would you describe that witness as being a) open-minded or b) ridiculous?

This is basically how I feel about our silly discussion.

And that sums it up perfectly. You assume that a .9mm slug to the head is an equivalent force or destruction than a kneeling on someone.

There is really no doubt what a 9mm slug will do the head.

There actually is an amount of uncertainty to the effects of what that compression will do. But like the ideologue trooper you are, you simply ignore those shortcomings and differences and press on. Atta boy there, chucky boy.

You, in rush to be a 'it must be what social justice demands', simply shrug off any and all uncertainty as to your lordly 'it must be'.

The problem is your example is simply fing rather idiotic and off point. With a healthy dose of rhetorical guaze to it.

A better example, had you known what the fk you were talking about as opposed to just palavering deep in the woods of what you apparently dont know much about, would be a cop shooting someone in the leg. There, there is somewhat of a question of whether that would be fatal or not.

Naw, you just try to equate it to a bullet to the head. Which tells me you really dont have a fing clue about what you are squawking about. Which I guess is another point I should remember.

So your "better" analogy is what if a cop shot somebody in the leg and the question is "Would that be fatal or not?".

The answer to the question of "Will a bullet to the leg be fatal?" is probably: "Hard to say for sure, but probably not".

Upon viewing the video of George Floyd you are asked, "Did that cop kill George Floyd?". Based on your analogy your answer would be along the lines of "Hard to say for sure, but probably not".

Your analogy, to my eye, seems "simply fing idiotic and off point".

You could also use the analogy of a cop shooting him in the belly and he's dead five minutes later. Did the cop kill him? I'm sure you could find an attorney to make the argument that he was freaking out when he was detained and he probably was having a heart attack prior to being shot.