The fact is, you don't know what the cause of death was, and deciding whether it was murder is absolutely not your call.
— counterpunch

Yes I do. The world does. — Kenosha Kid

The world may think they do. You may think you do. But you don't. Calling it a murder is just as absurd as calling it racist.

Watch it and tell me, if it was your job to arrest that man - would you keep him restrained?
— counterpunch

Yes, and once he was restrained, I would not then murder him.[/quote]

Rhetoric. Not even good rhetoric. It's the intellectual equivalent of 'I'm rubber you're glue.' That's what you're doing with a man's death, and four men's careers, you're playing some idiotic virtue signalling game. Please leave me alone.

The fact is, you don't know what the cause of death was — counterpunch

Yes I do. Everyone does. Even you probably do, it just doesn't fit into your black = criminal, white = saintly paradigm.

Please leave me alone. — counterpunch

Sure, just quit it with the alt-right, racist, fascist propaganda and I'll leave you well alone. Or even better just leave and go back to whatever communication platforms are still open to your backward lot. But every time you post this vile shit on this site, I will name it and condemn it until one or both of us are banned. That's the way it gotta be when you bring your fucked up war here.

Yep.

The Two Autopsies Of George Floyd Aren’t As Different As They Seem

The conversation is about @counterpunch refusing to acknowledge reality.

All too common. But given what we might infer from his writing, it's not a surprise that he wants you to back down. What he is claiming is nasty. Thank you, Kenosha, for calling these lies out.

:up:

I don't agree with too much counterpunch has said but I'm pretty sure he isn't alt-right, racist or fascist. He isn't condoning anything by saying George Floyd resisted arrest, anyone can see that he did. As I said, don't agree with his comments but you sound ridiculous. This is not the first time, stop mislabeling people with whatever you think sounds bad just because you don't like what they have to say. If he's really that bad, at least try not to appear worse?

I'm pretty sure he isn't alt-right, racist or fascist. — Judaka

But factually wrong.

Even if this was a scientific journal, any breakthrough requires taking accepted thought and jumping up and down on it until it is no longer recognized as truth.
— synthesis

Via the complete opposite approach to unsubstantiated claim. — Kenosha Kid

Science can be as political as every other institution, e.g., the story of BIG tobacco.

The market is more than just price discovery as anybody who has been cancelled can attest. It's an all encompassing force that players on all sides attempt to manipulate to their own advantage.
— synthesis

As I have said before, the idea that the market is some kind of "force" is unfounded. There is no such thing. It goes back to Smith's "invisible hand", by which he meant: God. — Echarmion

By force, what is meant is that there are innumerable factors that affect markets. If some would like to include, God, why the hell not!?

Regardless of how we wish to define it, I believe we can both agree that the freer the market, the more the price of any commodity reflects the actual value contained (which is most important to having a highly efficient economy).
— synthesis

That depends on how we define "free" as well. So it's one of those statements that's true by definition, but the devil is in the details. — Echarmion

Amen...and Awomen. :)

Science can be as political as every other institution, e.g., the story of BIG tobacco. — synthesis

That's a very good example of how, despite biases introduced by large, powerful vested interests, the truth will out. Despite investment and collusion, we do now have a consensus in both the scientific and political community that smoking causes unnecessary death.

I somehow think that is not the point you wanted to make...

Science can be as political as every other institution, e.g., the story of BIG tobacco.
— synthesis

That's a very good example of how, despite biases introduced by large, powerful vested interests, the truth will out. Despite investment and collusion, we do now have a consensus in both the scientific and political community that smoking causes unnecessary death.

I somehow think that is not the point you wanted to make... — Banno

The truth always comes out...eventually...but generally well after the profits have been taken and legal liabilities have lapsed.

Science is not what most believe it to be (on all levels).

Hm. You appeared to disagree with @Isaac when he asked again for @counterpunch to provide justification...

...repeatedly making specific factual claims without even an attempt at citation or support (as counterpunch is doing here) is just wasting forum space. — Isaac

Counterpunch is factually wrong on several points. Yet you said

If we follow your notion of correct conduct, then where does one draw the line? Can any thought be original or do we need to certify such via a lexicon of acceptable thinking? — synthesis

Science may not be what most people believe it is; but we can make good use of it here, and should do. We can help the truth out.

Hm. You appeared to disagree with Isaac when he asked again for @counterpunch to provide justification...
...repeatedly making specific factual claims without even an attempt at citation or support (as counterpunch is doing here) is just wasting forum space.
— Isaac

Counterpunch is factually wrong on several points. Yet you said — Banno

I never suggested he was factually wrong. I've seen those same statistics many times.

If we follow your notion of correct conduct, then where does one draw the line? Can any thought be original or do we need to certify such via a lexicon of acceptable thinking?
— synthesis

Science may not be what most people believe it is; but we can make good use of it here, and should do. We can help the truth out. — Banno

What I was getting at is that science (similar to religion) can be used to prove just about anything, so when you hear people say, "Listen to the science," you best duck as to miss being buried in grade A BS.

Again, science is a tool and you must work with it within its limitations (which most people do not get). Science has a language of its own, one that is manipulated to orchestrate pretty much whatever needs to take place.

Another example is BIG Pharma, a group of people that should probably spend the next 50 years in prison for the crimes they've committed against the American people.

The truth only needs to be left alone (like everybody and everything else).

I never suggested he was factually wrong. — synthesis

Oh, I didn't mean to suggest you did: it was I, following @Kenosha Kid.

science (similar to religion) can be used to prove just about anything, — synthesis

That's not what I have found. Rather folk twist science to fit their own needs, as this:

The raw data is very simple and the explanation is obvious. Black people commit more violent crime. Violent offenders are more likely to get shot. — counterpunch

Wilfully ignoring the detail.

Science is a process, not a doctrine. That does not mean that it is not factual. Scientific evidence may be used in support of untruths, but it does not prove them.

The odd thing about science, on which you and I will agree, is that despite this, it is quite useful.

Warning: this is a leftist forum and you will be attacked unceasingly if you disagree with them.

Edit: correction, the forum is dominated by leftists. — Brett

You say that like it was a bad thing...?




(Yes, I know Bret has joined the ranks of the Dear Departed. Still counts.)

There's a possible explanation in Conservative syndrome... see Conservatism and cognitive ability

Of course, it doesn’t mean all conservatives are stupid, and we have some few capable conservative commentators amongst our members. But a bias towards the left would be expected in a forum such as this, and is indicative of the quality of the contributors... in the main.

Science is a process, not a doctrine. That does not mean that it is not factual. Scientific evidence may be used in support of untruths, but it does not prove them.

The odd thing about science, on which you and I will agree, is that despite this, it is quite useful. — Banno

I'll let counterpunch fight his own battles.

I am professionally trained in science and agree vis a vis its utility, but it has SERIOUS limitations which the lay public fails to comprehend.

Policy should never be made using only science. There are many more things of greater importance as science can only point you in the right direction (perhaps). Often, it's the opposite case where science is waaaay off the mark (and in the long run, this is ALWAYS the case).

Without specifics, nothing has been said here.

Without specifics, nothing has ben said here. — Banno

If I can change the subject...being new to this forum and interested in what's taking place in the country, I am would be interested in what the current definition of "left" is. Can you help me out here?

Which country?

Over here, Labour Party - Left. Liberal Party - Right. The Liberals are a centre, liberal economic party that is distorted by a small number of very conservative idiot politicians and a media run for corporate interests. Labour is a traditional socialist party with the usual personality disorder.

Liberals are a centre, liberal economic party that is distorted by a small number of very conservative idiot politicians — Banno

This seems very generous.

Over here, Labour Party - Left. Liberal Party - Right. The Liberals are a centre, liberal economic party that is distorted by a small number of very conservative idiot politicians and a media run for corporate interests. Labour is a traditional socialist party with the usual personality disorder. — Banno

I live in the People's Republic of California. It seems as if the "left" has taken the extremist path (which never works out very well) and I am wondering why.

Perhaps I'm in a good mood.

OR that's what I want them to be.

the "left" has taken the extremist path — synthesis

What path is that?

What path is that? — Banno

Psycho-path

Truth is a pathless land?

Dunno tbh

What path is that? — Banno

For example, the Democrat party in the U.S. essentially supporting BLM's agenda.

For example, the Democrat party in the U.S. essentially supporting BLM's agenda. — synthesis

The agenda to reduce the amount that black people get needlessly murdered by police?

What's BLM's agenda?

What's BLM's agenda? — Banno

According to their website (which was changed after getting some bad press), they were anti-nuclear family, a position that might be called a bit extreme. The three founders were Marxist-trained (whatever that means), another position that would be considered extreme in the U.S. Passively advocating violence, etc.

:rofl:

According to their website (which was changed after getting some bad press), they were anti-nuclear family, — synthesis

I can't see anything about this - Link? In what way were they anti - do they want to ban them or what?

Marxist-trained - they went to University? If you never encountered Marx, you're not educated; but what did they do, go to a reeducation camp or something?

And what aspects of their agenda have the Democrats adopted, that are objectionable?