The Derek Chauvin Trial

@oralloy,

Well, the behaviours that show you a racist are the non-existant behaviours - the behaviours you do for white people...but don't do for black people. No one can link a missing behaviour. Not me. Not you.

I've pointed out the lack. It's factual.

And you continue in this conversation to prove it is factual.

-------------------

Contrary, your allegation against me isn't based on missing behaviours. You base it on conclusions...but never argue with any of the principle based assessments I provide (which never rely on race). Often you just outright ignore them (with maybe a brushed over 'it's irrelevent')

...just like you continue to ignore the knowledge/criteria assessments regarding Chauvins knowledge of the risks of Floyd's death...

Ie. you never provide any argument or justification for your accusations, and ignore large swathes of contributing factors / issues / context / surrounds etc

Projecting much?

1 Reply

@vikorr,

You are the only person in this exchange who has shown himself to be a racist.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Breathing is necessary to life - everyone knows this - and if you stop a persons breathing long enough, you kill them:
- he was told by Floyd that he couldn't breathe around 20 times, so he can't say he didn't know he was restricting his breathing
- he was told by many pedestrians that Floyd couldn't breathe, so he can't say he didn't know
Chauvin ignored all of these protests. Ignoring protests is not the same as not knowing - it is a decision to ignore what is happening

This part is context only - as we both agree that in an situation absent any other knowledge or factors 'he might not have believed them'...

And I said the below were further considerations to whether or not he should have believed them...and pointed out you ignored these...which you continue to do...

Quote:

I've repeatedly addressed them in my past few posts.

Please quote where you've provided reasoning against any of:

Quote:

- One of the rookies asked if they should roll him on his side....well after Floyd stopped resisting. The rookie was obviously concerned regarding Floyds ability to breathe. Chauvin ignored this.
- as a training officer he must know which positions a person can breathe easiest in. Prone is not it. Chauvin ignored this.
- Even in basic first aid you learn about this - it is on your side. Presuming police are trained in first aid - Chauvin ignored this.
Chauvin ignoring the above is not him 'not knowing he might kill him'. It is him ignoring the risk that he could kill him.

- anyone who thinks for just a moment will know that if you compress the chest, you restrict persons ability to breathe. Chauvin chose not to think about this.
- the police are taught about positional asphyxiation (seeing so many people have died from it), and Chauvin acted contrary to safe practice
- Floyd went from resisting, to normal resting rigidity, to limp...a limp body associated with uncounsciousness.
- even then Chauvin his limp unconsciousness, and kept his knee on his neck
Chauvin basically ignored the above, in order to keep kneeling on Floyds neck. Ignoring is not the same as not knowing.

Once a person is unconscious, their ability to breathe is even more important to protect. That's one of the reasons people are taught in basic first aid to turn people into the recovery position (on their side) when they are found unconscious but breathing.

If you are going to ignore them - provide reasoning for why (and a judgement like 'they are irrelevant' isn't reasoning...it is a judgment, and judgements require reasoning)

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

oralloy wrote:
I've repeatedly addressed them in my past few posts.

Please quote where you've provided reasoning against any of:

I've never said that I bothered to provide reasoning against your racist ranting. Explaining facts to racists isn't worth my time.

vikorr wrote:

If you are going to ignore them

I didn't ignore them. I pointed out many times that you only think that way because you're a racist.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

ROFL. Please explain how any of that is racist? Each of them obviously applies regardless of race. The don't teach race in positional asphyxiation teachings, nor in first aid, nor in a rookie asking if he should be rolled onto his side, nor in the fact kneeling on someones chest or neck while they are prone would restrict their breathing, nor in the fact that breathing is necessary to life...nor anything else in that list.

Quote:

I didn't ignore them. I pointed out many times that you only think that way because you're a racist.

Accusations of racism are a judgement. Judgements require reasoning. You provide no reasoning whatsoever. I say you ignore things because you gloss over them without reasoning.

Quite obviously you don't like the factors/considerations themselves.... because they don't support your favoured race. That is because race is irrelevant to the considerations...but you appear to desperately want race to be relevant.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

ROFL. Please explain how any of that is racist?

"Explaining facts to racists isn't worth my time."

1 Reply

@oralloy,

ROFL. Like the Coopers, anything you couldn't argue against, you ignored. Oh you made excuse after excuse, but the end reasult was always the same - you could provide no reasoning against it.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

You feeling at all like Sisyphus?

1 Reply

@snood,

Probably a really good comparison.

I really am quite hard headed it seems.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

ROFL. Like the Coopers, anything you couldn't argue against, you ignored.

That's a lie. I've not ignored anything.

vikorr wrote:

Oh you made excuse after excuse, but the end reasult was always the same - you could provide no reasoning against it.

There's a bit of a difference between can't and won't. You really aren't worth my time.

Maybe if you provided intelligent arguments instead of lies and personal attacks, I'd feel differently and might be more willing to humor your irrelevant tangents with a more detailed response.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

blah, blah, blah...end result the same...

1 Reply

@vikorr,

He has way too much invested in his delusion.

He literally can’t cope with the truth.

It’s not surprising, everyone else can see the truth and it’s not a pretty sight, nobody would want that.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

Don't be so dishonest. You cannot point out anything untrue in any of my posts.

I'm the guy who is posting the truth.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

He has way too much invested in his delusion.

Yes, I think that'd be the most accurate reason for many of his posts.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

You as well cannot point out anything untrue in any of my posts.

You're just a phony making claims that you can't back up.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

I, and many other posters do so - all the time. If you are too delusional to see it, that is not the issue of other posters. Yes I know, you're going to object - you do so each time someone else says the same thing. That doesn't change the issue - you are too delusional to see it.

Thankfully, for you, those delusions only occur when posts hit certain filters of yours. At least in other areas, you can actually rationalise

1 Reply

@vikorr,

You're lying. You cannot provide any examples of a post where you have ever pointed out anything untrue in my posts.

If you and others truly did so all the time, it would be easy for you to provide such an example.

Instead all you can provide are lies about why you aren't providing any such examples.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

I used to provide lots of examples at your request (and lots of examples in any event). I found they didn't achieve anything except more delusional arguments from you. Nor do I find your returning the same cooperation when I asked for examples from you. Same I've noticed, for most posters who've tried with you. Ie. there is no point doing so any more.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Like I said. You can't provide any examples. You can only provide lies about why you cannot provide examples.

You're a phony and your claims are lies.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

The issue doesn't change.

Certainly if you're prepared to offer the examples I've asked for many times, then we can start exchanging examples again. But until that time, you've rarely extended the courtesy of providing examples when asked...but demanded examples constantly.

1 Reply

The Derek Chauvin Trial

Quick Links

My Account

able2know