The Derek Chauvin Trial

@oralloy,

It is not guilty until proven innocent - it is that you can't say your version is correct. Just because you want something to be true, does not mean it is true. Same goes for what I said was the version - there is no way I can know that is the correct version (regarding why another person does a thing)

Your problem is you don't understand that what you believe to be true is purely your perspective, or a perspective you've bought into.

Quote:

It is a well known fact of history that they dramatically miscalculated the yield of Castle Bravo. They were planning for a 6 megaton yield and they got 15 megatons.

You've never heard of a political lie? I can just as easily write a lie as anyone else, and call it history. I could easily leave the less savoury motivations out and call myself well intentioned (and people do this all the time). That doesn't make what I write either true, or the whole truth.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

It is not guilty until proven innocent - it is that you can't say your version is correct. Just because you want something to be true, does not mean it is true. Same goes for what I said was the version - there is no way I can know that is the correct version (regarding why another person does a thing)

When you falsely accuse someone and say that they can't prove their innocence, that's guilty until proven innocent.

vikorr wrote:

Your problem is you don't understand that what you believe to be true is purely your perspective, or a perspective you've bought into.

What I believe to be true is in fact true.

Reality is not a mere perspective, and you are wrong to claim so.

That I automatically reject falsehoods is not a problem for me.

vikorr wrote:

You've never heard of a political lie?

There was no lie. They did misjudge the yield.

vikorr wrote:

I can just as easily write a lie as anyone else, and call it history.

Indeed. That is exactly what you are doing.

vikorr wrote:

I could easily leave the less savoury motivations out and call myself well intentioned (and people do this all the time). That doesn't make what I write either true, or the whole truth.

Indeed. What you are writing is not even remotely true.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

When you falsely accuse someone and say that they can't prove their innocence, that's guilty until proven innocent.

Which is a self serving statement that in your mind, enables you to ignore that neither side can prove what they claim - because it is a matter of perspective.

Quote:

What I believe to be true is in fact true.

You cannot prove it to be true. I cannot prove it to be untrue.

Quote:

There was no lie. They did misjudge the yield.

You cannot prove they did not lie about misjudging the yield. I cannot prove they did.

If they were fact - you could in fact prove them to be facts.

As I said, your problem is you don't understand what is opinion / perspective, and what is fact. This is borne out over and over again in these forums where you continually show you can't comprehend the difference between your opinions and fact. It might make you comfortable in your own mind, but that doesn't make opinion nor perspective fact. The full 'why' another person does something can rarely be known for fact. When history is written, it often becomes even murkier.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

Have you read The Rime Of The Ancient Mariner by Coleridge?

The Mariner is cursed to tell his tale to all he meets, and those he meets are similarly bound to listen.

This s not the case here, Oralloy may well have been cursed to spout moronic repetitive drivel, but nobody is obliged to pay him any attention.

After all, The guests are met, the feast is set.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

You sure do whine when you see your betters post facts and reality.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Which is a self serving statement that in your mind, enables you to ignore that neither side can prove what they claim

Basic civilized concepts of fairness are hardly self serving.

vikorr wrote:

because it is a matter of perspective.

Wrong. Facts and reality are not a matter of perspective.

vikorr wrote:

You cannot prove it to be true. I cannot prove it to be untrue.

Wrong. It is possible to prove that reality is true.

vikorr wrote:

You cannot prove they did not lie about misjudging the yield. I cannot prove they did.

If that were the case, there would still be the matter of innocent until proven guilty.

However, I can prove that it is true. The miscalculation that they made is actually well understood. They didn't account for the contribution that lithium 7 would add to the reaction.

vikorr wrote:

If they were fact - you could in fact prove them to be facts.

Yes. And like I said, the mistake that they made is well understood. There is no question that it was an accident.

vikorr wrote:

As I said, your problem is you don't understand what is opinion / perspective, and what is fact.

Wrong. I have a sound understanding of reality. That is why I keep correcting your many falsehoods.

vikorr wrote:

This is borne out over and over again in these forums where you continually show you can't comprehend the difference between your opinions and fact.

You're lying again. I have never had such a failure.

vikorr wrote:

It might make you comfortable in your own mind, but that doesn't make opinion nor perspective fact.

I've never tried to make opinion or perspective fact.

vikorr wrote:

The full 'why' another person does something can rarely be known for fact. When history is written, it often becomes even murkier.

It's not murky at all. People who dislike reality just pretend that it is murky.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Yes. And like I said, the mistake that they made is well understood. There is no question that it was an accident.

That isn't evidence of fact - only that they claim such. They may have perfectly calculated it, then afterwards, simply said they miscalculated. It is very easy to lie about such a thing.

What we do know for fact is that military leadership / atomic scientists did use service men as guinea pigs in nuclear tests, because there is footage of them doing this. So for quite a few military heads / scientists, there was no true objection to using human guinea pigs to further their science.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

That isn't evidence of fact.

Yes it is. It is quite easy to see their mistake.

vikorr wrote:

They may have perfectly calculated it, then simply said they miscalculated afterwards.

They didn't.

vikorr wrote:

It is very easy to lie about such a thing.

Well it certainly seems pretty easy for you to lie about it.

I'd find it difficult to lie though. Lying makes me itch inside. I make it a point not to do it.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Yes it is. It is quite easy to see their mistake.

Which doesn't make their claim fact.

Quote:

Well it certainly seems pretty easy for you to lie about it.

Pointing out how easy it is for a person to lie about their motivations is a lie? Pointing out that proof, when it comes to motivations, doesn't truly exist, is a lie? (all you can determine is if the stated motivation sounds reasonable)

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Which doesn't make their claim fact.

Sure it does. It is blatantly obvious that they made a mistake.

vikorr wrote:

Pointing out how easy it is for a person to lie about their motivations is a lie?

Claiming that the Castle Bravo yield could have been deliberate is a lie.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Not much more to say then is there - you continue to show you don't understand the difference between fact, and opinion / written words / perspective / etc.

1 Reply

@BillW,

Sorry if it’s a silly question, but why are you posting long accounts about nuclear testing on this thread?

1 Reply

@snood,

He's posting about it because I used facts about the US nuclear program as an example to challenge vikorr's silly claims that facts can be whatever we want them to be, and vikorr then started spouting outright falsehoods about our nuclear program, which I've been promptly correcting.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

you continue to show you don't understand the difference between fact, and opinion / written words / perspective / etc.

I show nothing of the sort. Everything that I've said is true.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

vikorr's silly claims that facts can be whatever we want them to be

I never said this. I said people can claim anything they want about their motivations, whether it be true, or false. And you can't tell if it is true or not, only whether or not it is a reasonable claim.

This conversation arose out of whether or not Critical Race Theory was correct or not. I said it was a perspective, like much of history that relates to the 'why' of things.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Your claims about US nuclear testing are not even remotely reasonable.

1 Reply

Is Chauvin's sentencing still set for June 25? That's a week today.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

And yet Military Leaders / Scientists testing Nuclear bombs effects on servicemen is evidence that is a reasonable claim - because it happened and it is similar.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

And yet Military Leaders / Scientists testing Nuclear bombs effects on servicemen is evidence that is a reasonable claim

No it isn't. You are ignoring the fact that the scientists clearly made a mistake in their calculations.

vikorr wrote:

because it happened and it is similar.

There is no similarity at all.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

You are ignoring the fact that the scientists clearly made a mistake in their calculations.

Not at all. I am saying they may simply have claimed to make a mistake. It wouldn't be hard to cook the books.

Quote:

There is no similarity at all.

- miliarty and scientist conduct atomic tests
- people were nearby
- people were affected by radiation
The most salient parts are the same. But there are differences. Similar doesn't mean 'the same'.

1 Reply

The Derek Chauvin Trial

Quick Links

My Account

able2know