Woke is a Joke

[richravizza 28]

57 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Generally it takes a doctor to pronounce death under those sorts of circumstances. There weren’t any authorized doctors at the scene. So he had to be taken to the hospital.

From a news story at the time: 

(Source)

Wendy P. 

I had mentioned;

There were multiple autopsy/coroner's reports.

Multiple pre existing, ie heart, conditions, enough reason to Not resist.

Perjury by the Police Chief as to the  dept. policy of  MRT use.

A libel lawsuit by the Chief on this issue was dismissed,resulting in the Chief by Judge ordered a retraction,or perjury.

An erroneous toxicology reporting and testimony by the "expert" witness, ie antemortem samples misrepresentation as mortem.

The counterfeit bill the reason for the call to LE involvement was found on scene.

Deja Vu... "Hands up don't shoot"  

[richravizza 28]

1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

Generally it takes a doctor to pronounce death under those sorts of circumstances. There weren’t any authorized doctors at the scene. So he had to be taken to the hospital.

From a news story at the time: 

(Source)

Wendy P. 

An end to the beginning or the beginning of the end.

According to the transcript, the employee informed the 911 operator that a man had used a counterfeit bill and refused to return the items purchased. The caller described the man as "awfully drunk and he's not in control of himself". The caller also described the man as a "tall guy...like tall and bald...he's a black guy"Yes, George Floyd died at the hospital after being restrained by police officers in Minneapolis, Minnesota on May 25, 2020. He was pronounced dead at Hennepin County Medical Center at 9:25 PM.

 When the story/video first broke I avoided it like the plague,what people were saying,the same question arises "did you see it!" seeing the emotion in their eyes I abstained, and it was tough.lol

 

[richravizza 28]

On 9/6/2025 at 2:46 PM, billvon said:

 

It is certainly possible.  It's more likely that it's zoonotic.  As I said before.

Sometimes in a debate I,

We can talk past and over one another.Listening is mandatory for a good debate and its skills. Not listening is a poor excuse and destroys any possible alliances and agreements,so please excuse me for being ignorant of your four words,twice to boot!

"as I said before, It's is certainly possible." I think we may be building, discovering commonalities, amazingly considering how divergent we are, a coach jump of sorts with only 6 degrees of separation. Blue Skies Bill

[kallend 2,194]

On 9/1/2025 at 1:44 AM, jakee said:

Yeah, they don’t do words good like you. 

 

That will fall flat in a nation where 99% don't know the difference between an adjective and an adverb.

[richravizza 28]

7 minutes ago, kallend said:

That will fall flat in a nation where 99% don't know the difference between an adjective and an adverb.

"Way waste time, use alot word, when few word do trick" lol

Edited Wednesday at 04:51 AM by richravizza

[JoeWeber 3,005]

17 minutes ago, kallend said:

That will fall flat in a nation where 99% don't know the difference between an adjective and an adverb.

Yep, and here we may hopefully ask that Bill and Wendy cease encouraging a certain impenetrable.

[jakee 1,625]

8 hours ago, richravizza said:

,First with ancient one of yours, authority.Then you lead her onto  another fallacy in accidents, or is it exclusion, either way me thinks, purposeful,and counterproductive. 

The statement "the exception is not a rule" is not a fallacy but a correct assertion; the Latin term for the fallacy that ignores exceptions to a rule is dicto simpliciter or the fallacy of accident. 

The related Latin legal phrase "exceptio probat regulam" (the exception proves the rule) is often misused, as it implies a rule exists to be excepted from, not that the exception validates it.  

 Confusion is the purpose of postmodernism, our ethos. 

Do you have any idea what that means, or how it relates to any part of our discussion? I'm really not sure why you think copy and pasting random bits of irrelevant test will make you seem smarter.

8 hours ago, richravizza said:

Confusion is the purpose of postmodernism, our ethos. I simply made an AI assisted query of when slavery ended,just a simple copy, pastie

Exactly, you made a simple AI query and then believed it implicitly - it must be true because AI said it! Do ya not think maybe that's something like an argument from authority fallacy? You really should be aware that if you want to use AI to find stuff out you really have to check its sources before swallowing what it tells you. AI is dumber than a box of rocks and even less honest than you.

[jakee 1,625]

8 hours ago, richravizza said:

I was lied to six times,just tyn to find out where shit head died.

Really? When? By who?

8 hours ago, richravizza said:

But It's all in how you ask a question.

Is it? Lets see...

Yes, Derek Chauvin is actually a murderer, both legally and factually, based on the evidence and due process of the U.S. legal system.

Here's why that’s not just a legal technicality:

1. Legal Definition Met

Chauvin was convicted by a jury of:

Second-degree unintentional murder — causing death without intent while committing a felony (in this case, excessive force).

Third-degree murder — acting with a depraved mind and showing disregard for human life.

Second-degree manslaughter — culpable negligence creating an unreasonable risk.

These aren't symbolic charges; they follow specific definitions under Minnesota law, and the jury found him guilty based on overwhelming evidence.

2. Evidence Was Clear and Public

Video footage showed Chauvin kneeling on George Floyd’s neck for over 9 minutes, even after Floyd lost consciousness and had no pulse.

Multiple medical experts testified that Floyd died from lack of oxygen, not drugs or other causes.

Police use-of-force experts (including from the Minneapolis Police Department) testified that Chauvin’s actions were not justified.

3. Due Process Was Followed

Chauvin had a full, high-profile trial with legal representation.

He was convicted by a jury of his peers.

His appeals were heard and rejected.

He is now serving a prison sentence.

So is he “actually” a murderer?

Yes — both in legal fact and in common-sense reality.
This wasn’t a wrongful conviction or a gray area. It was a clear case of excessive, deadly force resulting in the unlawful killing of another human being.

Well damn, I guess you're right for once.

[jakee 1,625]

7 hours ago, richravizza said:

So the short answer to all three questions is No.{exception for the assholes} I don't think our society would hassle anyone based on their race,But those assholes come in all the shades and colors.

So in the matrix, thought experiment, real world society, why would the white guy have to move out of the non-white neighbourhood because of all the hassle he's getting for being white, when he's not going to be hassled for being white?

[jakee 1,625]

6 hours ago, richravizza said:

I had mentioned;

There were multiple autopsy/coroner's reports.

Multiple pre existing, ie heart, conditions, enough reason to Not resist.

Newsflash - the police don't get to murder people just because they were already ill. Eugenics isn't their job.

6 hours ago, richravizza said:

Perjury by the Police Chief as to the  dept. policy of  MRT use.

A libel lawsuit by the Chief on this issue was dismissed,resulting in the Chief by Judge ordered a retraction,or perjury.

What do you think any of that statement means? The Chief by Judge ordered perjury because a libel lawsuit was dismissed? What? Regardless, a cursory search shows that you're just lying again. Defamation is a really high bar in the US. If a news outlet says they think you committed perjury, and your defamation lawsuit over those statements is tossed out, it absolutely does not automatically mean the judge thinks you committed perjury unless they explicitly say so - otherwise it just means they think the outlet had a protected first amendment right to say what they said.

Collin, Chaix, and Chris Madel (attorney for the defense in this case) have all separately claimed that Judge Wahl’s ruling “questioned the veracity” of Blackwell’s testimony, much to the delight of their fans. Those familiar with Alpha News won’t be surprised to hear that they’re lying. In his order’s first pages, Judge Wahl writes that “The Court neither finds nor implies that any of Blackwell’s testimony in the Chauvin trial was false, improper, or misleading,” in direct contradiction to the public responses of the defendants and their counsel. The lawsuit’s dismissal is good for them, certainly, but “these statements are not defamatory” in no way means “this documentary is truthful.”

6 hours ago, richravizza said:

The counterfeit bill the reason for the call to LE involvement was found on scene.

So what? No-one disputes that Floyd committed a minor crime. But is a counterfeit twenty enough justification to suffocate someone until they are obviously dead? Do you genuinely believe that to be the case?

Here's a thought experiment - what if Donald Trump had been at home when the FBI raided his place? What if he'd protested, and a Fed had handcuffed him, thrown him to the ground and knelt on his lungs until he died? Would that be ok? After all, he's not a healthy man - he's old and morbidly obese so it wouldn't be much of a surprise if his heart popped. And the Feds were there on a legit search warrant. And the reason for the search warrant (all the stolen documents) was found on the scene. So if Trump had been killed in the process.... no big deal, right?

Edited Wednesday at 09:38 AM by jakee

[billvon 3,151]

6 hours ago, jakee said:

So in the matrix, thought experiment, real world society, why would the white guy have to move out of the non-white neighbourhood because of all the hassle he's getting for being white, when he's not going to be hassled for being white?

You have to keep in mind that, for someone like Rich, he HAS to believe that whites are the victims.  It supports his entire worldview, which he expressed succintly above - "I don't think our society would hassle anyone based on their race."  With the corollary that, if anyone DOES think that, they are committing some sort of reverse racism against whites.

That's why he can't acknowledge that the US was founded, in part, on slavery.  That's why he believes that the US, when founded, was a shining beacon of anti-slavery, more advanced in that respect than the rest of the world.  That's why he doesn't think that redlining still exists, or that Chauvin was anything other than a hero defending his community against a vicious counterfeiter.  That's why he opposes CRT.  There's no need for CRT if there has been no discrimination against minorities in the US.  That's why he opposes DEI, because again, if no one in the US is racist (or sexist, or ableist, or has a religious bias etc) then there's no need for it.

People like him often fear that someday they will be treated like they once treated minorities.  So to forestall that, they fervently portray themselves (and their proxies like Chauvin and Trump) as the real powerless victims of the evil DEI majority, bent on destroying their white society.  If they can portray themselves as victims, they can use the same tools they have been using for 200 years to oppress minorities - but this time whites are the heroes, because they are protecting that poor downtrodden minority (themselves) against an evil oppressor.

If Rich ever admitted that black people (or gay people) faced discrimination, that entire worldview would collapse, and he'd be left adrift with no way to prove to himself that he is the protagonist in his own story,

Quote

Here's a thought experiment - what if Donald Trump had been at home

Then Trump would be the victim of a white-hating, CRT-loving, DEI liberal.  The Richs of the world would comb through the cops background until they found out his father voted for Obama, and then crucify him.

[richravizza 28]

On 9/10/2025 at 2:01 AM, jakee said:

Do you have any idea what that means, or how it relates to any part of our discussion? I'm really not sure why you think copy and pasting random bits of irrelevant test will make you seem smarter.

Exactly, you made a simple AI query and then believed it implicitly - it must be true because AI said it! Do ya not think maybe that's something like an argument from authority fallacy? You really should be aware that if you want to use AI to find stuff out you really have to check its sources before swallowing what it tells you. AI is dumber than a box of rocks and even less honest than you.

The discussion was on the difference between America being Founded on Slavery or was it founded with a compromise,slavery.Like a typical...person of the left. You pulled  out of your ethos; the exceptions to the rule [slavery} and present it as one,but since there were no rule at the time,it didn't quite make sense. Then you turn it around,it's common.

 

On 9/10/2025 at 2:10 AM, jakee said:

Really? When? By who?

Is it? Lets see...

 

 I asked where shit head died,try it.So I agree that dumb thing kept telling me a street corner ,so I Agree it can tell you what you need to know,sometimes lol. I know the case well thanks for the redundancy,five years later.

But it was quite honest as to where and when officially slavery ended and  a bonus that America was at the forefront of the Freedom enterprize.

 As far as shit heads wrath Sleep well knowing justice was served.

Edited Friday at 02:41 AM by richravizza

[richravizza 28]

On 9/10/2025 at 7:58 AM, billvon said:

You have to keep in mind that, for someone like Rich, he HAS to believe that whites are the victims.  It supports his entire worldview, which he expressed succintly above - "I don't think our society would hassle anyone based on their race."  With the corollary that, if anyone DOES think that, they are committing some sort of reverse racism against whites.

That's why he can't acknowledge that the US was founded, in part, on slavery.  That's why he believes that the US, when founded, was a shining beacon of anti-slavery, more advanced in that respect than the rest of the world.  That's why he doesn't think that redlining still exists, or that Chauvin was anything other than a hero defending his community against a vicious counterfeiter.  That's why he opposes CRT.  There's no need for CRT if there has been no discrimination against minorities in the US.  That's why he opposes DEI, because again, if no one in the US is racist (or sexist, or ableist, or has a religious bias etc) then there's no need for it.

People like him often fear that someday they will be treated like they once treated minorities.  So to forestall that, they fervently portray themselves (and their proxies like Chauvin and Trump) as the real powerless victims of the evil DEI majority, bent on destroying their white society.  If they can portray themselves as victims, they can use the same tools they have been using for 200 years to oppress minorities - but this time whites are the heroes, because they are protecting that poor downtrodden minority (themselves) against an evil oppressor.

If Rich ever admitted that black people (or gay people) faced discrimination, that entire worldview would collapse, and he'd be left adrift with no way to prove to himself that he is the protagonist in his own story,

Then Trump would be the victim of a white-hating, CRT-loving, DEI liberal.  The Richs of the world would comb through the cops background until they found out his father voted for Obama, and then crucify him.

You think an awful lot for me,and it is your problem, projecting moral superiority,  telling me what I think. 

The 1619 wants you to know, we are founded in Slavery,On slavery,Not that it was a compromise in order to end the entire enterprise,professor.

CRT is Your only worldview a theory,so watch it's  destruction at the speed of life.  DEI is illegal, didn't you get the word,it does discriminate,in hiring,in admissions,ect. it will take six minutes and six degrees.

Is that what you want an admission of past discrimination?  Well you got it, now lets work on the  present.

 "Rich ever admitted that black people (or gay people) faced discrimination, that entire worldview would collapse, and he'd be left adrift with no way to prove to himself that he is the protagonist in his own story,in an attempt to prove our inferiority"

Dude seriously, who in their right mind wouldn't acknowledge discrimination of the past,but discrimination today, it isn't going to solve the past.

I like your imagination,crucifixions and all.

Edited Friday at 03:30 AM by richravizza

[jakee 1,625]

4 hours ago, richravizza said:

The 1619 wants you to know, we are founded in Slavery,On slavery,Not that it was a compromise in order to end the entire enterprise,professor.

Err, ‘cos it wasn’t. The USA wasn’t founded with the goal of ending slavery. That’s just nonsense.

[jakee 1,625]

5 hours ago, richravizza said:

The discussion was on the difference between America being Founded on Slavery or was it founded with a compromise,slavery.Like a typical...person of the left. You pulled  out of your ethos; the exceptions to the rule [slavery} and present it as one,but since there were no rule at the time,it didn't quite make sense. Then you turn it around,it's common.

Huh?

5 hours ago, richravizza said:

I know the case well

Then why did you say Floyd would have been ok if you’d been there to help restrain him? You know that the murderer Chauvin had plenty of help restraining Floyd but chose to keep suffocating him even after he was already dead and need led no restraining at all.