Do you know what these names have in common?
1. Javar Harrell
2. Dave Patrick Underwood
3. Chris Beaty
4. Dorian Murrell
5. Italia Kelly
6. Marquis M. Tousant
7. Marvin Francois
8. John Tiggs
9. Jose Gutierrez
10. Victor Cazares Jr.
11. David Dorn
12. Horace Lorenzo Anderson
13. Tyler Gerth
14. Antonio Mays Jr.
15. Secoriea Turner
16. Jessica Doty Whitaker
17. Aaron Danielson
They are all people murdered by rioters and looters since the anti-police protests began in late May.
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
- Privacy
No Minister 
If they’re not black then you are not allowed to say that they matter.
You left out “I’m not a racist, but..”
@ Milt
As per below, “I don’t condone violence, but…”
If they weren’t killed by Whites, specifically White cops, then they don’t matter either.
Because racism and shut up.
“Mostly peaceful protests” and “List of people killed” aren’t mutually exclusive.
Given your view that Covid-19 is no biggie because lots of people die of diseases all the time, shouldn’t you be taking the view that rioting is no biggie because lots of people die from violence all the time?
Oh, oh, oh, can I play this argumentum absurdium game?
Given your view, Milt, that the state should use its power to preserve life and health via the lockdown, shouldn’t you be taking the view that the government should also outlaw abortion and keep euthanasia a criminal offence? 🤣
I don’t see a reductio ad absurdum in there. If Covid’s a doddle because it only kills a relatively few people compared to deaths from all diseases, surely rioting’s a doddle because it only kills a relatively few people compared to deaths from all violence.
…surely rioting’s a doddle..
Suggest you reconsider as you are usually a smart enough guy to work that sort of thing out…or else I’ll invoke Kimbo’s law* on that gratuitous use of “surely”.
“In blogworld the validity of an argument is in inverse proportion to the use of emphatic adverbs.”
@Kimbo
I’ve italicised your axiom/law and put it in quotes to make it stand out.
Honestly do I have to do everything around here?… grumble….mutter…..
If “surely” bothers you that much, replace it with “by the same logic.”
@ Milt
“By the same logic” = the absurdum infinitum we dealt with before. So now we have got you doing circular reasoning, or just repeating the same thing with different words as if it is a new argument. We call that “smoke and mirrors”.
Plus your examples are not analogous. So that’s another logical fallacy.
Violent death during a supposedly peaceful protest is not a “natural” event, hence we have laws against murder, man slaughter, gbh etc.
In contrast death by disease is a natural process.
Admittedly one can, indeed we should attempt to stem the spread of a disease and mitigate against its effects by all manner of interventions such as medication, surgery…or lockdowns. But the anti-lockdown crowd are not “it is the will of God/the Universe” fatalists arguing there is no choice in the matter too. Instead, they are arguing that, on balance, lockdowns make the downstream mortality and other health effects due to a stuffed economy far worse. You know, Tom Hunter and his “iceberg beneath the surface” analogy. You may disagree with their analysis – and fair enough – but as each side is arguing how best to minimise death and other harm, arguing that they consider life cheap as you have is…a straw man.
Wow, Milt, for a smart guy that’s a lot of logical fallacies in just a few posts. Are you sure you haven’t been taking lessons in the misapplication of logic and reason from…Adolf?! 😳😂
@ Tom Hunter
As per Voltaire complaining whenever Frederick the Great sent the Frenchman his poetry to correct, “the King of Prussia sends me his dirty laundry to wash”,
…just consider it your small part in helping make Kimbo’s law a famous meme. I’ll make sure you get a suitable credit and recognition…in the footnotes. 😉
…just repeating the same thing with different words as if it is a new argument.
I’d phrase it as “just repeating the same thing with different words as Kimbo objected to the original words.” No new argument was implied.
No analogy is perfect, so of course you can find differences between the examples in this one. I don’t think it matters.
In this case, the argument’s been made multiple times on this blog re Covid-19 that the number of deaths is trivial relative to the total deaths from illness, so little intrusive action is needed. It’s a terrible, stupid argument constructed out of false premises and predicated on a lack of respect for human life. The argument is just as terrible, stupid, false and disrespectful when applied to the subject of the OP, but the argument itself is the same.
Holy fuck! That’s great!
But tell me how you decided that this particular incident of unlawful violence was justifed? Don’t get me wrong, I fully support your actions, but what drove this aside from exasperation with little wankers disturbing the peace?
I’m guessing an innate sense of moral and ethical superiority that empowered you to make the decision in the moment?
So…still wilfully ignoring Tom Hunter’s ice berg analogy (which perfectly captured his argument), misapplying their “lots of people die of diseases” which was to give perspective compared to potentially much more death from lockdown’s downstream economic effects, and just repeating that straw man, “they just don’t care!!”?
But tell me how you decided that this particular incident of unlawful violence was justifed?
As you can imagine, it’s complicated. On one level, there were plenty of families with small kids in the street (including mine), so there was a safety issue. On another, being social animals, humans have a highly evolved sense of acceptable vs unacceptable behaviour. However, there also wasn’t really a decision as such – I took the socket handle with me because I figured I’d better look best not fucked with, and when the prick tried to drive around me instead of stopping it was a split-second “Fuck you then” choice to put the socket handle through his window and I couldn’t recall any conscious decision-making involved in it (which is one reason I much, much prefer living in a country where people aren’t routinely armed). And having put his window out I immediately wished I hadn’t when I realised there was more than one of them in the car and I really wasn’t capable of hitting someone with a steel bar and that the cops might well take a dim view of this.
If nothing else, I learned to feel some sympathy with dumbasses who end up in court and don’t really have any defence beyond “Well I was very angry with him at the time.”
Fair enough, but it would be good if you, and other Left-wingers, extended that thought process into the mind of young Mr Rittenhouse in Kenosha, Wisconsin – even with your “a country where people aren’t routinely armed” – who, among others, was facing a far different mob than a bunch of boyracers (“peaceful protestors”). A mob containing members who were armed, with no cops around and the law abandoned.
I don’t think Mr Rittenhouse will be particularly thrilled with killing two people, even if they were attacking him, and I am not willing to second-guess his moral and ethical decisions in the matter. Aside from anything else, unarmed he’d have had the shit beaten out of him – perhaps with a glorious finale upside kick to the head like those people in Portland. Sure, you can lament the fact that the USA gave him the ability to end a life in defending his own, but when it comes to the moral and ethical decision I see little difference between his and yours.
Yeah, good luck with that. For my part, I’ll be hoping that young Mr Rittenhouse gets a fat prison sentence in a prison full of black men.
And as per below, “I don’t condone violence, but…”
I wouldn’t say that, though. There are plenty of situations in which violence is justified, in fact it’s inherent in the very existence of the police and military
Ok, wanna play the over-qualification game:
“I don’t support unlawful violence, but…”
Not precise enough? Fair enough, get those angels dancing on a pinhead because I can do this all night. 😃😂
Unlawful violence is also sometimes justified. I once smashed a boy racer’s side window with a 3/4 drive socket handle because he wouldn’t pull over to hear my thoughts on his activities in our street. He had it coming and the Police declined to take an interest in his whinging. On a larger scale, a lot of social and political progress has also been achieved through violence, not least the existence of the country referred to in the OP.
@ Milt
Sure, we can keep doing this:
“I don’t condone unlawful and unjustified violence, but…”
What are you picturing following the “but…” in that sentence?
Well, as you first introduced the “I’m not a…., but…” phrase in this thread, with the implication that dissembling and obfuscation to the contrary John JohnO is a racist, I was initially pulling your leg implying you are an apologist for left wing violent thugs. You know, like Anne Tiffa and Gustavo Frink.
Now, normally I’d wouldn’t need to clarify that it was tongue-in-cheek because we all know that is the antithesis of who you are. But as you’ve confessed to being an arse-kicking vigilante, dealing with miscreant like Charles Bronson on a very bad hair day – and after I defended you when the Vet called you a fascist a few days ago, let it be noted – I’m reassessing my previous reference! 😳😂
The good news is that your rating in the No Minister macho stakes have unexpectedly leapt past Rossco. 🤣
Given that my “response” was placed in the wrong fucking Reply set I find myself concerned that I’m more annoyed by that than the argument itself.
Moving on…
More than a decade ago Beloved Wife and I escaped the children for a weekend down in Wellington and as part of the trip decided to go watch my niece practice criminal law defence in the Porirua District Court.
Man, that was a sad, sad afternoon.
Without exception the parade of poor, dumb bastards who came before the court were living, breathing examples of a lack of anger management. Wife and I went window shopping in Lambton Quay afterwards in the hope of climbing back into a happier world.
By contrast my niece, upon finding that her wallet had been nicked during some interview of some assholes she was supposed to defend, merely shrugged her shoulders and said, “It’s just crims”.
The lunatics guiding the lunatics on the streets think nothing of the deaths of millions, let alone 17. Consequentialist. The goal justifies the stink of death. Failed socialist experiments don’t matter if your goal is communist purity and equality. The trouble with all the death and riots is that ordinary working people are beginning to understand their methods. And that their goals are 100% 1pm BS. Too many are awake. Globalism is on fire like that protestor with burning feet.
David Dorn
Yeah. Here’s his widow speaking at the Republican National Convention…
… and here’s the usual suspects with “Uncle Tom” in 5, 4, 3,…
Tim Pool was reporting more than 30 killed since Mr Floyd’s demise.
You mean ‘since Mr Floyd’s death from a massive overdose of fentanyl’?
You should spend less time on wingnut sites.
Like The Spectator you mean?
Well, it certainly is not those fonts of truth and light like The Guardian, The Nation or Jacobin, but it does have the advantage of embedding the actual medical report. And the following summary of that seems fair:
But keep saying “wingnut sites”. Perhaps the prosecutors in court will join in the chanting as a sure sign of convincing judge and jury.
Sure, I was willing to grant competing medical conclusions but given that the prosecuters kept this under wraps for two months – never a sign of great confidence – it looks like I’m going to have to withdraw my post about the undoubtedly callous asshole of a cop, Chauvin, getting convicted of 2nd degree murder.
Manslaughter at best, given that he didn’t give a shit whether Floyd lived or died.
Personally, I think that is the case as more footage and information comes out, but I chose to temper my comment somewhat because there were conflicting initial autopsy results and I think that the fentanyl conclusion will most likely be challenged by the family.
I guess it it does turn out that Floyd would have died soon anyway from a fentanyl overdose, Chauvin will be kicking himself in his prison cell for having killed him before the fentanyl got to him, by spending the best part of 10 minutes kneeling on his neck.
You must be looking at different footage to what I saw. Having done a little bit of martial arts, you typically don’t execute chokes from the side/back of the neck./a>
“Manslaughter at best, given that he didn’t give a shit whether Floyd lived or died.”
Floyd was by all accounts a dead man walking or driving, what if he had expired while behind the wheel?
nine minutes in a choke hold. work it out. any volunteers out there want to try it?
After 10 minutes of being restrained by pressure applied to the back quarter of my neck – closer to the spine than the windpipe – I’d bet I’d need a chiropractor and a physio but I’d still be alive.
Nine minutes in a choke hold. Any one of you heroes want to try see if you will live past six.
I assume you will be taking the fentanyl overdose by way of comparison?
Quidam
Is that the same chokehold I see NZ and Australian police using?
I’d be quite happy to accept your challenge. If you don’t resist arrest you don’t get choked.
This part seems overly difficult.
I think Floyd swallowed his drugs as he didn’t want to go to jail and then OD’d. Bet he had a shit dad too. Perpetual victim-hood is a loser strategy. Kneel only to God.