The Charlie Kirk Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rock
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 4K
  • Views: 94K
  • Politics 
superrific said:
I think you're parsing wikipedia too finely. I'm not sure the editing process can support that type of fine distinction, because it's not really a point in controversy.
Click to expand...
It is important, and not simply pedantic to note that there is a real and material distinction between an actual cause of death and something that contributes to the death (or a "contributory cause"). Here is a CDC webpage (hey, they still exist!) discussing the difference:

Instructions for Classification of Underlying and Multiple Causes of Death - Section I - 2018

National Center for Health Statistics
www.cdc.gov www.cdc.gov

I was relying on Wikipedia for reporting accurately the autopsies of both people, though I also looked at the underlying news sources reporting on the autopsies. If someone has the actual autopsies and thinks that Wikipedia is not accurately reflecting them, I would be happy to see that.

The difference between something (say, an officer kneeling on your neck or chest) being an actual "underlying" cause of death and a contributory cause absolutely could make the difference in any legal action that is trying determine, whether civilly or criminally, what caused someone to die. Would the distinction necessarily matter? I don't know, which is what I initially said when bringing this up a few posts back. But that doesn't mean it isn't a real factual distinction between the cases.
 
farce© said:
Why the fuck are you doing this?
Click to expand...
Because I’d like him to explain why he thought Derek Chauvin was following police procedure. It was such an incomprehensible and offensive statement, I needed to understand what he was thinking when he made the statement.

Is this not what messsge boards are for? Or do we just let dumb people say dumb things and not engage with them?

If it bothers you that much, put him on super ignore. From my understanding, that way you won’t see my responses to him if I quote him in my post.
 
WaynetheDrain said:
Because I’d like him to explain why he thought Derek Chauvin was following police procedure. It was such an incomprehensible and offensive statement, I needed to understand what he was thinking when he made the statement.

Is this not what messsge boards are for? Or do we just let dumb people say dumb things and not engage with them?

If it bothers you that much, put him on super ignore. From my understanding, that way you won’t see my responses to him if I quote him in my post.
Click to expand...
He’s not going to answer your question regarding police procedure.
 
rodoheel said:
It is important, and not simply pedantic to note that there is a real and material distinction between an actual cause of death and something that contributes to the death (or a "contributory cause"). Here is a CDC webpage (hey, they still exist!) discussing the difference:

Instructions for Classification of Underlying and Multiple Causes of Death - Section I - 2018

National Center for Health Statistics
www.cdc.gov www.cdc.gov

I was relying on Wikipedia for reporting accurately the autopsies of both people, though I also looked at the underlying news sources reporting on the autopsies. If someone has the actual autopsies and thinks that Wikipedia is not accurately reflecting them, I would be happy to see that.

The difference between something (say, an officer kneeling on your neck or chest) being an actual "underlying" cause of death and a contributory cause absolutely could make the difference in any legal action that is trying determine, whether civilly or criminally, what caused someone to die. Would the distinction necessarily matter? I don't know, which is what I initially said when bringing this up a few posts back. But that doesn't mean it isn't a real factual distinction between the cases.
Click to expand...
What you say is true; I just don't know that wikipedia would be sensitive to that level of detail in fairly obscure articles. How many times do you think the Timpa article has been edited?

I'm just thinking that what you said earlier is the right response: the officers who killed him should have been prosecuted if the facts were the same. Maybe the facts are the same, though I suspect the bigger difference is Texas/Minnesota.
 
WaynetheDrain said:
Because I’d like him to explain why he thought Derek Chauvin was following police procedure. It was such an incomprehensible and offensive statement, I needed to understand what he was thinking when he made the statement.

Is this not what messsge boards are for? Or do we just let dumb people say dumb things and not engage with them?

If it bothers you that much, put him on super ignore. From my understanding, that way you won’t see my responses to him if I quote him in my post.
Click to expand...
The problem is Zen says dumb things, then he doesn't support then, he then claims his own set of facts and drags the thread away from the topic.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top