A masterful retort.

Still not what I said, but at least you're consistent, if not interesting.

You can put new people on the ISS, fucking duh, and it’s still much lower risk than a moon mission. Not zero risk, just significantly lower risk for the same results, as I already said.

If you'll go back and read what i said i was responding directly to the quote :

You could get 40% more of the same data by increasing output on the ISS with no increased risk of death.

The difference between zero and low gravity is not subjective.

Agreed, It's a good job that isn't what i was claiming then, "The difference in environment between the ISS and the moon is worthless" is subjective.

“Justifications exist for this course of action even if they’re stupid” is a bad argument to make and you should stop making it,

Not what i said originally , it's in the chat history, please try harder.

I'll put down the sentence you wrote, and my response to it.

There is literally zero reason for us to put people in space when we can send drones to do it.

response

There are several reasons to put actual people in to space.

They might be reasons you think worth it, but they do exist.

The follow up :

Whether or not the reasons are good is irrelevant to my original argument.

Doesn't imply the reasons are bad, just that they are irrelevant.

if you know you’re not qualified to evaluate the validity of those justifications then quit trying

If you think qualifications are required for statements clearly stated as opinions then feel free to provide yours.

Also, not what i said, you should really read the comments properly before responding to them, if you incorrectly paraphrase text that is easily accessible if makes you look incompetent.

Not directly referencing the text you are paraphrasing because it wouldn't help your pseudo argument if you did, is also a weak move.

If you’re asking me whether or not i think the reasons are good, my answer is i don’t know and I’m not invested enough in the answer to go looking.

a bit further down is :

I don’t know enough to be certain about any of that though.

and that has a specific context attached to it, arguing against a point while pretending the clearly established context doesn't exist is also not a good look.

This is somewhat disappointing, at least come up with something that will hold up to more than 10 seconds of scrutiny.

From the rest of this thread i get the impression you'll appreciate this...so..

Whom is lying now?

Pretty sure that would be a who rather than a whom.

Carry on though...

Perhaps the argument that it isn't possible to assess merit for a job position is so far outside the realms of reason that asking for clarification is the only way to formulate an answer.

But if you want a simple, quotable answer for the obvious question as it is written, here you go:

• Asses the criteria for which a job would be considered to be successfully performed.
• Check if historical evidence/experience/current skill/expected future growth gives indication that the candidate could meet or exceed those criteria.
• Rank the candidates, based on how well they match to the success criteria.
• ???
• Profit?

It's tremendously disappointing to see people act like assessing fitness for a role isn't a thing that has been going on since the dawn of civilisation.

Get a grip.

Now, if you want argue that this isn't how things are currently done ? I’m right there with you.

The system is a shambolic remnant of what it should be ? couldn't agree more.

A lot of it is probably by design ? sure, i'm down for that perspective.

But "It isn't possible to assess merit for a job role", is a troll at best or extreme ignorance at worst.

If people weren't asking "are you sure that this is what you meant?" i'd be worried for the state of basic reasoning.

I think to a degree you can see our different styles in just our replies itself, I do care about conversation. I like it and think it’s best when it shares information or opinion about people who care to do so. I also dont think to think I can control it but add my opinion so it is seen and move on when it is obviously not productive.

I can see the difference in style but i think it's also a difference in perspective. For me, most interactions have useful information in them, even the ones like we've been talking about. There is a range of information that you can only get (or is more prevalent in) interactions that aren't a standard sharing of ideas or opinions, for me at least.

As i said, i do understand this is not the same for everyone.

And I dunno I care about others. I think frustrated yipping at each other isn’t fun empatheticly but I could be wrong about it. If you find interest in this conversation I am not meaning to stop you just wanted to know you were not stuck in that recursive loop (that was the word, thank you) against your own better judgement.

I will admit that my empathy seems to be non-standard, it's not like i don't have any but the situations in which it applies seem to differ from what i hear from others.

When i said fun in that initial reply, what i really mean was interest, in a sense that new information/perspectives are enjoyable because of the influx of new information.

Having to work through and around the yipping from one side is sometimes a requirement to get to the interesting bits, it's not fun, but it is what it is.

i appreciate the heads up though, i'm not immune to getting sucked past the point of interest sometimes.

i'm not particularly enthused about either, but if you'll read my original reply you can find out why i dislike the new one specifically.

hint it's not really because of the id itself

Yes, as i said, different in scope not type.

I don’t disagree with that. But you’d be operating with the unfounded assumption that he would NOT have died without the officer’s pressure on him. Prior to an autopsy or expert analysis, you could not accurately claim that.

The inverse is also true, but it's still not particularly relevant to my point outside of the rough example i gave previously.

Certainly, before people knew all the drugs he was on,

Irrelevant to the definition of killing unless they were an immediate life threatening danger* (which alters the context)

(* by which i mean, would have died in the same way, in the same rough time window without any outside interaction)

and how he was struggling to breathe while in the car

Same as above.

it’s not an unreasonable assumption to think he was killed, as it looked like it.

Not an assumption, dictionary definition of killing.

I don't think it'll make a difference but here is an actual definition : https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/killing

Note the lack of a requirement for it to be intentional.

But unlike the bullet that killed Thompson, being knelt on like that would not kill most people.

irrelevant , A peanut wouldn't kill most people.

The "potential" lethality of the act doesn't matter if the outcome is death.

So calling it unequivocally a killing prior to additional evidence, like you are, is unreasonable.

Again, killing is a reasonable conclusion for an action that causes a death that would otherwise not occur in that rough window of time.

Seems you're thinking of murder (or manslaughter) which legally has a component of intention, rather than killing.

Intention is separate from killing, but i don't think you're going to accept that.

If you punch someone with an undiscovered delicate brain tumor and they die as a result of that tumor rupturing you killed them.

If you scare someone with a heart condition and they drop dead, you killed them.

If you give peanuts to someone with a severe allergy and they die, you killed them.

If you restrict the breathing of someone with severe respiratory problems and they suffocate as a result, you killed them.

If you lay a bunch of physical stress on a body already under stress and they die because of it, you killed them.

Intentional or not, the action causes the event, even if the event likely to happen of it's own accord.

Unless he was going to drop dead in that moment of whatever it was that ended up killing him, the people involved in the actions that exacerbated or expedited the death, killed him.

I'm not saying this to assign blame, i'm citing cause and effect.

As i previously stated, it was a killing, intentional or not.

^ this is above

as everyone had seen it reported as a killing.

because it was, see above.

What i think you mean is that it was reported as an intentional killing, which is different and yes, bias until properly explored.

Millions protested for justice against his killer.

Because they thought he did it on purpose, if he was administering CPR to someone, cracked a rib and punctured a lung, the publicity would no doubt have been different.

It wasn't the killing, it was the perceived intention.

He died on video while under the influence of multiple drugs.

See above.

Someone dying does not mean they were killed.

Sure, drop dead on the street of an aneurysm , death but no killing.

If outside actions led to the death (intentional or not) then they were killed. See above.

Some people still believe he wasn’t killed.

Those people are incorrect (see above) unless what they mean is that they think he wasn't killed intentionally.

Sure

if it ticks the two boxes then it'll be useful to know :

1 : [ ] Independent

2 : [ ] Has provided long term, reproducible, studies with reasonable sample sizes and empirical data based results.

I'm stating my opinions just as you are.

Nobody is putting words into your mouth. I'm responding to the words you have said.

I've been trying to understand how you could hold such opinions in the face of both facts and your own stated understatings.

Seems willful ignorance is where we landed.

From your other responses elsewhere in the thread it seems this isn't isolated to just this exchange.

For the record, I do not appreciate your opinion on this as it lacks merit or substance.

If you are unwilling or unable to defend your opinions, a public forum is unlikely to be a good experience for you.

I'd suggest a blog, with the comments turned off.

Do you think anyone (regardless of race) should have received that level of response in that situation ? As with any dispute, both parties can always strive for more, but I try to put myself in the cop’s situation. How long is long enough before you have to pull somebody who is clearly not cooperating from their car? Not following a lawful order during a traffic stop is a misdemeanor, which means you may be exiting your vehicle whether you like it or not.

That's not an answer to the question, that's a reiteration of your previous stance.

Do you think anyone (regardless of race) would have received that level of response in that situation ? I am positive racism plays a part in policing. But I didn’t see anything in this that leads me to believe Tyreek’s skin color affected his outcome.

Given that answer i go back to my previous question of :

If you understand racism plays a part in policing, what makes you think this is the exception ?

I’m a white dude and I easily see this happening to me if I did what he did.

You are entitled to your opinion, but the overall statistics disagree with you.

Not in an individual instance sense, but in an overall sense. You might very well have this same thing happen, but it's statistically much less likely.

I’d personally view that as two opposing viewpoints, either you think he had it coming or you’re sorry it happened.

They are not opposing or mutually exclusive viewpoints. I can be sorry for someone for the outcome they have been dealt based on their own actions. I can be sorry for him but also unsurprised.

Now this is interesting, i wouldn't consider "they had it coming" to be the same as "I'm unsurprised this happened" , one is very much assigning blame and the other is more neutral.

If you meant the latter, then sure, not mutually exclusive.

"I can be sorry for someone for the outcome they have been dealt based on their own actions." can easily be interpreted the same way as "I'm sorry he made the officer drag him out of his car but he totally deserved it".

Yes, I truly feel this way in these circumstances. Perhaps I’m a naive idiot, but I just didn’t sense that he was treated that unfairly given his actions.

The point the article was making wasn't that he was treated unfairly based on his actions, it was that the treatment he received was different (read: worse) because of his race.

That the treatment he received could be considered unfair for the situation isn't the point.

A boy and a girl both steal an apple, they both get grounded, the boy is also banned from the shop.

"Well the girl still got grounded" doesn't negate that the punishment wasn't equal.

Same as "The boy deserved punishment" doesn't negate that the punishment wasn't equal.

If you truly understand that racism is a large problem in all aspects of policing, that isn't naivety that's wilful ignorance.