Indeed, and is the image posted supposed to be about the character "wonder woman" or gal gadot in a wonder woman costume?

Hint: look at the text

Yes, the inverse is also true. Which is why it was necessary to investigate it to see why he died, as it was not clear why.

Agree, but cause of death is not the same as whether or not he was killed, i know you're not seeing the distinction.

You, however, just saw the video and assumed the cop’s actions caused his death. It’s unclear why considering his actions would not normally kill someone.

I saw a video of someone not immediately dying, then a bunch of people restraining him, then he died.

It's reasonable to assume if he was just standing there and they hadn't interacted at all, he wouldn't have died.

I'll break it down into steps:

No interaction -> I'm assuming he isn't just going to drop dead in that moment.

Interaction -> he died.

Therefore interaction led to death.

It is possible, though very unlikely he could have just dropped dead of his own accord, it's not a reasonable assumption that he would though.

I'm not sure how why this is a difficult concept , but it's certainly interesting to see.

Entirely relevant. If you saw a video of them feeding him a peanut butter sandwich and he died right afterward, you have no clear evidence without autopsy that he didn’t have a heart attack or something. You can’t just assume the cop’s actions caused it.

That's some top tier mental gymnastics, but not entirely incorrect.

The same could be said that if someone was shot and bled out, you couldn't be sure it wasn't a heart attack that killed them, but you can be reasonable sure it was getting shot that led to the death.

Yes, i suppose you couldn't be sure until the autopsy, but it's reasonable to assume causation until proven otherwise.

Please note that i'm saying causation and not the legal qualifications for murder or manslaughter, because so far you seem to be conflating the two.

How is it not an assumption to say the cop’s actions caused his death prior to autopsy?

Hmm, you are right, that is my bad, it is an assumption, even after the autopsy.

I stand by it being a reasonable assumption though. ( of killing, not intent )

I’m an not talking about manslaughter, murder, none of that. I’m not talking about intent. I am talking about the same definition of killing that you are.

You are not, i'm talking about cause and effect you're talking about media bias and fairness.

As i said, if they'd been having lunch and he'd been accidentally given a strong allergen, the conversation would be very different.

Still killing though.

Even if everyone knew, for a fact, that the death was caused by the actions of the police, that isn't itself a bias take with regards to the trial/law.

That's just cause and effect.

The law is couched in intention and context, otherwise there wouldn't be a need for distinctions such as murder, manslaughter etc. There would be an autopsy and a conviction.

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.

We know floyd was killed, there is a video of it happening, he was alive then he was not, as a direct result of what was happening when he died on video.

The trial was to determine whether or not it was intentional and/or malicious.

No?

PART 1/2

What’s an area where something can be done maliciously or by accident? Car crashes? Workplace injury? Incorrect tax claims? Taking something from a shop? All of these are, to my understanding (and with decreasing confidence, but all have evidence - crime stats for the first, to, HMRC estimates and this Ipsos poll respectively) more likely to be accidental than malicious.

Is there a similar poll for political decisions and outcomes ?

Genuine question, that's be super interesting, if so.

To me this is a general principle: human beings are social animals and have an instinct to be agreeable and cooperative, to live within socially-agreed rules, to tell the truth and not to fuck people over. Those who break the rules are the exception - otherwise it wouldn’t make any sense to have rules and to have society.

So my background assumption is that people are honest.

I think that's where our difference in interpretation stems from , i think humans have the instinct for survival and reproduction, that agreement, cooperation and social interaction provided a better environment for survival is incidental.

Honesty is possible in a situation where survival isn't on the line, in a life or death situation i think the person who would tell the truth knowing it will get them ( or more importantly, their family ) killed, is the outlier.

Outside of hyperbolous scenarios i think honesty is not the default in a situation where it doesn't have a social/survival impact.

Such as a politician lying for fiscal/politician gain, knowing that there isn't really any punishment for that.

because the nature of being in a society is that we point out and emphasise the times when people don’t abide by its rules; we have to use more robust methods to estimate its prevalence.

I also disagree with this, it's a nice ideal and we should absolutely strive for this, but it's just not how it works in practice, from my experience.

I think we disagree on what the rules are, it seems like you think calling out perceived injustices in fairness and corruption being met with punishment for the corrupt is what should happen.

In practice i think that only happens in the lower stakes, once you start pointing at people with wealth and power that rule quickly changes from "call it out and we'll punish the offender" to "call it out and we'll punish you for pointing it out and as a deterrent to others who might do the same".

That's not a society that honesty and inherent (relative) goodness as foundational concepts would produce.

Kickbacks to politicians in the UK are comparatively tiny though. Enough to motivate someone who’s already a grifter, but not enough to cause anyone but the extraordinarily stupid to be motivated by getting them.

That comparatively is carrying a lot of weight there and again i think we just disagree about this point in general.

You pushed back on this before but I genuinely think that the reason people think otherwise is because they just can’t believe that (for example) Tories actually believe that the country would work better by spending less on public services and benefits. The only remaining explanation is kickbacks by the direct beneficiaries of these policies. Even if your logic isn’t as formalised as that, I still think that on some level that is the feeling that makes you ready to believe that Tory politicians are so unlike the population at large - that is, massively more dishonest.

And again you are missing my point, that they believe or not it isn't the issue.

I can say with full confidence i absolutely do not care if they believe it, or if they don't, makes zero difference to me.

If a politician(or politicians) wants to run some shenanigans on PPE contracts, netting their friends x millions of pounds, it care not a whit if they believe in the general correctness of conservatism.

I will state it plainly, mark this as [POINT A] and point back to this, because it seems you are skipping this part entirely.

[POINT A]

If there is consistent historic precedent of a mismatch between stated intent and actual outcome by both the individual/institution and other related contexts then i will assume that behaviour will continue until proven otherwise.

It's not "i don't understand, so they must be corrupt" it's "they have a history of being shady and incompetent, so I'm going to assume they will continue to be shady and incompetent"

Their belief is irrelevant, their later explanations of their intent is perhaps cause for minor adjustment.

Feel free to rephrase the same assumption again, i will point back to this explanation.

I shall defer to your interpretation, absolute arbiter of meaning.

That proves it’s possible, not that it happened this time.

Yes, as I've previously pointed out, there are examples of this happening.

Can i prove it's a majority, probably not and it seems like a lot of effort so I'm not going to, but I'll wait while you provide the majority of examples proving incompetence over malice.

No, just because something is not objective does not mean that claims about at are baseless. Do you think that the article here “has no basis for saying it’s a bad idea”? Surely not. Politics is, more often than not, about questions that don’t have objective answers. You say there’s a provable downside, but it’s not actually provable; it’s still theoretical at this point. We don’t know for sure whether anyone’s data will be leaked, for example. It’s in exactly the same realm as the potential upsides - it is likely (but impossible to quantify at this stage) that some people will feel curtailed in what they can do and say online, which will be negative for them. At the same time, it is likely (but impossble to quantify) that some children will not harm themselves because they won’t have seen encouragement online to perform acts of self-harm.

I'm not sure why you asked about how i do predictive analysis and ask questions that ignore the answer.

I'm not saying this specific action can be proven to be a bad idea before it happens, i have, many times said that i judge these things based on what has come before and the outcomes of those things.

Read the rest of my replies for examples of how this works.

Boris you’re probably right but I don’t think Sunak went into politics to enrich himself or to seek power. The rewards you get in the UK are just pitiful - Sunak did a hundred times better by marrying into wealth, and anyone could do better by getting a job in the City.

Again ignoring the idea of power as a motivation, but sure sunak probably had/has other avenues to money (and power).

I know dozens of people who earn more than an MP even if you count all the likely dinners gifts and cushy consulting jobs they’re likely to get. Why bother going to the trouble of getting selected, getting elected, and then having to show up for whipped votes, merely for a chance at some perks, when you could do better with less faff elsewhere>

If you are judging the potential benefits of being an MP/PM solely by the salary they pull in you have already failed to consider all of the relevant information.

You yourself mentioned corruption, and again the kickbacks and favours are well established.

I genuinely don't understand how you think arguing this point and ignoring a large chunk of the salient information would work.

It might be interesting to listen to interviews with politicians from across the divide, preferably after they’ve left office. It won’t make you agree with their position, but it’ll make you see them in a different light when they’re able to explain their thought process (which the media culture doesn’t permit when in office) and the principles behind what they did.

You have to be trolling at this point, so I'll say it once more and then I'm just going to point at this line again in the future.

The things that they say and the outcomes that resulted from that don't match a lot of the time, after-the-fact explanations add flavour sure, but given how often this makes little difference i will continue to base my predictions on what they stated they were going to do vs what happened.

Reading alexanders biography isn't going to change the outcomes or the stated intents of the time.

Assuming he's not lying or spinning, which is a big if given his track record, then i might get some insight as to his stated intention, which i will still judge against the outcome.

This is the same method i would use for all political biographies.

If you say something is true, then you should be able to justify it..

If i say something is absolutely true, then i should back it up with absolute proof, this applies to everyone.

If i state something is my opinion (or it's clear that it is) then i should provide the information i can to show my working and how i came to that opinion, that gives others the opportunity to examine my reasoning and thought process and then perhaps question parts of it they disagree with.

This is how debate style conversations generally work.

Politics is not the realm of headcanon

I am legitimately unsure how you came to the conclusion that a discussion around politics (especially modern politics) has no room for the inclusion of the public opinion and perception of the politicians.

I mean, go up a few lines in your response for this banger :

Politics is, more often than not, about questions that don’t have objective answers.

You can't have it both ways.

Without objectiveness you are left with subjectiveness, also known as personal opinion and perception (headcanon)

If you want to pretend your interpretation of three descriptors is universal then i'm not sure discussion is what you are looking for.

Two potentially (probably) negative and one neutral, to me, but what do i know , you are the arbiter of correct interpretations after all.

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.