Serious question here: If Floyd died from neck compression as claimed.....

[Nordberg]

No, a heart attack killed him.

No, you are wrong and trying to defect from the truth, again. I guess you can argue his heart stopped from no oxygen for 9 minutes. That also results in brain death too.. Try claiming that was the cause not the effect. That seems to work on you.

 

[Bourbon]

Too Late for Excuses ... The Chickens are coming home to roost

 

[Celticguy]

No, you are wrong and trying to defect from the truth, again. I guess you can argue his heart stopped from no oxygen for 9 minutes. That also results in brain death too.. Try claiming that was the cause not the effect. That seems to work on you.

If hes talking hes breathing and there is bloid going to his brain. Until his heart stopped. Im sorry your fantasy is unravelled but thats just the way it goes when you knee jerk things you dont understand.

 

[Into the Night]

You said this "Also true. There is no evidence, however, that Floyd has Covid-19. There IS evidence, however, that he had some kind of cardio problem."
That is factually incorrect since the autopsy which was released before you made your statement states he had Covid-19. Your "so" is still a lame attempt to pass off your ignorance as being nothing.

There is no evidence he had Covid-19. The autopsy only shows he tested positive for it. That is not a proof.

keepit wrote:
It depends on the jurisdiction. The Minneapolis Police released the 911 transcript as reported by Hubbard Broadcasting in Minneapolis and many other sources.

The police do not release 911 transcripts. False authority fallacy.

keepit wrote:
Ad hominem since you don't address the argument but imply it being wrong by attacking the source as "fake".

It is a fake resource. False authority fallacy. Fallacy fallacy.

keepit wrote:
Ad hominem doesn't require an "insult."

Yes it does. Redefinition fallacy (insult<->void).

keepit wrote:
It is an attempt to attack the source as invalid

The source is invalid. The police do not release transcripts of 911. False authority fallacy.

keepit wrote:
because of who the source is while not showing how or why the source is wrong.

I did show how the source is wrong. Repetitious question already answered (RQAA).

keepit wrote:
You don't know much about fallacies, do you?

A fallacy is an error in logic, just like an error in mathematics. Both logic and mathematics are closed functional systems.

keepit wrote:
The classic example of an ad hominem argument is, "I don't trust them therefore they are wrong."

Not the insult fallacy (ad hominem fallacy). I never said they are wrong. YOU did. I said they are not a valid source.

keepit wrote:
Now you are using the argumentum ad ignoratiam fallacy.

Fallacy fallacy. False authority fallacy. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.

keepit wrote:
Because you don't know about something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Any google search of George Floyd 911 call reveals multiple sources of the transcript.

Google is not a valid source of 911 transcripts. Your 'multiple sources' is an argument from randU fallacy and a divisional error fallacy.

keepit wrote:
Are you accusing Tucker Carlson of being fake news?

Tucker Carlson does not release 911 transcripts either. False authority fallacy. Strawman fallacy.

keepit wrote:
Arugmentum ad ignoratiam on your part again. You don't show it to be non existent but simply claim you don't believe it to be true.

Fallacy fallacy. Redefinition fallacy. False authority fallacy. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.

keepit wrote:
Classic example.

Redefinition fallacy. Denial of logic.

keepit wrote:
Ad hominem fallacy.

Proof you don't understand fallacies.

Denial of logic.

keepit wrote:
Since I know more about fallacies than you, what does that say about your abilities to buy a clue?

Lie. Assumption of victory fallacy.

Mantras 8...7...void proof...attempted proof by fallacy. No argument presented. RQAA.

 

[Into the Night]

No, you are wrong and trying to defect from the truth, again. I guess you can argue his heart stopped from no oxygen for 9 minutes. That also results in brain death too.. Try claiming that was the cause not the effect. That seems to work on you.

Floyd was talking. He was able to breathe.

 

[Nordberg]

Floyd was talking. He was able to breathe.

Did you notice he talked early and then stopped. He was silent for several of those minutes. The bystanders were screaming at Chauvin to stop because Floyd was dying. How can you convince yourself of things like that? It was on video. We all saw it.

 

[Into the Night]

Did you notice he talked early and then stopped. He was silent for several of those minutes. The bystanders were screaming at Chauvin to stop because Floyd was dying. How can you convince yourself of things like that? It was on video. We all saw it.

No, he talked for most of the time.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

There is no evidence he had Covid-19. The autopsy only shows he tested positive for it. That is not a proof.

It seems you are confused about what is actually in the report. Floyd tested positive for Covid 19 in April and then tested positive again post mortem. You didn't say there was "no proof". You said there was "no evidence." Two positive tests would clearly be evidence. The fact that you won't admit it is evidence isn't my problem. It's yours.

The police do not release 911 transcripts. False authority fallacy.

Argumentum ad ignoratiam. You refuse to believe it because you claim police don't release transcripts.

It can't be a false authority fallacy since my argument is not that it was correct because an authority said it was correct. I merely pointed out that the transcript existed and you are ignorant of that fact.

https://myfox8.com/news/minneapolis-police-release-911-call-that-led-to-encounter-with-george-floyd/
https://www.insider.com/minneapolis-pd-release-call-transcript-in-george-floyd-arrest-2020-5
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/us/minneapolis-george-floyd-911-calls/index.html

It is a fake resource. False authority fallacy. Fallacy fallacy.

The fallacy fallacy is when one attributes a fallacy to an opponents argument and fails to describe why their argument is a fallacy. In this instance you repeat your fallacy of calling a resource "fake" and then provide us 2 examples of the fallacy fallacy. when you don't explain why my statement is a fallacy.

Yes it does. Redefinition fallacy (insult<->void).

The ad hominem fallacy only requires that the person be attacked and not the argument. It doesn't require an insult. Name calling can occur in an argument without it being an ad hominem. By calling a source fake, you are attacking the source and not addressing the argument hence it is an ad hominem.

The source is invalid. The police do not release transcripts of 911. False authority fallacy.

Repitition of your fallacy still doesn't prove the transcript doesn't exist.

I did show how the source is wrong. Repetitious question already answered (RQAA).

You called them "fake news". That isn't showing how they are wrong. That is an ad hominem argument.

A fallacy is an error in logic, just like an error in mathematics. Both logic and mathematics are closed functional systems.

True. Too bad you don't understand logical fallacies.

Not the insult fallacy (ad hominem fallacy). I never said they are wrong. YOU did. I said they are not a valid source.

So you are arguing that you didn't use the ad hominem fallacy but used the argumentum ad ignoratiam fallacy? When give other sources with the same information you have just repeated your claim that it must be wrong because you don't trust the first source. Can you tell us which fallacy that is?

Fallacy fallacy. False authority fallacy. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.

Another example of the fallacy fallacy from you. You accuse me of three fallacies but don't show how I committed any of them. Claiming the opponent is using a fallacy but not telling why it is a fallacy is the fallacy fallacy. My statement can't be a fallacy fallacy since I explained why your statement was a fallacy.

Google is not a valid source of 911 transcripts. Your 'multiple sources' is an argument from randU fallacy and a divisional error fallacy.

Strawman fallacy on your part. I never said Google is a source. I said Google leads you to multiple sources. Google is a search engine. It allows you to find multiple sources. Multiple sources is not a divisional error fallacy. You seem to randomly select fallacies and accuse people of them. This is another example of you using the fallacy fallacy where you accuse me of fallacies but don't show how my statement is the fallacy.

Tucker Carlson does not release 911 transcripts either. False authority fallacy. Strawman fallacy.

Carlson publishes transcripts released by others. Argumentum ad ignoratiam on your part. By saying no one releases transcripts you are essentially arguing that the transcript doesn't exist. Your false authority fallacy is the strawman since I never claimed Carlson was the authority and we should believe it because of him. Your use of "strawman fallacy" is also a fallacy fallacy since you don't explain what my strawman was. I never argued against anything. I merely asked a question.

Fallacy fallacy. Redefinition fallacy. False authority fallacy. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.

Would you look at that? Four instances of the fallacy fallacy on your part. You accuse me of four different fallacies but don't explain how I committed any of them.

Redefinition fallacy. Denial of logic.

The words "Classic example" is a denial of logic?

Denial of logic.

The statement that "You don't understand fallacies" is hardly a denial of logic since it is not a logical construct.

Lie. Assumption of victory fallacy.

Mantras 8...7...void proof...attempted proof by fallacy. No argument presented. RQAA.[/QUOTE]I hardly declared victory. I made an observation about your inability to understand what fallacies are.


You seem to commit the fallacy fallacy repeatedly. The fallacy fallacy is where one claims the opponent is using a fallacy but then doesn't explain why their statement is a fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

It seems you are confused about what is actually in the report.

Nope. You have made it perfectly clear what is in this 'report'.

Floyd tested positive for Covid 19 in April and then tested positive again post mortem.

So?

You didn't say there was "no proof". You said there was "no evidence."

The evidence you have given is insufficient for the reasons I stated.

Two positive tests would clearly be evidence.

Insufficient evidence. Strawman fallacy.

The fact that you won't admit it is evidence isn't my problem. It's yours.

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.

Argumentum ad ignoratiam. You refuse to believe it because you claim police don't release transcripts.

Fallacy fallacy. They don't.

It can't be a false authority fallacy since my argument is not that it was correct because an authority said it was correct.

False authority fallacy. The authority used is invalid.

I merely pointed out that the transcript existed and you are ignorant of that fact.

Maybe, maybe not. The 'transcript' you are pointing to in my opinion is pure fiction.

...deleted Holy Links...

The fallacy fallacy is when one attributes a fallacy to an opponents argument and fails to describe why their argument is a fallacy.

Denial of logic. Not the definition of a fallacy fallacy. There is no requirement to describe why one's argument is a fallacy. In any case, I have done so.

In this instance you repeat your fallacy of calling a resource "fake"

It is fake. False authority fallacy.

and then provide us 2 examples of the fallacy fallacy.

Fallacy fallacy. Denial of logic.

when you don't explain why my statement is a fallacy.

I have. RQAA.

The ad hominem fallacy only requires that the person be attacked and not the argument.

WRONG. The insult fallacy (ad hominem) requires the use of an insult.

It doesn't require an insult.

Yes it does.

Name calling can occur in an argument without it being an ad hominem.

No it can't. It is always an ad hominem.

By calling a source fake, you are attacking the source and not addressing the argument hence it is an ad hominem.

Not a fallacy at all. Denial of logic.

Repitition of your fallacy still doesn't prove the transcript doesn't exist.

Your 'transcript' exists. We are talking about it, dumbass.

You called them "fake news". That isn't showing how they are wrong. That is an ad hominem argument.

I have showed how they were wrong. RQAA.

True. Too bad you don't understand logical fallacies.

Inversion fallacy.

So you are arguing that you didn't use the ad hominem fallacy

Haven't here. I occasionally use name calling on this forum. I don't try to make an argument out of it though, like a lot of people here do.

but used the argumentum ad ignoratiam fallacy?

Never used that fallacy. You don't know what that one is either.

When give other sources with the same information you have just repeated your claim that it must be wrong

Google is not a valid source. Sources copy each other too.

because you don't trust the first source.

I don't trust any of your sources for the reasons I gave. You cannot use a source as a proof.

Can you tell us which fallacy that is?

Not a fallacy.

Another example of the fallacy fallacy from you. You accuse me of three fallacies but don't show how I committed any of them.

Not the fallacy fallacy. Try again.

Claiming the opponent is using a fallacy but not telling why it is a fallacy is the fallacy fallacy.

No. You are making shit up. Denial of logic.

My statement can't be a fallacy fallacy since I explained why your statement was a fallacy.

No, you are making shit up.

Strawman fallacy on your part. I never said Google is a source.

Yes you did, liar.

I said Google leads you to multiple sources. Google is a search engine.

You used Google as a source again!

It allows you to find multiple sources.

So?

Multiple sources is not a divisional error fallacy.

Using a single list of sources and assuming that they are all legitimate because one is considered legitimate (even though it isn't) is a divisional error fallacy.

You seem to randomly select fallacies and accuse people of them.

Inversion fallacy.

This is another example of you using the fallacy fallacy where you accuse me of fallacies but don't show how my statement is the fallacy.

Buzzword fallacy. Denial of logic. RQAA.

Carlson publishes transcripts released by others.

He is not a valid source either. Same copy of this so-called 'transcript'.

Argumentum ad ignoratiam on your part. By saying no one releases transcripts you are essentially arguing that the transcript doesn't exist.

Fallacy fallacy. Lie. I never said no one releases transcripts. Stop putting words in people's mouths.

Your false authority fallacy is the strawman since I never claimed Carlson was the authority

Yes you did, liar.

and we should believe it because of him.

You said that too.

Your use of "strawman fallacy" is also a fallacy fallacy since you don't explain what my strawman was.

Not required, and I did. RQAA.

I never argued against anything. I merely asked a question.

Loaded questions are statements, couched as a question.

Would you look at that? Four instances of the fallacy fallacy on your part. You accuse me of four different fallacies but don't explain how I committed any of them.

Lie. Buzzword fallacy. Denial of logic.

The words "Classic example" is a denial of logic?

Semantic argument fallacy.

The statement that "You don't understand fallacies" is hardly a denial of logic since it is not a logical construct.

An invalid logical construct as a proof. You are denying logic.

Mantras 8...7...void proof...attempted proof by fallacy. No argument presented. RQAA.

I hardly declared victory.

Lie. You did exactly that.

I made an observation about your inability to understand what fallacies are.

Denial of logic. Redefinition fallacy (observation<->argument).

You seem to commit the fallacy fallacy repeatedly. The fallacy fallacy is where one claims the opponent is using a fallacy but then doesn't explain why their statement is a fallacy.

Argument by repetition fallacy. Denial of logic. Buzzword fallacy.

No argument presented. RQAA. Denial of logic. Buzzword fallacies. Mantras 8...29...39m...39d...

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Nope. You have made it perfectly clear what is in this 'report'.

So?

So then are you admitting there is evidence of Floyd having Covid-19 or are you still in denial?

The evidence you have given is insufficient for the reasons I stated.

You stated there is "no evidence". That is quite a bit different from the evidence being insufficient.

Insufficient evidence. Strawman fallacy.

Insufficient evidence is not the same as no evidence. Your moving the goal posts is not my strawman. At this point we are talking about your fallacy as you go from "no evidence" to "no proof" to "insufficient evidence."

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.

Fallacy fallacy. They don't.

False authority fallacy. The authority used is invalid.

Maybe, maybe not. The 'transcript' you are pointing to in my opinion is pure fiction.

argumentum ad ignoratiam. Claiming something is fiction because you don't want to believe it

Denial of logic. Not the definition of a fallacy fallacy. There is no requirement to describe why one's argument is a fallacy. In any case, I have done so.

It is fake. False authority fallacy.

Fallacy fallacy. Denial of logic.

I have. RQAA.

WRONG. The insult fallacy (ad hominem) requires the use of an insult.

Yes it does.

No it can't. It is always an ad hominem.

Not a fallacy at all. Denial of logic.

Your 'transcript' exists. We are talking about it, dumbass.

I have showed how they were wrong. RQAA.

Inversion fallacy.

Haven't here. I occasionally use name calling on this forum. I don't try to make an argument out of it though, like a lot of people here do.

Never used that fallacy. You don't know what that one is either.

Google is not a valid source. Sources copy each other too.

I don't trust any of your sources for the reasons I gave. You cannot use a source as a proof.

Not a fallacy.

Not the fallacy fallacy. Try again.

No. You are making shit up. Denial of logic.

No, you are making shit up.

What am I making up?

Yes you did, liar.

You used Google as a source again!

No, I am using Google as a search engine again. Your argument makes no sense. It would mean if I go to look up something at the library then I am using the library as a source rather than than the resource materials in the library.

So?

Using a single list of sources and assuming that they are all legitimate because one is considered legitimate (even though it isn't) is a divisional error fallacy.

Assuming all sources are illegitimate because one is considered illegitimate would be the same thing.

Inversion fallacy.

Buzzword fallacy. Denial of logic. RQAA.

He is not a valid source either. Same copy of this so-called 'transcript'.

Fallacy fallacy. Lie. I never said no one releases transcripts. Stop putting words in people's mouths.

Yes you did, liar.

You said that too.

Not required, and I did. RQAA.

Loaded questions are statements, couched as a question.

Lie. Buzzword fallacy. Denial of logic.

Semantic argument fallacy.

An invalid logical construct as a proof. You are denying logic.

Lie. You did exactly that.

Denial of logic. Redefinition fallacy (observation<->argument).

Argument by repetition fallacy. Denial of logic. Buzzword fallacy.

No argument presented. RQAA. Denial of logic. Buzzword fallacies. Mantras 8...29...39m...39d...

 

[Into the Night]

So then are you admitting there is evidence of Floyd having Covid-19 or are you still in denial?

No. There is no valid evidence.

You stated there is "no evidence". That is quite a bit different from the evidence being insufficient.

There is no valid evidence.

Insufficient evidence is not the same as no evidence.

Insufficient evidence from some possibly fictional transcript is no valid evidence.

Your moving the goal posts is not my strawman.

Fallacy fallacy. I am not moving anything. Buzzword fallacy. Denial of logic.

At this point we are talking about your fallacy as you go from "no evidence" to "no proof" to "insufficient evidence."

No valid evidence means no valid evidence.

argumentum ad ignoratiam. Claiming something is fiction because you don't want to believe it

Fallacy fallacy. Denial of logic. The Argument of Ignorance fallacy is the use of a negative proof by a compositional error over an open class, such as a claim that there are no black marbles in a bag because you pulled out three white marbles.

What am I making up?

Your 'fallacies' and 'logic'. RQAA.

No, I am using Google as a search engine again.

And you used it as a source again. Same fallacy. False authority fallacy.

Your argument makes no sense.

Inversion fallacy.

It would mean if I go to look up something at the library then I am using the library as a source rather than than the resource materials in the library.

Looking something up is not a reference. Neither is where you look it up.

Assuming all sources are illegitimate because one is considered illegitimate would be the same thing.

Never made any such statement, liar. Fallacy fallacy.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

No. There is no valid evidence.

There is no valid evidence.

Insufficient evidence from some possibly fictional transcript is no valid evidence.

The evidence of Floyd being positive for Covid-19 isn't from a fictional transcript. It is from the autopsy report.

https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hen...-safety/documents/Autopsy_2020-3700_Floyd.pdf
(By the way, I googled the autopsy report to find the link but it clearly isn't from Google. It is from the Hennepin County coroner's office which by any reasonable person would be considered the source.)


You seem to be confused about what evidence is from where. Clearly you are building a huge strawman here if you think I ever claimed the 911 transcript showed him to be positive for the virus.

The transcript of the 911 call doesn't say he is Covid-19 positive.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Looking something up is not a reference. Neither is where you look it up.

Where you look something up is the reference source.

If I look something up in a dictionary and then use that in a paper, the reference source is the dictionary and would be cited as such if it was not common knowledge.
If I look something up in an encyclopedia then use that in a paper, the reference source would be the encyclopedia and would be cited as such if it was not common knowledge.
If I look something up in the NYTimes then use that in a paper, the reference source would be the NYTimes and would be cited as such if it was not common knowledge.
If I look something up on the Hennepin County website then use that, the reference source would be the Hennepin County website and would be cited as such if it was not common knowledge.

Never made any such statement, liar. Fallacy fallacy.

For someone that claimed to not often use ad hominem arguments, you seem to attack me personally a lot.

 

[Into the Night]

The evidence of Floyd being positive for Covid-19 isn't from a fictional transcript. It is from the autopsy report.

So?

(By the way, I googled the autopsy report to find the link but it clearly isn't from Google. It is from the Hennepin County coroner's office which by any reasonable person would be considered the source.)

That is the valid source of the autopsy report. It is, however, an opinion from the Hennepin County coroner.

You seem to be confused about what evidence is from where.

You seem to be confused about where I said something has no valid evidence either. You seem to have lost all context.

Clearly you are building a huge strawman here if you think I ever claimed the 911 transcript showed him to be positive for the virus.

Never did. You are making shit up again liar.

The transcript of the 911 call doesn't say he is Covid-19 positive.

Never said it did. You are making shit up again, liar.

 

[Bourbon]

YAWN

 

[Into the Night]

Where you look something up is the reference source.

Looking something up is not a reference.

If I look something up in a dictionary and then use that in a paper, the reference source is the dictionary and would be cited as such if it was not common knowledge.
If I look something up in an encyclopedia then use that in a paper, the reference source would be the encyclopedia and would be cited as such if it was not common knowledge.
If I look something up in the NYTimes then use that in a paper, the reference source would be the NYTimes and would be cited as such if it was not common knowledge.
If I look something up on the Hennepin County website then use that, the reference source would be the Hennepin County website and would be cited as such if it was not common knowledge.

If you use what you looked as a predicate to an argument, it is a reference. Depending on the argument, the reference may or may not be valid. A predicate is not a proof.

For someone that claimed to not often use ad hominem arguments, you seem to attack me personally a lot.

A lie is a lie. If you lie, you are a liar. That is not name calling. Stop lying, and I will stop calling you a liar.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

So?

That is the valid source of the autopsy report. It is, however, an opinion from the Hennepin County coroner.

You seem to be confused about where I said something has no valid evidence either. You seem to have lost all context.

Never did. You are making shit up again liar.

Never said it did. You are making shit up again, liar.

So... now it is a valid source but it doesn't have valid evidence in it.

You have made the following statements -

There is no evidence, however, that Floyd has Covid-19.
I never said Floyd didn't have Covid.
There is no evidence he had Covid-19.
The evidence you have given is insufficient for the reasons I stated.
No. There is no valid evidence.
There is no valid evidence.
Insufficient evidence from some possibly fictional transcript is no valid evidence.
That is the valid source of the autopsy report. It is, however, an opinion from the Hennepin County coroner.

It isn't the coroner's opinion that he tested positive for Covid-19. It is the result of a scientific test as reported by the coroner.

By the way, when you accuse me of making things up. I am not the one that is confused. You said this -

Insufficient evidence from some possibly fictional transcript is no valid evidence.

The only discussion of "insufficient evidence" was about whether Floyd had Covid-19, Clearly I did not make up anything about your confusing the evidence being in the 911 call transcript.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Looking something up is not a reference.


If you use what you looked as a predicate to an argument, it is a reference. Depending on the argument, the reference may or may not be valid. A predicate is not a proof.


A lie is a lie. If you lie, you are a liar. That is not name calling. Stop lying, and I will stop calling you a liar.

Now you are using the equivocation fallacy. Evidence is used to prove something but it doesn't make the evidence a proof and I never said it was a proof.
You are simply taking the word "prove" which was used as an verb and now trying to use the word "proof" as a noun to argue I am wrong.
Evidence is used to prove something but it doesn't make the evidence a proof and I never said it was a proof.

For someone that claimed to not often use ad hominem arguments, you seem to attack me personally a lot.

Calling me a liar doesn't show how my statements are wrong. They only show you resorting to fallacious arguments rather than arguing the substance and providing support for your position.

 

[Bourbon]

Do you think the Trump Family will have to LIE about how many people show up for Donny Dumb Shit Funeral?

 

[Into the Night]

So... now it is a valid source but it doesn't have valid evidence in it.

You have made the following statements -

There is no evidence, however, that Floyd has Covid-19.
I never said Floyd didn't have Covid.
There is no evidence he had Covid-19.
The evidence you have given is insufficient for the reasons I stated.
No. There is no valid evidence.
There is no valid evidence.
Insufficient evidence from some possibly fictional transcript is no valid evidence.
That is the valid source of the autopsy report. It is, however, an opinion from the Hennepin County coroner.

It isn't the coroner's opinion that he tested positive for Covid-19. It is the result of a scientific test as reported by the coroner.

By the way, when you accuse me of making things up. I am not the one that is confused. You said this -
The only discussion of "insufficient evidence" was about whether Floyd had Covid-19, Clearly I did not make up anything about your confusing the evidence being in the 911 call transcript.

I'm afraid you have lost context completely. You are no longer making any sense. You have taken my statements out of context so far you have lost context yourself.

Done here. Nothing left but a dead parrot.