Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“The trachea is more anterior, I don’t see why pressing the posterior of the neck should occlude one’s airway or it should impact circulation to the brain”
I dont really understand your question.
The entire neck is compressible, Chauvin had Floyd’s neck pressed against the soldi ground
This would absolutely be expected to constrict the airway whether constricted anterior or posteriorly if it is held against a fixed surface (the ground)“Since when does putting pressure on the back of the neck restrict ones breathing?”
sine the Ribono Shel olam desined man with a narrow area though which blood vessels and the trachea travel.
“CAN ANYONE KNOW HOW HARD THE COP WAS PRESSING?”
you mean how much psi of pressure he placed? no I don’t think so.“AND DOES A KNEE TO THE BACK OF THE NECK STOP SOMEONES BREATHING?”
Yes,“I’m curios why its never come up with all the other stuff. ”
It has come up and it will in court.A point you are missing is the knee placement itself wasn’t the problem. It was a valid for of restraint at the time. But , and htis is key, for a “actively resisting suspect” Once Floyd was no longer resisting keeping his knee there was assault. Once peopl called out asking if he was breathing and Chauvin made no effort to check on his victim, he displayed a blatant disregard for human life.
In my mind THAT is where the charges arise.
Not for the original knee placement which MAY (I don’t know why he chauvin dragged him out of the car, that part is still unclear) have been justifiable. What inevitably happens in these discussions is people mistakenly think once force becomes justifiable all bets are off. This is of course nonsense.Rewatch the tape, see if Floyd is resisting , and ask yourself every minute or so, if AT THAT POINT force was justifiable.
som1
I cant help but notice that while you did stick a true but irrelevant comment, you did not answer the question
“Justice Antonin Scalia warned about all this when he insisted upon strict constructionism, ruling based on the Constitution’s original meaning, rather than a so-called notion of an “everchanging Constitution” that allows every leftist judge to rule whatever he wants based on his feelings of what he dreams the Constitution should mean today, not what the authors of the Constitution (and statues, for that matter) intended when writing the laws.”
In addition to my above comment it is worth noting that The Supreme court unanimously voted to change what the original intent of the Constitution clearly was , with regard to faithless electors.
This idea that only “leftist judges” ascribe to an ever changing constitution is demonstrably false.BY1212
“Maybe you had no success bc you’re an incompetent Doctor. You know that there are quite a few quacks out there.”Maybe, thats why I checked with others .
“All you seem able to do is impugn zelenko based on zero evidence.”
nope I pointed out flaws in his study
AND that his study did not show the results he claimed” Sounds to me u r just jealous of his recent notoriety.”
Jealous of getting run out of town? I don’t follow.
Though I think the attacks on him were wrong. (I also think his running around from talk show to talk show before he had any real data was wrong)“In the meantime, unless you are calling him a liar and if you are please come straight out and say it,”
Liar seems strong. Yes he stretched the truth a bit. His published data shows NO benefit in mortality , though it does show decrease hospitalizations. This is not at all clear from his statements on this.“he has treated 2000 patients w his prescription and only 2 deaths .”
wow the number keeps growing. The most Ive heard him claim was 1000, his study reported on 127.“OTOH, we have you the armchair party pooper who tried to squash discussion based on your being a doctor”
squash discussion? There are 351 posts in this thread (and this is the third thread on this though the others arent nearly as long) . It has lasted over 3 months now. You have a very funny definition of “sguashi[ing] discussion“Who goes to a nephrologist within a few days of catching a flu?”
dialysis patients…Thanks 2scentes
“Right Now it’s Obvious!
Combine the 2 studies.”Thats fair. The main study that showed harm had since been retracted. So my bringing it up was wrong.
By
You could not be more wrong
Nobody’s response was “meh”All doctors I know (presen company included) prescribed it in the hope that it May work. Most of them (present company included ) did not see the amazing results that some were hyping and looked forward to saying documentation of said results.
Others did studies of their ownnobody said “meh” Everybody either tried it looked into it or both
“So why didn’t you look it UP ?!?”
I did, and I assumed you did to.
““We performed a retrospective observational study to compare hospital outcomes among patients who received hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin plus zinc versus hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin alone.”
correct
“I assume that they got regular Standard of Care.”
No! they got HCQ without zinc. AS you wrote in the previous sentenceThe yfound that those who got HCQ + Zinc did better than those who got HCQ alone
But who says HCQ alone is a good treatment? some studies show those who got HCQ alone did WORSE than those who didnt ?
So which is better HCQ +Zinc or “regular standard of care”?
Carlucci doesn’t tell us(to be clear I know what they compared it to, I think Health does too, I am trying to make a point)
akuperma
“Would we object to a statute of a Nazi who didn’t support the holocaust (especially if he ended up being executed by the Nazi government)? What if he was merely not involved with the holocaust.”
The question to ask is WHY is there a statue of the person. A statue or Plaque of Say Oskar schindler, is not there to commemorate his role as a member of the Nazi party it is there to commemorate his role in saving Jews. Yes he happened to be a member of the Nazi party who was a womanizer but that is not what he being glorified.
A statue of Jefferson Davis is not meant to glorify his world renowned chess skills or or his winning the Olympics or something. It is there to glorify his leadership in a racist government. Same for Lee. Yes he may have been personaly opposed to slavery. But that isnt why there are statues of him
“An argument can be made the rebellion of the American South in 1861-1865 was not initially about slavery”
That argument has been made but it doesn’t hold water. A brief perusal of the primary sources including most of the states said reasons for secession shows this.“What’s the rationale behind this, or is this just a wild assumption your making?”
I’m not making any assumption.
whenever you talk about a reduction in mortality. By definition you need to determine reduction compared to what?
If I try to sell you a new detergent “guaranteed to clean your clothing 50% better! ”
Better than what? your current detergent? to no detergent ? 50% better than rubbing it in mud? Compared to what?So in Zelenkos study he showed that patients who got his protocol were hospitalized less than those who did not. (He was not able to show that the survived compared to those who did not )
so my question to Health was. the NYU study showed a reduction in mortality by using HCQ+Zinc. compared to what?
““The NYU Study found a 44% reduction in Mortality, when given before needing ICU Admission.””
whenever a study makes a claim like that the key question to ask is “reduction in mortality” compared to what? to doing nothing/placebo? to some standard treatment? compared to throwing them of a building roof?
So the NYU study showed a reduction in mortality compared to ….
“I’ll calm your curiosity:”
you havent though
My question was “would you support a statue of Arafat in Time’s square?”
(I realize it was unclear they are 2 different question:
1) time square Ie on a pedestal like columbus in Columbus circle
2) in a museum with other wax figures
(I Have no problem with #2 he was a historical figure and belongs in a hall of political leaders that includes Castro Qaddafi I thought Hikind was silly for trying to remove him)“Additionally the civil war wasn’t just about slavery ”
true. Rarely is something complex just about one issue. But it was mostly about slavery. The reason for secession was the southern states wanted to continue to own other humans they deemed inferior. This is clear from almost all southern state’s declarations of session.
Starting wit h the first state to secede:
SC
“The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution….
A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.”MI: “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery”
Happy to provide more. if necessary
Health
I m sorry I dont know what you are saying“Here’s proof that Zinc & HCQ works for Covid19:”
Great so keep giving it (though Carluccis study doesnt really prove that it proves it is better than HCQ alone
!
But hey, if you are convinced that is fine, I have no interest in talking you out of itThe question posed at the onset of this thread was why if Dr. Zelenko is havign success with the his protocol isnt everybod givign it ? (not a verbatim quote)
The answer was, he does not have evidence that his protocol is helping.
This still holds true today 3 months later.Now is it still true that there is no evidence that HCQ helps? I’m not so sure, I think so but I think reasonable people can disagree
“I don’t understand your comparison”
I am talking about statues of Robert e Lee and Jefferson Davis . I’m not discussing slave owners like George Washington or JEfferson
statues of them are for one reason and one reason only. Glorifying their role in a racist treasonous movement.
you say“Slavery wasn’t viewed as a wrong 150 years ago
Killing people through terrorism has always been considered wrong”Neither of these statements are true. 150 years ago many thought slavery was wrong. In fact a war was fought (at the very least partly) over it. It had already been quite limited in most of the Western world in the 1700’s (England France, Spain Portugal) in 1815 the congress of Vienna limited slavery in Prussia, russa Norway Sweden
The United States was relatively late in banning slavery and it took a civil war to do it. The notion that it wasn’t viewed as wrong at the time just isnt true.And as for terrorism, i’ll bet Arafat thought it was right.
so here is my question to you :
Would you support a statue of Arafat in Time square (obviously yin a museum I assume you like Madame Tussauds would be fine we arent discussing erasing history like Hikind tried to do)
would you accept the argument that they are commemorating his role in popularizing a kefiah, unfortunately he dabbled a bit in Terrorism, but he thought it was justified so lets give him a pass.I assume you would not. Arafat’s sole claim to fame is a a leader of a terrorist origination that spilled innocent blood. Glorifying him with statues is wrong (though again museum would be fine) .
Jefferson Davis is no different. his sole claim to fame, the ENTIRE reason there are statues of him is to glorify his role in a racist movement
correct me If I’m wrong
would you support a sttaue of Arafat in Time’s square?
(and in wax museum for that matter? though this is not really analagous just curiosu as to your view)Health
I watched the interview I stand by my succinct assessment.
“In that interview, he actually discusses the definition of “Proving something”.
He has a different definition!”I’m not sure if I saw the right interview (I saw the one with Del bigtree) He does nto really discuss the defitnion of “proving” He notes the idea that only Randomized controlled trials matter and rejects it saying why wait for those using a mashal of driftwood. I completely agree with Dr. Zelenko on this, there is a classic BMJ article from 2003 “Hazardous Journeys Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomized controlled trials” that criticizes the idea that only RCT matter.
If he thinks it works he should keep giving it. If any doctor thinks it works they should keep giving it. If a patient thinks it helps they should discuss it with their doctor, and if they dotnl iek the doctor’s answers they should get a new one. Thais has been my position since day one, and while the preponderance of data is indicating it does NOT work. The risk is minimal, and the data still inconclusive to say giving it is wrong.The problem wit his study is NOT that it isnt a RCT. (reread my comments )
The problem is that his treatment group is not comparable to the general population
Look at his Group A in whcich he treated all aged > 60.
How many of them were over 70? zero!
In the general population how many of those older than 60 are older than 70?
About half (data from statista)
How many of them have COPd ? Zero!
How many of the general population > 60 has COPD ? About 10%So his treatment group of thsoe > 60 are younger and healthier than the general population
Would it be any surprise that they outlived the general population when it comes to COVid 19?and here is the real kicker….
His Data did not show statistical significance tha his younger healthier group who got HCQ+zn survived HCQ
The P value was no sginificant. the confidence interval crossed one.This is why his study doesnt prove anythign (any way you defien prove) NOT that it wasnt A RCt.
“Imagine if a nazi concentration guard or something was the inventor of the internet, ”
Depending on the statue, The comparison doesnt hold.
A better comparison would be “Imagine if a nazi concentration guard or something was NOT the inventor of the internet, ”
Robert E Lee, Jefferson Davis et al are glorified for one reason and one reason only their role in leading a racist traitorous movement. If they invented the internet but just happened to be on the Confderacy then your argument would work.
As to those who support glorifying racist tratirors:
In 2001 Dov Hikind led a push to have Arafat’s statue removed from a wax statue museum (note not from a Public square glorifiying heroes) maybe they were just commemorating his kefiyah wearing skills of somone who just happened dabble in murder of Jews
Was he wrong?More recently Hikind called for the removal of Petain’s name from the canyon of heroes. In spite of the fac t that it commemorated a parade held in Petain’s honor in 1931 well before his role in Vichy France.
Is he wrong?“Any updates?
Yes, now they’re saying it works.”
that isnt the subject of this thread.
and besides I’m not sure who “they is”
There is an exciting study that finally shows promise, out of the Henry ford Health system. The data is nt as good as some of the studies showing no benefit (for example the HCQ arm was more likely to get steroids which have been shown to help)
But nonetheless still a refreshing change for once“Is this an English word?”
Yes, though it is informal ie slang
“What does it mean? ”
expressing a lack of interest or enthusiasm. – Google is your friend“IDK. Maybe he has a different reason.”
could be or maybe he doesn’t ….
Bottom line the argument you gave “It seems that he only made a small study that would be accepted by the rest of the scientific community” doesnt make sense“He has a different definition!”
Oy . A secret supreme court definition?“Come back here to discuss, if you don’t agree with him, after seeing the Interview.”
meh.I never disagreed with him. If you want to give it go for it.
“It seems that he only made a small study that would be accepted by the rest of the scientific community. ”
meh its not published in a journal it isnt peer reviewed.
those aren’t criticisms per se, just the notion that he limited it to get accepted when in reality he has more data that he is suppressing doesn’t hold water.“But I agree with the other two Drugs!”
and thats fine You can believe whatever you want. But Dr. Zelenko’s “research” doesnt prove it.
Ok read the study
Aside from the above point .His study did NOT show a statistically significant decrease in death in the treated group
” One patient (0.7%) died in the treatment group versus 13 patients (3.5%) in the untreated group (odds ratio 0.2,
95% CI 0.03-1.5; p=0.16).”To be clear none of this indicates that HCQ doesn’t work Just that sadly his study does not show that it helps. After months of hype and waiting eagerly I’m a bit underwhelmed and disjointed.
Dr Zelenko’s study was published online today
“COVID-19 Outpatients – Early Risk-Stratified Treatment with Zinc Plus Low Dose Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin: A Retrospective Case Series Study”I didnt read the whole thing (yet) but at first glance it suffers from the flaw I have been saying all along. what ar they beign compared to? His control group was ” public reference data of patients in the same
community who were not treated with this therapy.” . Unfortunately as the authors note ” no other patient characteristics, clinical symptoms” We dont know much about them.And what we know about his patients does not seem to be generalizable to the population at large.
For example of his Group A (those > age 60 regardless of symptoms) seem generally healthier than the average >60 year old. 36% of them had no medical problems at all (Even when you include unrelated conditions like the 7 with psychiatric disorders) For example none had COPD. in the general population there’s a about 10% prevalence of COPD those over 60 and even higher for those > 70. How many of his control had COPD? We don’t know
The oldest person in his study was 69. How old is the control group? We dont knowSo all this study tells us is that a relatively young relatively healthy group did better than the general population. Thanks to his cocktail? We don’t know
(as an aside the treated number (n) is far less than he has been advertising (Ive heard him use 1000, 600, 400 though sometimes he was referring to all patients he saw many of whom he did not treat). the study includes 127 treated patients )
Thanks 2scents very interesting hadn’t seen it
ready now
Any updates?
Ive been waiting with bated breath (ldon’t worry y IVe been taking HCQ so I’m fine)zinc
“I’d let those who think they’re in power have an earful – and then some!! SOMEONE HAS TO SOUND OUT!”
We can sound out from today until tomorrow, while fun (that’s why I’m here) “sounding out” is not what will change anything. court cases might.
That said, the camp owners should absolutely go to court and ask to be allowed to operate. I don’t see how anyone can dispute that point, they have medical professionals on their side, a reasonable plan, and of course significant livelihood.
however, I am more hesitant about making it a “community” issue with organizations getting involved. Their argument that Camp is a religious necessity (this is the thrust of the argument that camps should be allowed to operate as the yare protected by as religious expression under he constitution sounds stretched at best. (although it might work becasue courts tend to be hesitant to decide what is and isnt “religious expression” the question will hinge on whether the state has a compelling indication to prevent this “religious expression” and if it is being evenly applied.)As for the argument that Sleep away camps are safer than day camps, this misses the point.
Allowing things to open/close is not solely based on safety. It i a balance of safety vs necessity.
The example Iv’e been using is say a family is 1000 over budget in their monthly budget. What should the cut sooner their $1000 rent or their $200 restaurant bill. Obviously it would be foolish to argue they should sooner stop paying rent since that would save them more than the restaurant. Cuts are not just about what saves more money.
Same here allowing things to open is not JUST about risk. Every time people leave risk goes up, indoors is worse than outdoors, many is worse than few, longer period together is worse than shorter etc. However the relative necessity of the actions in question must also be factored in. This is why they allowed protests but not businesses to open. Its not that protests are safer its that as Deblasio said “You cannot compare 400 year s of oppression to the need for business” (I’m paraphrasing) this is what he meant.
Now I don’t think it the State’s place to decide whether protesting or say shul is more important, but that is what they meant.Back to camps, even if sleep away camp are safer, the bottom line is day camps are needed so people can go to work. sleep away camps are a luxury. It is not just a question of which is safer.
That said, I hope Camps can open enough already.
What do you mean by would I agree?
If people are opposed to it they have every right to sign a petition and get it removed.
Yes I agree with that.Am I personally opposed to it?
No I don’t think the city is named St. Louis to commemorate his act of burning the talmud .Would I be opposed to a statue designed to glorify St. Louis for his role hin burning the talmud?
Of course! wouldnt you?Joseph
“on a personal level I’d feel (and know many others who’d feel) extremely uncomfortable or foolish fressing on a sidewalk in the street.”
so I spent All Shabbos looking for a solution for you. I think I found one that just might work. You need to halt kup a bit as it is veyr complicated but probably worth the effort as it will entirely solve your conundrum .
Ok here goes now, bear with me, if you feel uncomfortable or foolish ferssing in the street, then, and I know this is crazy but just hear me out, don’t free in the street .
This step should entirely solve your problem.
LEt me know if it gets confusingRedleg
” LY’s use of the term “homophobia” is one of my pet peeves.”
Meh Is “Anti-semitism ” one of your pet peeves too, as it does not include being “anti” all semites (eg Arabs) but is limited to Jews?
Haimy
“I’m I saying a chiddush?”
No but you are selectively applying it. The Torah also calls Those who cheat An abomination Devarim 25:13 כִּ֧י תוֹעֲבַ֛ת יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ כָּל־עֹ֣שֵׂה אֵ֑לֶּה כֹּ֖ל עֹ֥שֵׂה עָֽוֶל.
I dont mean you personally, but in my experience our community has not been intolerant of financial frauds, in fact IVe often found the opposite.
SO What upsets us is not really what “Hashem says he hates” Its what YOU (again not you personally )hate, and your just cloaking it in righteousnessMisheli 6:7 lists seven aveiros Hashem finds an abomination
“Anyone else here thinks that ubiquitin and Health are really just one person having fun here?”
We think so
” IMHO, he would Never say that.”
indulge me.
Most of your posts are make believe why draw the line here
“What are you saying he wanted to kill him at the Git Go?!?”
No, and I made clear that this wasnt what I was saying. (Though it wouldn’t surprise me given a callous toward human life he was, but I have zero evidence to support this)
“C’mon I watched the video in Atlanta ”
We arent talking about the video in AtlantaSo I ask again:
If say audio from body camera is released. And when Lane says “Should we roll him over” Chaiuin says “No lets make sure he is dead first”
would that change your mind at all?(strictly hypothetical I’m not saying this is what happened)
Hypothetically
If say audio from body camera is released. And when Lane says “Should we roll him over” Chaiuin says “No lets make sure he is dead first”
would that change your mind at all?(strictly hypothetical I’m not saying this is what happened)
” But the law states that you can’t let people Hurt themselves, whether they are in custody or not.”
So Just so I have this right. He was in the car, but thrashing too much, so for HIS own safety they dragged him out and held him to the ground in a chokehold.
Is that your contention?“The point is that was their procedure.”
You keep repeating this but it wasnt true then and still isnt true.
No where in their procedure does it allow continued chokeholds after a suspect is no longer resisting..
“They had to pull him out, because he was thrashing around.”
I dont follow. Let him thrash in the car
“16% of these incidents led to the suspects and other individuals losing consciousness,”
I don’t understand the connection. They arent being charged with causing him to lose consciousness
Joseph
“Justice Antonin Scalia warned about all this when he insisted upon strict constructionism, ruling based on the Constitution’s original meaning”Scalia was no different. He expanded the definition of “arms” in the second amendment when it suited him (see Heller) He suddenly opposed States rights in Bush V Gore. He expanded free speech to corporations When clearly none of these were the “constitutions’ original meaning”
“So the cops arrested him.”
Chauvin is not in trouble for the arrest
“If he would have behaved in the cop car, they wouldn’t have to pull him out.”
So just leave him there.
At any rate we don’t know wha haepned in the cop car as that footage hasnt been released yet“Then he continued to Resist.”
No then he stoppedand they contiued to choke him.
Because Chauvin “doesnt care about life”
“As long as they do their job. Call it what you Want.”
Will do.
but you mistankingly wrote earlier ““He cared about Life,” Chauvin didnt . Now you can argue that Cahuvin’s job is not to care about life (as you are now) but he clearly did not care about life, as you concedeSo here you have A fellow who did not care about life (as you say becasue thats not his job) . Im sure youd’d agree one who doesnt care about life is one who is “evincing a depraved mind, ” and he accidentally killed his victim
I am forced to return a verdict of guilty on the charge of murder in the third degree.congratulations! you won your first case!
How does it feel?
“The Truth is you need a police dept. ”
On that we are in full agreement., that was never the topic of this thread“The job of the cops were to call EMS. That they did”
Thats called not caring. “HEy its not my job to see if I can help, I called EMS and thats it”
“Why don’t you learn the Minneapolis Police Protocols before you comment?”
Because it doesnt change the truth at all. And you would just make them up to bend the truth as youve been doing until now (you made up evens in the video, you made up the idea that the there has to be 2 felonies to be charged under the felony murder provision)
Schnitzel
“Rav belsky allowed reading the Odyssey too?”
I didn’t ask specifically, his answer didn’t address arayos, just the Avoda Zarah aspect
Schnitzel
” I dont think History is a reason to keep something”
I agree completely
I guess I ddint mean it as an independent reason, it is linked to the 2nd reason. Namely that at this point, today it no longer serves (or at least is not meant) as an “arc of triumph” over judea.
It reminds me of a question I once asked R’ Belsky Ztl about reading Greek Mythology. He said it was muttar since “nobody worships them” in other words they were no longer Avoda zara, today it is just history. Similarly there is no problem to say the names of planets like Jupiter, Saturn, days of the week Wednesday Thursday Or even Tammuz even though these WERE all once names of avoda Zara they are no longer avoda zara (becasue they arent worshiped)
While not exactly analogous, that is what I meant by the “historical” aspect. Although built to commeorate victory over Judea. I dont think its existence today is for that reason.There certainly is room for disagreement ( both in R’ Belsky’s Psak, and the comparison to here) I just wanted to clarify that it wanst just the fact that it was old that makes me ok with it.
“If they had a bust of Mussolini in the Museum of On Time Train Running i wouldnt have a problem with it.”
Fair enough. nor would I have a problem of a bust of Lee in a museum of the Civil war.” should be allowed to dispose any symbol or statue on his property”
should read “display any symbol…”
“once mighty Roman empire is a sophistical tourist sight. ”
should read: “historical tourist site”
“I don’t think you have a right to control their thoughts.”
No question about that. and certainly an individual should be allowed to dispose any symbol or statue on his property. But the state paying for and glorifying a symbol that represents hate (in the view of many) is a different story.
The arch of titus is a good question. no I dont think it should be knocked down.
I’m not sure if I’m being inconsistent. (I dont think so – please tell me if you disagree ) for the followign reasons (some of these may be linked and arent necessarily distinct reasons) :
1) The historical aspect the arch is almost a 1000 years old the confederate staues are less than a century old and arent historically significant
2) The arch no longer serves as a “glorification” it is a tourist and historical cite. I don’t think its existence today shows the Italian government glorifying its predecessor’s triumph over Judea
3) It doesn’t bother me. in fact it provides a form of nechama here we still are a thousand years later while the once mighty Roman empire is a sophistical tourist sight. netzach yisroel Lo yishaker. (“Titus Titus vi bizt du” )that one I find easy.
A harder one for me to answer is statues like Calvary on the Charles Bridge in Prague* which I find very painful, and to a lesser extent representations of “Ecclesia and Synagoga,” On the one hand they arent nice, but on the other hand we are in golus so perhaps that pained feeling is appropriate . On the other (third?) hand it is a chilul Hashem I just dont know.
If I had to vote I’d vote to remove them, but I wouldn’t organize a moment to remove them I guess as some sort of peshara, but I feel torn about this(*when I was there in 2005 the legs of the heh’s in the Shem Havaya had been removed so that it was yud-daled-yud -daled which was a partial nechama, it was said that this was done by a “vandal” but that the Governent acquiesced However I see on more recent pictures that was “repaired” and is now fully written again)
Schnitzel
No need for a loop
But we dont seem to have covered all bases, since oyu are repeating the same mistake.
“I will try to delve deeper in the “myth” of the Lost Cause, ”
Sure start with the beginning : namely the articles of secession of the various states“Interestingly, there were many people in history whos day job was to be great personalities and on the side perswcuted the Jews.”
You nailed the distinction! but seem to have trouble following through.
People’s whose day job was “to be a great personality” are not comparable to the subject at hand. When you see a statue of FDR, and your kid asks “who was he” the reply isnt “Oh he’s the guiy who interned the Japanese” or “Hes the guy who didnt due enough to save the Jews” Although both of those are true. That isnt what he statue is commemorating. Ditto for the ohersOn the other hand Mussolini may have gotten the trains to run on time (as the saying goes) . nonethless it would be weird to erect a monument for him even claiming “its not about that other stuff, we are ocusing on his train orginizing skillls”
Similarly a statue of Lee, Why is it there? is it becasue of his leadership role in the confederacy? or becasue of some noble quality that he undoubtedly had eg “Making sure that they were able to take a break on Yom Tov if I remember correctly. Getting Matzah” Why is the statue there? what are they glorifying?
if the former – well as mentioned look no further than the articles of secession declaring WHY the confederacy (that he represents) existed
Health
” it will be thrown out in Minn. Supreme Court!”
why are they that corrupt? I’m not familiar with Minn. Supreme court
At any rate now you understand the rioting. Here y u have a slam dunk case a guy who by any measure of justice is clearly guilty. And yet you are certain he will walk free. And even if found guilty the corrupt upper court will free him? Why shouldnt people riot?
“He cared about Life, ”
Lol, just not enough to check on him for several minutesSchnitzel
1 the problem isn’t treasonous per se, it is that they stood for racism. That said, if you want to remove other statues glorifying any traitor. go for it The problem with Lee is not just that he took up arms against the US, its that he took up arms
3. At best that would be an argument to allow his statue to remain in Virgina.,.1. proves nothing
2. You brought up the comparison, I’m not sure why I am the insane one
3. “Texas v White was in 1869. Nice try.”
Very good. And they ruled that there is no right to secede in direct opposition to your assertion”The South had a right to leave an evolved system which they never signed up to.” ( in fact they ruled that the South never seceded since it was basically impossible)
4. ” Because then you will find out how and why ”
Oh I know why. The articles of secession are still around .They say exactly why the states seceded starting with SC the first state that seceded due to “increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery”” We have first hand sources. Dont fall back on lamentings of a failed leader tryign to whitewash history (Again, I havent read it but if he downplays slavery;s role then this is a fair description)“Alternatively statues were put up in the 30s brcaus thats when the veterans began dying out and in the 60s because of the centennial.”
I see you looked up the dates and didnt like what you found“According to the 1619 project everything is rooted in racism.”
so they are wrong. plain and simple.“i appose it for the same reason i appose people who want to destroy Auschwitz, because if we erase history we are likely to repeat it!!”
this poitn was already addressed:
should we rename Newark airport Mohamad Atah International Airport. you woudlnt want his name erased now would you?
And lets not forget a statue of John Wlkes boothThis isn’t comparable to Auschwiz. A comparison would be to a statue of Hitler in time Square (or Berlin) .
Shnitzel
1. What about them?
2. No they werent exactly the same
3. Yes he was a traitor1. Of course we did. It was just felt that it was better for the sake of peace to come together than to dwell on the past
2. so take it down
3. The supreme court ruled in Texas vs white that this is not so.
4. Why? (im not opposed reading it but is there a point or are you just reccomnding good bucks I liked the invisible gorrilla)
5. See number 3. ( And even if that were so, clearly yo uare operatign in a different framework of “right and wrong” Most of thsoe includign Trump who support keeping the confederate statues view Lincoln as a great president )
6. Its a lot of them see timelines of when they were put up
7. One correct point
8.- 9 Of course every individual is multi -faceted. But statues of Robert E LEe are not put up to commemorate how great he was that he gave Matza n or or Statues of FDR put uop to commeorate how well he dealt with Asian-Americans during WW2. the bottom line is Statues of Confederate generals are put up SOLELY to commemorate/glorify their role in a revolt against the US. A revolt that was largely fueled by racisim.charlie
“Sounds like third degree murder is the right charge.”
Yes he was charged with that too.
but I think there are 2 problems
1) that leaves the other officers with no charge . can you aid and abet an unintended murder?*
2) “evincing a depraved mind” is hard to prove.*You can certainly argue “ok so don’t charge them ” but I think they deserve to be charged too (if not then that is a hole in the criminal code that should be addressed just standing by when a crime is occurring (intended or not) should not be ok). Or if you are more cynical they had to be charged to placate the mob
“It seems another couple of weeks wait from the video I saw.”
super excited!
will check in thenshady
“No, law abiding minorities are affected [primarily, albeit indirectly] by NON-law abiding minorities.”
so your answer to the OP is “yes” Just you argue that it is not the fault of the police, The police have to treat all law abiding minorities as suspects because of the non-law abiding minorities.