J.C.MacSwell

What needs to be in place to ensure that's done? It seems to be an elusive goal. Most laws seem to at least attempt this...and then unfortunately it requires people to carry it out.

Others will of course not read that literally, or as intended, but look it as an example of systemic racism, and an attempt to preserve the status quo. Much for "efficient" to be able to point than to have to make an effort toward real solutions. Was that OK Phi? Or should I report every post whereI believe it (strawmanning) may be happening? (subtle or otherwise?)

I think we are all struggling with the term and context. In particular (for me at least) it seems impossible much of the time to differentiate between systemic racism and systemic abuse of power inequities of all types. Others seem to believe it's always racism, whenever a white person has a position of power over a minority.

With regard to those stats you gave, which are known to be accurate, what makes you add the bold? Are you as certain that is true? If you want to simply point out that there is no reason to believe Blacks are inherently more likely to be criminals, I think everyone here would agree with that. But adding what you did condemns the police and justice system in your country ( not saying they should be off the hook) where other socio economic factors may be more to blame.

https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/gives+as+good+as+he+gets

A third is that Chauvin knew what he was doing, and the other 3 believed he was "simply" torturing Floyd, as per playbook.

Just 5% carry guns? Only 1 in 20? Those cops must simply be inherently bad...why can't they just be brave like your average friendly neighbourhood looter?

It would justify an emotional state. Training would hopefully mitigate an emotionally driven response. But I think MigL's point is that American cops require a more defensive/adversarial attitude generally to survive. Assuming that's true you will likely have more outliers like Derek Chauvin than you would expect in a country with less guns.

I did, but still wasn't sure that was what was being reffered to. I thought it might refer to something already discussed in the thread.

I didn't know what it meant.

AGW?

Yet often a bad motive, or intent, is assumed, simply because the conclusions don't match one's own.

More likely he might find a forum that, regrettably, would agree with some of his base assumptions and not challenge him on them. He's not arguing in bad faith IMO.

How would that be helpful?

Going by the rhetoric commonly espoused by political leaders probably 30%, but let's say it's half of that, 15% of those forming an opinion, and rising every time the rhetoric on one side gets repeated. (with the other side views getting polarized similarly as a result and with most willing to say anything mostly talking past each other With respect to accuracy? Probably not. With respect to emotion? Definitely not. Agree. The hard part is how best to proceed.

The problem is that for too many it becomes "all arm bones matter", and the focus becomes too often on healthy arm bones along with broken arm bones. All broken bones matter is more accurate, but of course that is, too often again, not the goal.

Do you think your average rioter lacks these things?

I've heard a libertarian translate JFKs words as "Ask not what those in power can do for you...ask what you can do...for those in power"

I'm pretty certain Ken 's referring to "teach the scum a lesson", being in quotes, was describing the poisonous thought process, not advocating for it.

Hi Airbrush. I'm with you as far as seeing the need for better ventilation. I'm less certain that air should be drawn upward as a general case, as I think it could exacerbate some of the problems (such as droplets with virus getting dispersed further rather than heading to the floor), though it could be useful in some circumstances. From an economics standpoint if you double the airflow of a system, you will require 8 times the energy to move the air, as well as double the energy to heat or cool the replacement air to the same temperature. You can change the system to partly mitigate that, but it probably requires extra equipment costs to do so. That said, with the arrival of Covid 19 the economic considerations have changed, as you suggest.

I think it was likely more "I will torture this man, under the guise of restraining him, because I am a malicious idiot with no concern or understanding of any consequences"

We are all genetically weak, and genetically challenged. Covid 21 might call up your DNA. None of us are impervious to everything. Thank God we are not all the same (read also as evolutionary robust...at least in our time)

Thanks. This makes sense. Any thoughts on the levels of success so far on slowing down the virus even while reducing restrictions? Is it simply due to the remaining measures being more adequate than many believed they might be? Or am I interpreting the data too optimistically? I'm not suggesting we are out of the woods by any means, especially as most are now, temporarily, out of flu season, but there is a general pattern that looks more favourable than seemed to be expected. (not to be confused with the depth of many of those patterns, where many have died, but they seem to have gotten under some degree of control almost everywhere) Are we just getting better at responding to the virus, and maintaining adequate social distancing even with loosened restrictions?

So, given all that, they should not be infectious. Correct? Would they still have "broken" virions in their respiratory tract, possibly leading to some degree of vaccination for others that breath any noninfectious "post covid droplets"? Follow up question if that is true: If you look at the curves of the regions that have reduced restrictions, other than a few exceptions we are not seeing much in way of spikes or second waves. Are enough people catching "post covid 19" to account for this? Or is that just wishful thinking? Also...would all, most, or some catching "post covid 19" still test positive for Covid 19? "Catching" might be a poor term to use in case of an inactive or non proliferating "post pathogen". In this case I mean significant enough exposure to get a significant enough immune response. But could "friendly zombie covid 19" account, at least in part, for why this virus seems to be so infectious yet somewhat self extinguishing? (given that everywhere it's proliferated it has subsequently subsided...or is that just a result of adequate to sufficient responses in every region, to the the initial exponential rise in numbers of cases?

...and after all he's done for Fox News....ingrates!