• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White men set biracial woman on fire

Nickyjo said:
That makes no sense. The cops would say they believe her because there is a history of people making up hate crimes?
Click to expand...
That the cops felt compelled to make the statement in the first place speaks volumes. Why WOULDNT they believe her?

I mean...racially mixed person, 1 AM, in a car, window open, alleging an attack by 4 white guys calling her racial slurs, sitting still while they sprayed lighter fluid on her, then a lit lighter, patting out a chemical fire that apparently was centralized to a couple of locations...

Wonder where the Osundairo brothers were that night....
 
GDViking said:
I saw her interved on local TV, the burns are mostly on the left and de of her face and neck.she appeared to have some minor burns around the right side...
Click to expand...

She also said she was bleeding. Second and third degree burns don't bleed.
 
apdst said:
She also said she was bleeding. Second and third degree burns don't bleed.
Click to expand...
I admire her cool. I mean...how many people do you know that can get set on fire with chemicals poured on their face, hair, neck, had to get in her clothes, etc, THEN have someone throw a lit lighter on you, literally get go up in flames (anyone ever tried to pat out with your hands gasoline chemical fire?), calmly pat out the flames with her hand, then instead of immediately calling the police or going to the hospital, calmly drive home?

thats pretty chill.

Not saying it DIDNT happen. But I sure would like to see some supporting evidence. History isnt on her side.
 
VanceMack said:
That the cops felt compelled to make the statement in the first place speaks volumes. Why WOULDNT they believe her?

I mean...racially mixed person, 1 AM, in a car, window open, alleging an attack by 4 white guys calling her racial slurs, sitting still while they sprayed lighter fluid on her, then a lit lighter, patting out a chemical fire that apparently was centralized to a couple of locations...

Wonder where the Osundairo brothers were that night....
Click to expand...

Then she drove home to tell her mother about. Then she decided to report it. I don't know about you, but if someone sets my face on fire while I'm in my car, I'm going to drive to the hospital and alert the police, not drive to mom's house.
 
truthatallcost said:
Then she drove home to tell her mother about. Then she decided to report it. I don't know about you, but if someone sets my face on fire while I'm in my car, I'm going to drive to the hospital and alert the police, not drive to mom's house.
Click to expand...
Like I said...Im not saying it DIDNT happen. I mean...I was willing to give Jussie Smollet the benefit of doubt for a bit there as well.
 
truthatallcost said:
The attack supposedly occurred at 1 am, near the site of a major protest that had turned violent and had to be contained by police. The marks on her face look more like road rash to me than burns.
Click to expand...

thanks doctor.

we'll all know sooner or later.
 
JasperL said:
OK, here's a simple case. State A has been running 1,000 cases per day. They lock down and cases drop to 100 per day. 66 of those 100 are from those not essential workers. Does the 90% drop in cases, but that 66 people not deemed essential workers still got infected, prove that lockdowns had no effect?

Of course not and anyone drawing that conclusion based on the demographics of the 66 is a complete moron. But that's what you did. :confused:

Furthermore, here's a little one question quiz. Since the spread of COVID is based on contact with other infected persons, would you expect the risk of infection and spread of the disease to be greater in which area:

1) Region 1 with a population density of 5,318 persons per sq. mile, OR,
2) Region 2 with a population density of 378 per sq. mile.

If you answered 1), you get a gold star and a pat on the head from your teacher. Now guess where the biggest outbreak in the United States was? (hint: it's the NYC metro area, option 1 above, and not in Florida, option 2 above)! In fact the city in the U.S. with the biggest outbreak is the most densely populated city in the U.S. at roughly 27,000 persons per sq. mile. Guess which city? NYC!!

So since you're interested in "science" and all, do you think maybe that population density explains some of the numbers you are quoting? Obvious it doesn't explain everything, but it seems to me that accounting for population density in evaluating cases, spread, impact of policies, is kind of a key step, unless you're an ignoramus or a lying propagandist.
Click to expand...

There are no densely populated places in Florida and Texas? Miami, Tampa, Dallas, Houston? Saying that population density accounts for the entire difference seems way too simple. There have to be other reasons that TX has 8.2 deaths per 100K people, FL has 15.9 and NY has 77.7, CT has 120.7 and NJ has 167.8. Even MD where I live has 52.4 and we have exactly one big city which only has about 600,000 people these days. Nebraska never locked down at all and has 13.8 deaths per 100K.
 
HumblePi said:
A woman had her face set on fire, you should be ashamed of yourself, even your dead grandmother (if she's dead) should be ashamed of you. How could you stoop so low?
Click to expand...
It's hard to stoop from that position.
 
veritas1 said:
There are no densely populated places in Florida and Texas? Miami, Tampa, Dallas, Houston? Saying that population density accounts for the entire difference seems way too simple. There have to be other reasons that TX has 8.2 deaths per 100K people, FL has 15.9 and NY has 77.7, CT has 120.7 and NJ has 167.8. Even MD where I live has 52.4 and we have exactly one big city which only has about 600,000 people these days. Nebraska never locked down at all and has 13.8 deaths per 100K.
Click to expand...

First of all, you didn't address this point, so I assume you agree:

OK, here's a simple case. State A has been running 1,000 cases per day. They lock down and cases drop to 100 per day. 66 of those 100 are from those not essential workers. Does the 90% drop in cases, but that 66 people not deemed essential workers still got infected, prove that lockdowns had no effect?

Of course not and anyone drawing that conclusion based on the demographics of the 66 is a complete moron. But that's what you did.
Click to expand...

So we agree on that point, and can move on to the next one. Great!

You said, "Saying that population density accounts for the entire difference seems way too simple." I agree, that's why I said, and you hackishly ignored, this statement. Bolded and embiggening added for emphasis:

"So since you're interested in "science" and all, do you think maybe that population density explains some of the numbers you are quoting? Obvious it doesn't explain everything, but it seems to me that accounting for population density in evaluating cases, spread, impact of policies, is kind of a key step, unless you're an ignoramus or a lying propagandist."

So would you like to try again, this time without dishonestly characterizing my reply? If not, I'm good. I just get sick and damn tired of the hackery. You attributed to me an opinion I explicitly argued against.... SAD!!
 
JasperL said:
First of all, you didn't address this point, so I assume you agree:



So we agree on that point, and can move on to the next one. Great!

You said, "Saying that population density accounts for the entire difference seems way too simple." I agree, that's why I said, and you hackishly ignored, this statement. Bolded and embiggening added for emphasis:

"So since you're interested in "science" and all, do you think maybe that population density explains some of the numbers you are quoting? Obvious it doesn't explain everything, but it seems to me that accounting for population density in evaluating cases, spread, impact of policies, is kind of a key step, unless you're an ignoramus or a lying propagandist."

So would you like to try again, this time without dishonestly characterizing my reply? If not, I'm good. I just get sick and damn tired of the hackery. You attributed to me an opinion I explicitly argued against.... SAD!!
Click to expand...

Where's your evidence that cases fell after the lockdown was instituted? Do we have any such before and after numbers? I don't think we have much data at all because the lockdowns started fairly early on.
 
JasperL said:
First of all, you didn't address this point, so I assume you agree:



So we agree on that point, and can move on to the next one. Great!

You said, "Saying that population density accounts for the entire difference seems way too simple." I agree, that's why I said, and you hackishly ignored, this statement. Bolded and embiggening added for emphasis:

"So since you're interested in "science" and all, do you think maybe that population density explains some of the numbers you are quoting? Obvious it doesn't explain everything, but it seems to me that accounting for population density in evaluating cases, spread, impact of policies, is kind of a key step, unless you're an ignoramus or a lying propagandist."

So would you like to try again, this time without dishonestly characterizing my reply? If not, I'm good. I just get sick and damn tired of the hackery. You attributed to me an opinion I explicitly argued against.... SAD!!
Click to expand...

Where's your evidence that cases fell after the lockdown was instituted? Do we have any such before and after numbers? I don't think we have much data at all because the lockdowns started fairly early on.
 
veritas1 said:
Where's your evidence that cases fell after the lockdown was instituted? Do we have any such before and after numbers? I don't think we have much data at all because the lockdowns started fairly early on.
Click to expand...

Interesting. You ignore points, hackishly misrepresent my arguments, and then move the goal posts, without acknowledging any of that.

Again, I was addressing the claim that because 66% of those infected were not identified as essential workers that it's proof the lockdown failed. That's an idiotic conclusion that simply doesn't follow from the NYC study.

And what you're asking for is proof that limiting social contacts impacts a virus spread by social contacts. Of course it does. We're seeing that work in reverse all over the country, including in my county. We opened up and are seeing a spike in cases and in hospitalizations. Some of that is testing, but not all because we're testing about the same rate we were in late April, but are seeing many days 10X the cases.

So if you want to claim "proof" that "lockdowns failed" then what is your proof? That NYC study sure as hell doesn't get us there, so what else do you have?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom