Alex Jones Victims Awarded One Billon Dollars in Lawsuit

@techsouth said
Wow! A total stranger online has somehow managed to read my mind again!!!

I only think in black and white and was trying to pretend like I occasionally see shades of gray.

I'm busted.

You win this round. Maybe I can pull off the charade in another thread. But it will be hard to slip it by when people here can read my true thoughts and tell me what they are.

...[text shortened]... edent. It will be unanimously agreed in all future cases the defendant is not as bad as Alex Jones.

Well if you didn’t watch any of that case and you have no actual cases to compare the case you didn’t watch with what is your beef?
If you don’t want people to read your mind you need to be a bit more expansive about why you think this unique case is inconsistent in regards to other cases that bear no actual similarity.
So you need to find a case similarly toxic in nature whereby the toxicity is part and parcel of the defendants business model.

@kevcvs57 said
Well if you didn’t watch any of that case and you have no actual cases to compare the case you didn’t watch with what is your beef?
If you don’t want people to read your mind you need to be a bit more expansive about why you think this unique case is inconsistent in regards to other cases that bear no actual similarity.
So you need to find a case similarly toxic in nature whereby the toxicity is part and parcel of the defendants business model.

I am not aware of anything in dispute about the facts of the case.

It seems clear that not only was Alex Jones dishonest, but deliberately so. And no one can fail to notice how unsettling this would have been to parents of murdered children. I don't think I have to watch a trial to understand that.

Is there some important detail I would have known about had I watched the case?

And "toxicity" is another way to talk about hurt feelings. I brought up a case that involved murders.

@shallow-blue said
Gosh. If only you Qanoners weren't as transparent as a freshly washed bottle with nothing in it, that wouldn't happen again and again and again.

I thought I disguised my QAnon fetish a lot better than that by literally never introducing the topic to any conversation I've had in my life. I even managed to avoid ever conversing the topic with an actual QAnon believer, so I'm certain no one has ever photographed me with one.

I guess the tell was that I saw a court case and expressed opinion slightly more nuanced than "Result all good in every conceivable way!!!" or "Result all bad in every conceivable way!!!". I thought I was being more coy, but I can see now that anything other than the former is a dead give away.

I think you should give yourself more credit. I don't think I've been so transparent. Y'all are just really, really good at mind reading.

@techsouth said
A "fact check" from USA Today. Well, we can be sure they'd never bow to social pressure.

Here's a more generic link: https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/drug-profiles/fentanyl_en#:~:text=The%20estimated%20lethal%20dose%20of,poly%2Dsubstance%20use%20was%20involved.

[i]Blood concentrations of approximately 7 ng/ml or greater have been associated with fatalities ...[text shortened]... yd had a concentration that could have been fatal. I'm not saying that Fentanyl is what killed him.

Do you understand what “poly substance” means?

Your argument is equivalent to saying .08% BAC is potentially fatal because if a drunk person drives they sometimes crash and die.

https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/drug-profiles/fentanyl_en#:~

The recommended serum concentration for analgesia is 1–2 ng/ml and for anaesthesia it is 10–20 ng/ml.

concentrations found in Canadian and US fatalities attributed solely to fentanyl (ranging from 17–25 ng/ml) (Hull et al. (2007), Martin et al. (2006).

As your article points out 11 ng/mL is equivalent to a mild anesthetic. 17 ng/mL is where it becomes potentially fatal.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/fentanyl-injection-route/description/drg-20075614

Fentanyl injection is used to relieve severe pain during and after surgery. It is also used with other medicines just before or during an operation to help the anesthetic (numbing medicine) work better.

Even when used for anesthesia it is not the main anesthetic.

@athousandyoung said
Do you understand what “poly substance” means?

Your argument is equivalent to saying .08% BAC is potentially fatal because if a drunk person drives they sometimes crash and die.

Are you telling me that GF did not have other drugs in his system? I'm not an expert, but it is my understanding that Fentanyl is almost always mixed with other drugs.

Regardless, take your criticism up with the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, which I was citing. They posted an article that swayed by the political climate surrounding George Floyd.

There statement: Blood concentrations of approximately 7 ng/ml or greater have been associated with fatalities where poly-substance use was involved. was put there for some reason. I think it is obvious to everyone that if you mix 7 ng/ml of Fentanyl with a fatal dose of Heroine (or Drano, or arsenic) that you'd die.

If all they were saying was something that totally obvious, why do you suppose they said it? Aren't they talking about scenarios not much different than would have applied to George Floyd?

But this is for me only a minor aside. Lot's of people think that GF died from Fentanyl. Right or wrong, you can't blame Kanye for people believing this. I see absolutely nothing in this that disparages GF. He took drugs. He committed other crimes. He died. He is not any better or worse if he died from Fentanyl versus died from a knee on his back.

Seriously, someone please explain it to me. How is this disparaging in any way to George Floyd?

@techsouth said
This is how fake news works.

How do I defend against this?

You can assert new "facts" out of thin air and draw inferences from them. I'd win every argument I was ever in if I was free to make up fiction and call it fact too.

I guess everything is black and white to liberals. You believe every narrative spoon fed to you by your team, so you project that same time ...[text shortened]... r camp. You have no nuance in your thinking, so you presume no one else can have any nuance either.

None of that has anything to do with you obviously, too obviously, lying when you say "you've never heard of Alex Jones until recently".

It's nothing to do with "camps". It's just your obvious lies.

@shallow-blue said
None of that has anything to do with you obviously, too obviously, lying when you say "you've never heard of Alex Jones until recently".

It's nothing to do with "camps". It's just your obvious lies.

You busted me again with this mind reading.

Obviously I've been following Alex Jones for years, believing all he says, and for some reason felt like I needed to lie about it to strangers.

Being able to say I never heard of Alex Jones was absolutely essential to all other points I was making, so I was under a lot of pressure to lie. I don't think I would have had anything to say on this forum at all if I couldn't have prefaced it with the claim to have only recently heard of Alex Jones.

Now that I'm outed, and everyone knows I really have heard of Alex Jones long ago, I guess none of my other points mean anything and have effectively been refuted.

One day I'm going to learn my lesson that I have to be much more careful when lying to mind readers such as yourself.

@techsouth said
One day I'm going to learn my lesson that I have to be much more careful when lying

Please don't. You're so much easier to debunk when you don't.

@shallow-blue said
Please don't. You're so much easier to debunk when you don't.

By "debunk", you mean you have refuted my claim to only recently hearing about Alex Jones (me being a complete stranger to you) not by providing evidence from say a past post or something, but by simply asserting it is false.

Sadly, that is the working definition of "debunk" in many contexts these days.

@techsouth said
By "debunk", you mean you have refuted my claim to only recently hearing about Alex Jones (me being a complete stranger to you) not by providing evidence from say a past post or something, but by simply asserting it is false.

Yes: your obvious lies are obvious.

I'm sure you, like Joe, have never seen any news about your Jan 6 invasion of the White House, either. And have never heard of Trump's several bankruptcies. Nor do I, a Dutchman, know that Indonesia exists, even though I've had conversations with FMF about its cuisine.

Look, you really can stop being obvious. We all see what you are. Your lies just aren't credible. You "have never heard of Alex Jones"? When he's all over the internet to the point that even a left-wing European, who has never watched a second of USAlien cable (and could not if he wanted to) like me, knows what a pasty face he has?

Sorry, your claims just don't wash. You might as well pretend not to know that the Earth is flat.

@techsouth said
I am not aware of anything in dispute about the facts of the case.

It seems clear that not only was Alex Jones dishonest, but deliberately so. And no one can fail to notice how unsettling this would have been to parents of murdered children. I don't think I have to watch a trial to understand that.

Is there some important detail I would have known about had I watche ...[text shortened]... d "toxicity" is another way to talk about hurt feelings. I brought up a case that involved murders.

But you mentioned no defendants who had, over a sustained period, as a business model, single handedly called specific police officers guilty of murdering black people who then went on be murdered in direct response to that slander.
Are you saying that every journalist or commentator who has speculated about the possible wrongful death of a black person by police shooting would be guilty in the same way that jones us guilty.
When answering remember that jones made untold millions from peddling his lies about these bereaved parents.

@shallow-blue said
Yes: your obvious lies are obvious.

I'm sure you, like Joe, have never seen any news about your Jan 6 invasion of the White House, either. And have never heard of Trump's several bankruptcies. Nor do I, a Dutchman, know that Indonesia exists, even though I've had conversations with FMF about its cuisine.

Look, you really can stop being obvious. We all see what you ...[text shortened]...

Sorry, your claims just don't wash. You might as well pretend not to know that the Earth is flat.

Please don't tell my wife about all these shortcomings you know about me!!!

I'm curious. Obviously you've heard of Alex Jones long ago or you wouldn't be accusing me of lying about it.

When you saw a link that said something like "man alleges Sandy Hook massacre never happened", what made you click on it? Obviously you've been keeping up with this for a long time for some reason.

When someone alleges the Earth if flat, do you click on those links too?

Edit: is there some prominent name who is pushing the flat earth theory? Am I supposed to know the main players in that arena too? I'm afraid to say this, but I don't know any name of a flat-earther (please don't accuse me of lying about that too).

@kevcvs57 said
But you mentioned no defendants who had, over a sustained period, as a business model, single handedly called specific police officers guilty of murdering black people who then went on be murdered in direct response to that slander.
Are you saying that every journalist or commentator who has speculated about the possible wrongful death of a black person by police shooting w ...[text shortened]... wering remember that jones made untold millions from peddling his lies about these bereaved parents.

Here was the challenge you laid before me earlier...

Person X is responsible for giving person Y cause to believe that person Z warranted or somehow deserved the punishment that person Y inflicted upon person Z
It’s not really rocket science is it?

Reading that, and taking it as a condescending explanation I responded to that challenge. It was not rocket science. But somehow I was supposed to know that implied in all this was "sustained period", "as a business model", "single handedly", "specific", and "murdered in direct response to that slander (even though no Sandy Hook parent was murdered)".

This is starting to feel like rocket science. Are there any other criteria you want to add that are unique to the Alex Jones case?

I was not aware that Libel laws required a "sustained period", nor for it to be a "business model".

Every case is going to differ in some detail. I am not sure if I can find a case that is exactly like the Alex Jones case in all listed criteria, and based on how things tend to play out, if I thought of one I'm afraid you'd find another detail about Alex Jones and add that to the list.

We are either going to be a country with laws that are consistently applied, or we are going to be ruled by mobs whose enforcements hinges on how angry everyone is.

From my perspective, it is easy to see that Alex Jones is scum, but still his actions have resulted in hurt feelings. Personally, I am more bothered by the actions that have resulted in 5 police officers being executed. If we're just going to make up laws as we go along based on how we feel, it seems like someone deserves a bigger punishment for the latter.

@techsouth said
Here was the challenge you laid before me earlier...

Person X is responsible for giving person Y cause to believe that person Z warranted or somehow deserved the punishment that person Y inflicted upon person Z
It’s not really rocket science is it?

Reading that, and taking it as a condescending explanation I responded to that challenge. It was not rocket sci ...[text shortened]... we go along based on how we feel, it seems like someone deserves a bigger punishment for the latter.

It was not condescending I save that ammo for MB and a few others.
These are the factors that the jurors will take into account when deliberating on the amount awarded against jones as ephemeral as they appear to you.
‘Sustained’ as in not an off the cuff or periodically made statement. Jones campaigned against these parents in the full knowledge that he was lying and in the full knowledge of the impact of those lies on the parents.
You apparently believe that he was harshly or unjustly dealt with but you have yet to give a like for like example in the real world to justify your claim that the award was to high.
You seem to a right wing apologist for a right wing hate jockey / conspiracy theorist.