Man follows black teen who seems "suspicious" and kills him.

you say i overshot, i say you didn't read what i was saying, tomato/tomahto i suppose

Originally posted by focus4chumps
i contradicted robtards sweeping implication

Yes, with sweeping generalization of your own, by your standards of what a SG is. Good job.

Originally posted by inimalist
you say i overshot, i say you didn't read what i was saying, tomato/tomahto i suppose

if you need to end it with a dodge, fine.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, with sweeping generalization of your own, by your standards of what a SG is. Good job.

that made no sense.

Originally posted by focus4chumps

that made no sense.

Good tactic.

ok, lovely irrelevant picture and misused fallacy accusation, but the fact remains that you declared it impossible for people to change their minds based on new data. i called you out for it. now, where was my sweeping generalization?

Originally posted by focus4chumps
ok, lovely irrelevant picture and misused fallacy accusation, but the fact remains that you declared it impossible for people to change their minds based on new data. i called you out for it. now, where was my sweeping generalization?

Picture was spot on, bro.

I did not "declare it impossible for people to change their minds", I suggested that with the amount of misinformation people have been receiving, it's possible that Zimmerman would not get a fair trial, ie an unbiased jury who goes into the court-room with a clear head, as this story is fairly huge. I suggested the possibly of this happening with the jurors, be it one or all of them, I don't know. Not "this is fact and it will happen!".

So what you did was strawman what i said and then made your own sweeping generalization (by your own standards) that people would be able to leave all bias at the court-room doors. Hence the picture.

Originally posted by Robtard
Do you think people who've heard 2+ months of misinformation (both ways) will magically just forget about it should they be chosen to serve on the jury?

how is this not a sweeping implication? magic being required to accept new data and form a new appraisal, etc

you could just admit to momentarily succumbing to hyperbole and we can have a laugh about it, but something tells me this is far from over.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
how is this not a sweeping implication? magic being required to accept new data and form a new appraisal, etc

you could just admit to momentarily succumbing to hyperbole and we can have a laugh about it, but something tells me this is far from over.

focus4chumps just ignore the trolls, except for Robtard. He is always good for a laugh. As far as the others, you could be completely right, but they cannot admit it, ever.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
focus4chumps just ignore the trolls, except for Robtard. He is always good for a laugh. As far as the others, you could be completely right, but they cannot admit it, ever.

i wouldnt suggest any of them are trolls. just...at times...irrationally dedicated to their opinions to the point where they occasionally get excited and cross the border into fact-land.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
how is this not a sweeping implication? magic being required to accept new data and form a new appraisal, etc

you could just admit to momentarily succumbing to hyperbole and we can have a laugh about it, but something tells me this is far from over.

You're completely ignoring context, as before I'm mentioning the possibility of this happening; not "THIS WILL HAPPEN /fact /fact /fact."

You could admit to reading what you wanted into my words. Either way, I don't think there's much else to say. You think I made a "Sweeping Generalization"; I think you strawmanned me, though it could have been unintentional on your part.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
i wouldnt suggest any of them are trolls. just...at times...irrationally dedicated to their opinions to the point where they occasionally get excited and cross the border into fact-land.

Just look at what they have said. They try to NOT understand you, and IMHO that is trolling. 😄

i dont want to make this topic about you any more than i wanted the last page to be about myself. however some folks rather enjoy that sort of thing. (see above post)

Originally posted by Robtard
You're completely ignoring context, as before I'm mentioning the possibility of this happening; not "THIS WILL HAPPEN /fact /fact /fact."

You could admit to reading what you wanted into my words. Either way, I don't think there's much else to say. You think I made a "Sweeping Generalization"; I think you strawmanned me, though it could have been unintentional on your part.

i am aware that you previously suggested it was 'unlikely'. while i found your opinion painfully dismal you still left a bit of wiggle room for possibilities. then you had to bring magic into the discussion. thats where you took a wrong turn into fact-land

:edit: but i admit i used the word "sweeping". should have chosen a better word. whats a better word for a hastily guessed likelihood used as a point of argument?

When I said "magic", I didn't actually mean to imply that magic was real. But whatever.

i know, but the clear implication was that its impossible for someone to accept new data to replace old and dubious junk-data. thus magic being required, as we agree doesnt exist, thus implying that its impossible.

:edit: anyway, back to the argument: have a shred of faith ffs. if the lawyers dont manage to poison the jury with teabaggers, i think there is a reasonable shot at a fair trial.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
i know, but the clear implication was that its impossible for someone to accept new data to replace old and dubious junk-data. thus magic being required, as we agree doesnt exist, thus implying that its impossible.

:edit: anyway, back to the argument: have a shred of faith ffs. if the lawyers dont manage to poison the jury with teabaggers, i think there is a reasonable shot at a fair trial.

If that's the way you read it, cool.

hey i see what you did there. ok one last dodge then and we move on. w/e.

Were you asking a question? Cos it seemed you were making a statement of your previous views, which we covered already a few posts back. Which there isn't much else to comment over, as noted. Unless you need to?

no it doesnt matter. you dodged and now we move on. unless its a matter of having the last word.

I'm unclear how I can dodge when you didn't ask a question. But okay, I "dodged".

Zimmerman, I think he's ultimately ****ed, considering the 911 call will be used as evidence.

nevermind. it doesnt matter.

2 things about the call:

1-proof that he pursued martin, which is certainly not standing one's ground

2-his hissing of "****ing coons", which is pretty blatant, despite the clownish tactics of his previous lawyer to call it a recording error and that he actually said "punks"

these points among other can be used to establish a motive.
racist vigilante stalks unarmed black kid. i think its going to be hard to dispute that.

the real issue imho will be the seemingly unanswerable "was there really a fight and if so who initiated it". zimmerman has proven to be an idiot at this point in his actions against the advice of his own lawyers. all he had to do was sit tight and stfu, but he had to start yapping to the internet and sean hannity, etc.

his record of violent behavior will not bode well either. i think he is screwed, but i would hardly blame the media.