Originally posted by BackFire
He had enough unreasonable claims from fellow liberals, so he decided to make his own set of unreasonable claims. Got it.
Feel free to:
1. Point out any claims he made.
2. Then point out which ones are unreasonable.
3. Then explain why those in #2 are unreasonable.
I mean, I'm all for rhetoric but at one point, we have got to stop with the one liners or short phrases that actually do not delve into the meat of the topic (not just this one, any topic).
Edit -
I finally took the time to read over all his whining. You know what it looks like? It looks like he is lashing out against a crap ton of different idiotic claims made by various people on the interwebz. I have seen some of the claims he was lashing out against (note: I was a newb to this case until about 2 days ago).
Like the claim, that it isn't bad that Trayvon was possibly a drug dealer (I actually agree with the "libtards" that being an MJ drug dealer is NOT bad). Obviously, that claim is rather stupid because the extreme majority of the US thinks "drugs are bad. Mkay."
Just sayin'.
If any of you have read any of the idiocy from the liberal side of things, you'll see a direct response by that gent who wrote up that diatribe.
What is obvious, though, is the idiocy from the conservatards. The racism seen on the interwebz is ridiculous. The "Trayvon was bad because he was black and Zimmerman is innocent because he is not black" sentiments are just stupid. Yes, that is how some arguments can be boiled down.
Originally posted by dadudemon
That dude's entire quote is tongue-in-cheek, borderline humor. So when you call it rhetoric, I call it a light-hearted call to reason.
It really isn't and I think you know that.
Originally posted by dadudemon
BUT....the good news: some people may have seen what went down. Some of the response personnel are backing up Zimmerman's claim (that Zimmerman get his ass kicked).If anything, this should be a good reason for liberals to bring up why we need better gun control (or no guns). Where are those arguments? I have not run across them.
Good news and a very good question.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You do not have to prove innocence in a court of law: you have to prove reasonable doubt. You are found "not guilty". Not "innocent". Being acquitted just means you are not longer charged with the offense because there is not enough "evidence" to convict you.
True, I'm thinking more of public opinion and what may have actually happened than what he actually needs to demonstrate in court.
Originally posted by dadudemon
This has been part of my problem with the case from the beginning: we will probably never know if Zimmerman did the following:1. Thought that Trayvon was a drug dealer doing stupid shit in the neighborhood.
2. Followed him to catch him in the act.
3. Verbally confronted Trayvon.
4. Trayvon then beat the shit out of him.
5. Zimmerman pulled his gun out and shot Trayvon in the chest.
The particularly awful part is that its possible for most of this to happen without either of them strictly being in the wrong at any point. Its possible that Trayvon saw the gun Zimmerman was carrying at some point during their confrontation which frightened him which lead to a fight.
This kind of thing is why I haven't picked a side (actually I make it a policy not to ever pick a side on these sorts of cases). We probably don't have all the available information and what we do have is all carefully selected by the people giving it to us, far too often in hopes of getting a reaction.
You pretty much never get the information in the form "Zimmerman and Trayvon had an altercation and Trayvon was shot". Its almost always "a white guy shot and black kid and he's going to get away with it" or "liberals love n*gger crack dealers".
Originally posted by dadudemon
But everyone had already convicted Zimmerman. They instantly found him guilty. This is what that other dude was raging about when he referred to the "liberals".
Except that the initial outcry was not that Zimmerman was guilty it was that he shot a kid and then the cops apparently let him walk before they started investigating. The debate over his guilt took a bit longer to form, at which point you can't really pin down a "kneejerk" reaction to anyone since everyone was on the attack and everyone perceives everyone else as having had a kneejerk reaction.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You do know that I am demanding pictures of Zimmerman's black eyes to prove Zimmerman's side of the story to be a bit more credible, right? RIGHT? RIIIIGHT??!?!?!?!?!?!? Please tell me you understand that and were just making a joke. 🙁
They present a tiny bit of evidence in favor of his side. There are lots of ways to get into a fight, many of which do not involve being illegitimately assaulted. It seems much too quick to say that if he's been injured then you'll immediately come down on his side.
Originally posted by NemeBro
Why do you insist on strawmanning everyone you reply to?
I don't, people have a tendency to say stupid things and then immediately claim they said something else when I point it out. Do you remember the time dadude say "**** political correctness" and went into hysterics when I suggested that he had a negative view of political correctness?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
With intent to kill? NO!
Fair enough, you don't believe lethal self defense is justified in general.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosYes yes, dadudemon is a contrarian troll ( maybe not here, but in other forums I have him pegged as one ) , but do you honestly believe either he or Blax claim all liberals act in such a way?
I don't, people have a tendency to say stupid things and then immediately claim they said something else when I point it out. Do you remember the time dadude say "**** political correctness" and went into hysterics when I suggested that he had a negative view of political correctness?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
...Fair enough, you don't believe lethal self defense is justified in general.
Ya, walking around with a gun, with the intent of killing anyone who attacks you is wrong. Getting away is always the right answer. If you are cornered and your life is in danger, then you have to do what you have too. I do not believe in stand your ground. That is stupid, in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with running away. After all, the person who is attacking you, might be defending them-self, because you might have inadvertently cornered them.
Speaking as someone living in Florida, this is the only time I have ever heard of someone applying Stand Your Ground outside of one's home, but it seems odd that Zimmerman would try to use the law as a defense, since it would actually justify Trayvon beating his ass if he felt threatened by Zimmerman, assuming the law does indeed apply to the street.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
isnt it against forum rules to troll people by altering their quotes? oh well i guess thats better than an 8 paragraph cool story...oh damn...im too late.
No, it is not against forum rules to alter quotes and tell the person for which you altered the quote that you had done so. And no it is not trolling.
No 8-paragraph story from me is required to correct the obvious trolling you did to me, either. We agree there.
Originally posted by dadudemon
No, it is not against forum rules to alter quotes and tell the person for which you altered the quote that you had done so. And no it is not trolling.No 8-paragraph story from me is required to correct the obvious trolling you did to me, either. We agree there.
It's against forum rules to be a nark..lol
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So you honestly believe that all liberals think following people and asking questions are crimes? Good to know that list supported some reasoned thinking from you.
That's a straw....nevermind.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It really isn't and I think you know that.
It is, really, and I know you know that.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Good news and a very good question.
Yes, it is good news. If it is accurate and holds up in court, much of the knee-jerking becomes null and Zimmerman MAY walk (that last part may not be good news, though).
And I think the question is valid: where are the gun control complaints?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
True, I'm thinking more of public opinion and what may have actually happened than what he actually needs to demonstrate in court.
Understood. But I think you're treating what will be presented in court as already being different between what happened in real life (this sometimes IS true, of course).
My problem is with what people think happened in real life: they do not know all the facts (the absurd extreme majority of us still do not know exactly went down) so public opinion can go **** itself until we have more information: it is far too ignorant and lay to matter.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The particularly awful part is that its possible for most of this to happen without either of them strictly being in the wrong at any point. Its possible that Trayvon saw the gun Zimmerman was carrying at some point during their confrontation which frightened him which lead to a fight.
Indeed. I find the unnecessary loss of just about any human life to be saddening. The young man was looking into going to colleges, ffs. 🙁
For me, it doesn't matter if he was a "thug" or a "criminal": he was still trying to do something big and improve his life.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This kind of thing is why I haven't picked a side (actually I make it a policy not to ever pick a side on these sorts of cases). We probably don't have all the available information and what we do have is all carefully selected by the people giving it to us, far too often in hopes of getting a reaction.
Holy shit. I think we agree almost completely about this entire topic.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You pretty much never get the information in the form "Zimmerman and Trayvon had an altercation and Trayvon was shot". Its almost always "a white guy shot and black kid and he's going to get away with it" or "liberals love n*gger crack dealers".
lol
That's just about right on the characterization.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Except that the initial outcry was not that Zimmerman was guilty it was that he shot a kid and then the cops apparently let him walk before they started investigating. The debate over his guilt took a bit longer to form, at which point you can't really pin down a "kneejerk" reaction to anyone since everyone was on the attack and everyone perceives everyone else as having had a kneejerk reaction.
Sure, maybe some people were stating that.
But others had already found Zimmerman guilty and some even demanded Zimmerman's execution. Closed-minded knee-jerking to the max.
The initial outcry was the Zimmerman was guilty and people demanded justice (some people demanded Zimmerman's life like some sort of Code of Hammurabi). "Zimmerman should be locked up for life." Or "Zimmerman should be executed".
I found a few like that in the comment sections from various websites and on some forums using Google's "to and from" search features.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They present a tiny bit of evidence in favor of his side. There are lots of ways to get into a fight, many of which do not involve being illegitimately assaulted. It seems much too quick to say that if he's been injured then you'll immediately come down on his side.
This is what I stated:
"...I am demanding pictures of Zimmerman's black eyes to prove Zimmerman's side of the story to be a bit more credible..."
I did not state this: "...I am demanding pictures of Zimmerman's black eyes to prove Zimmerman's innocence...".
Do you want to revisit that portion of my post and respond with something else?
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
You frustrated bro? Your strawmans bounce off of me like oil on water.
I love it when people say "I believe X" and then when I say "It is stupid to believe X" suddenly they don't believe it anymore. It's like a superpower, the ability to control the minds of others.
Originally posted by dadudemon
That's a straw....nevermind.
When someone comes right out and says "I agree with X" you don't get to call strawman on people who say "This person agrees with X". Perhaps you don't know what a strawman is.
Originally posted by dadudemon
This is what I stated:"...I am demanding pictures of Zimmerman's black eyes to prove Zimmerman's side of the story to be a bit more credible..."
I did not state this: "...I am demanding pictures of Zimmerman's black eyes to prove Zimmerman's innocence...".
Do you want to revisit that portion of my post and respond with something else?
That isn't what you stated. I'm actually going to quote what you said.
First this:
Originally posted by dadudemon
I have not decided which side to choose.
Then this:
Originally posted by dadudemon
If Zimmerman's camp provides some photos that occurred after this event that shows him having black eyes, I will then change my mind.
You're saying here, very clearly, that if evidence is provided that Zimmerman was beaten up you will pick a side. If that isn't what you meant I cannot be blamed for misunderstanding. If you wish to be understood express yourself clearly.