What have I not proved for my case, and what have you proved for yours that trumps mine.?
We have motive, we have a past family record, we have a twitter account talking about muslim retribution, we have a belligerent child refusing to cooperate with police, we have no project that day, yet he brings one in.
Those are facts.
Then we have Richard Dawkins destroy him on twitter.
https://www.rt.com/uk/316094-dawkins-attack-clock-boy/
What are you facts that disprove mine?
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
What have I not proved for my case, and what have you proved for yours that trumps mine.?We have motive, we have a past family record, we have a twitter account talking about muslim retribution, we have a belligerent child refusing to cooperate with police, we have no project that day, yet he brings one in.
Those are facts.
Then we have Richard Dawkins destroy him on twitter.
https://www.rt.com/uk/316094-dawkins-attack-clock-boy/What are you facts that disprove mine?
Well, you've not proven anything at all.
What's his motive again? To provoke backlash in order to get a free education? Hell if he's smart enough to manipulate all these people to get a free education then that's pretty impressive at his age.
Past family record has been shown to be worthless in this case.
Muslim retribution? You mean this? "Thank you fellow supporters. We can ban together to stop this racial inequality." Standing against racial inequality is standing for muslim retribution now?
Him not liking police and not wanting to cooperate doesn't prove anything either. Perhaps he was annoyed that he'd been detained, and felt that it happened because he was muslim. Besides, you aren't required to cooperate with police, and not doing so doesn't mean you are guilty.
No project doesn't matter. He may have just been excited about building a clock or taking one apart.
See, here's the difference between us. I am not making a claim that needs to be proven. I am simply not passing judgement on the boy, such a stance requires no proof, it is based on the lack of proof showing his actual guilt. You are assuming guilt, and so you have the burden of proof on your side, proof that you and others have completely failed to produce.
And no random articles/blog posts aren't proof.
And Richards Dawkins is what chopped liver?
I know you are taking me as a fool to the rest of what you said, have at it..Literally there is noting short of a smoking gun here that would make you see the truth, or the facts.
He knew what he was doing was wrong, and he did it anyways.
Nuff said, I have said all that needs to be said, and I noticed you dodges Brans huge post btw. You didn't even wanna try that one on.
But since you missed it but obviously disagree with it, here ya go.
Originally posted by One Big Mob
Because teachers would have so many other avenues of viewing bombs or something? I don't get your point here. I know you said it to be snarky but yeah, if that's all the information available to them about bombs then it looks exactly like a bomb. It looks like a bomb from an action movie to the vast majority of people lacking bomb knowledge therefore it looks like a bomb. Simple really.You seem to be ignoring everything I'm saying while playing off your angle of "punishment is only applicable if real dread is instilled". Like I said before, go equip your kid with a cap gun real looking or otherwise and see how much shit he gets in. You won't of course because you're likely aware of a kid getting in deeper shit than bomb kid for shaping a pop tart into a gun. Because schools don't **** around with dangerous looking shit. Because schools have been the focal point for some truly tragic shit and they rule with an iron fist (rightly so) when they believe someone is trying to scare everyone.
But whether it scared everyone or not, he should still be punished for this. He either was going to kill everyone or they realized he was just trying to scare everyone into thinking he would. People were afraid enough to take it away and call the police. That is enough. Unless you believe everyone was laughing and they're like "you got us, but we don't like your brown skin so say your prayers to your namesake boooooooooyyyyyyyy!"
Even if they just reacted out of anger at it because of the implications it's an agreeable reaction. You can't have kids trying to trick everyone with very serious implications and let them think that's acceptable.They did but not to the only degree apparently satisfying enough for you. Just because they didn't pull out all the stops doesn't mean they didn't take measures against it being a bomb. "They didn't evacuate therefore they knew it wasn't a bomb". What an assumption on your part.
His intention was to look like a victim.
He took apart a clock and reassembled it intending to show it. Why is this impressive?
He put it inside a case with exposed wires.
It was beeping.
He was told not to show anyone else, he showed other people.
He put a corded lock on it because he himself knew it looked suspicious. Why would he do this and be dumbfounded that it would trick people?
He did this on a date where any sort of invention wouldn't be a showcase for any class.
He did all this during the same week of 911.What does that all lead us into? He wanted to make it look like a bomb. He wanted to get into trouble when he realized he had a good excuse. The fact that his family won't talk to the city about it but go to social media instead point to him playing the victim. Hell didn't Mark Cuban say his sister was telling the kid what to say in a phonecall - the same sister who got suspended for a bombthreat - and Mark found that weird. And the family won't release the police reports which could help him.
And if that's true then he knowingly (or his family knew) did this under the assumption he'd get in trouble for a bomb. Which is no different at all from someone getting in trouble for a cap gun no matter how much you pretend it isn't.
But with all this said, what logical assumption is there for a 14 year old to bring this to school other than to try and look like a victim? His excuse is he wanted to show his science teacher. His science teacher told him to put it away. That should have been a clue.
If I make a clock look like a bomb and bring it to a public space for no reason and people assume it's a bomb then why the **** shouldn't I be punished for it? Do people not get punished in your world for calling in fake bomb threats if caught?
Originally posted by Lestov16
If you have news reports, just cite the sources in the reports.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Oh look more bad news for all the liberalshttp://allenbwest.com/2015/09/muslim-clock-kids-sister-was-previously-suspended-for/
Where was your sources on proving that corporations don't give money to poor or charity btw? Keep dodging, Ali..
All of those articles, including the last two that didn't work, link back to this one Daily Beast interview :http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/17/man-i-went-viral-my-day-with-ahmed-moahmed-the-most-famous-boy-on-earth.html
Where his sister says “I got suspended from school for three days from this stupid same district, from this girl saying I wanted to blow up the school, something I had nothing to do with.”
So basically she got suspended because a girl says some stuff about her. See nothing even remotely implying she made a hoax terror threat of any kind. And you admittedly have no documentation either. So you are literally making up massive assumptions based on that one quote. Congratulations, confirmation bias king.
Wrong, this has nothing to do with the DailyBeast
http://www.wnd.com/2015/09/clock-boys-sister-was-suspended-for-bomb-threat/
And neither does this one.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/092215-772291-did-muslim-clock-boy-perpetrate-hoax.htm
Confirmation, you are a liar.
Moving on
Where is your proof that corporations do not donate to charity?
Have you heard of this mogal who made billions and donates to charity?
Originally posted by Lestov16
Are you illiterate? The first article links directly to the daily beast, and the second has zero sources at all. This the best you got?
Appears it has a small caption about it under the picture. Your an idiot btw if you think that means I'm illiterate.
Anyways. When did the daily beast become a biased website against muslims, when they happened to report on this?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/25/ted-cruz-threatens-to-kill-the-ayatollah.html
Also when CNN writes a story, were their **** are their sources? And why don't you ask for them?
What makes this non credible to you?
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/092215-772291-did-muslim-clock-boy-perpetrate-hoax.htm
Eyman Mohamed told the Daily Beast during a day-long interview with the family Sept. 17 about an incident where she was accused of wanting to blow up her school.“I got suspended from school for three days from this stupid same district, from this girl saying I wanted to blow up the school, something I had nothing to do with,” Mohamed told the_Daily Beast. “I got suspended and I didn’t do anything about it. And so, when I heard about Ahmed, I was so mad because it happened to me and I didn’t get to stand up, so I’m making sure he’s standing up because it’s not right. So I’m not jealous. I’m kinda like –_it’s like he’s standing for me.”
The young girl said her suspension did not take place at MacArthur High School in Irving, Texas. Instead, her punishment came during her first year of middle school when the family moved to the state from New York City.
“I knew English, but the culture was different, the people were different,” Mohamed told the Daily Beast.
That's not a small caption. That's the entire first half and basis if the article. Again, are you phucking illiterate?
And my complaint isn't with the Daily Beast itself. It is with right wingers trying to distort the interview to their own agenda.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
And Richards Dawkins is what chopped liver?I know you are taking me as a fool to the rest of what you said, have at it..Literally there is noting short of a smoking gun here that would make you see the truth, or the facts.
He knew what he was doing was wrong, and he did it anyways.
Nuff said, I have said all that needs to be said, and I noticed you dodges Brans huge post btw. You didn't even wanna try that one on.
But since you missed it but obviously disagree with it, here ya go.
Richard Dawkins is a smart man but his his area of expertise is biology. Since this isn't about biology he is just another person with an opinion here.
Why would I respond to Brans post when it was an post in the middle of a discussion that he was having with someone else? My initial response was to you dancing around wrongly saying you've proven your opposition wrong when you've not. You've still not, you've just shown you don't understand what proof actually is.
Originally posted by Lestov16
That's not a small caption. That's the entire first half and basis if the article. Again, are you phucking illiterate?And my complaint isn't with the Daily Beast itself. It is with right wingers trying to distort the interview to their own agenda.
You claimed that the daily beast falsified its report is a failure and now you trying to lie about their motives.
You still failed to provide any proof on your claim that "corporations don't give to charity."
Where are you on that btw?
Originally posted by BackFire
Richard Dawkins is a smart man but his his area of expertise is biology. Since this isn't about biology he is just another person with an opinion here.Why would I respond to Brans post when it was an post in the middle of a discussion that he was having with someone else? My initial response was to you dancing around wrongly saying you've proven your opposition wrong when you've not. You've still not, you've just shown you don't understand what proof actually is.
Ill take his opinion over yours though. Considering he's an actual intellectual and has actual career of influence. Also if Obama said he did nothing wrong, does that make his opinion valid and everyone else's invalid?😂
As far as proof, you said I didn't prove anything, guess what, you didn't either😂
You can't prove on the internet, because the other person can just say "thats not proof", your not the moral authority on deciding what is proof and what isn't. So while you may not think I have not proved anything, neither have you.
Like I said earlier, you want a smoking gun for proof? Guess what his family has a history of this, and guess what in a court of law, past history counts as admissible.
We are done here this dance you are putting up is pointless.