“There is a rumor” is not the same thing as “evidence of theft” I would put it to you that based on the other crap that is floating around about this case, the rumor is most likely unmitigated bullshit.
That you would find these two terms synonymous is telling.
Once again, it is crap like this (“There is a rumor” morphing into “evidence of theft”) that makes me call for an actual investigation by professionals.
I agree. But in this case, there is a rumor that there was evidence of theft. Can you really not grasp this relationship?
Can you really not understand that in discussing unsubstantiated claims, the word “evidence” might properly be used, depending of course on the context?
Please quote me where I have done so. Failing that, please admit that I did no such thing and apologize.
Your choice.
Indeed, sir, I agree wholeheartedly!
Well, Ok. Room for disagreement here.
Ummm… really? You seem so certain…
I am awestruck by your ability to draw us into your little charade and make us believe you were serious. Nice one, Crafter.
Unless of course you are just sampling the experience of being a troll.
Or…wait… you aren’t serious, are you? :dubious: :eek:
Being a passionate proponent of honesty and standing by one’s convictions, without any consideration of what exactly those convictions might be, I am awestruck by your willingness to stand up and shine a light directly on the vileness of your private mental processes for all to see and be sickened by. In fact it might even be more admirable when one’s convictions are so clearly warped, sad, irrational and cruel, exposing one to the pity and revulsion of those to whom one reveals oneself. That’s either guts or stupidity, and I’ll give you the benefit of assuming its guts. (Or perhaps it is kinder to assume stupidity?)
In either case, my sympathies, sir, for the crushing burden of having to daily navigate the sorry business of dwelling inside your wretched mind and heart.
I know you qualified this as your opinion and all, but what the fuck?
National spokesman for Santorum Toothpaste.
Many years ago I came home around 4:30am to find what looked like my neighbor and two other guys working on his car. I walked over to see if I could be of any assistance and saw that it wasn’t my neighbor at all, the 3 guys were stealing his car. I told them (more or less) WTF - GTFO. The lookout pulled out a tire thumper and said “what now, bitch!” I charged at him and he was so surprised that I wasn’t pissing myself that I managed to get the club away from him and proceeded to very thoroughly “check his inflation.” His accomplices ran, and I realized I’d have a lot of problems if I beat him to death so I gave him a few swift kicks in the ribs and made some kind of ultimatum and he limped away as fast as he could clutching his abdomen.
I really don’t think I’m a busybody or vigilante or wannabe cop. At that moment I didn’t even fear serious injury or death. I was just hopped up on adrenaline and pissed off and beating the crap out of this guy with his own weapon really appealed to me. Could I have screamed like a little girl, run away, called the cops, waited 2-3 hours for them to show up, given a statement, etc.? Sure. Retrospectively things could have gone better, but I don’t think I did anything wrong though.
It’s a different situation with different details and I know what happened and what was going through my head because I was there. Had I called the cops after the fact and they tracked this guy down someone could have just as easily said my story was too convenient to be true and people don’t really say “what now, bitch” so I must have really been out looking for hate crimes to commit.
Did you mean to post that in another thread? Was Martin stealing a car? Are you drunk?
You did not say “there is a rumor that there was evidence of theft”. You said “evidence of theft”. Can you not see that there is no relationship there in your original statement?
So your basic point stands about… evidence of theft. You did not qualify this as a rumor about a theft. You stated that there was evidence of theft. You were wrong to do so.
So.. no apology from me for simply pointing out that your words meant what they said.
It means that like Randy, you rely heavily on a bullshit “artful dodger” technique wherein you make numerous statements that provide a clear implication of where your sympathies lie and what your beliefs are—but (unlike the Klan-reject Neanderthal Crafter_Man, who’s just stupid enough to admit his actual beliefs) you’re careful never to state them outright, which frees you to play “gotcha” games of where’d-I-say-that and cite-or-apologize whenever someone connects the dots. It’s painfully transparent.
Violence never gets less evil, it only becomes more necessary. No doubt we both agree that violence to protect the innocent and harmless qualifies as necessary. Whether violence to protect property is necessary is a decision each must make on his own. I’ve long since made mine. There is nothing anyone owns that I would hurt them to take, and nothing I own I would hurt someone to keep. I make no claim that mine is the superior ethic, only that it is mine.
Point of order. Doesn’t the SYG law, if found to be operative in the case, confer immunity from civil action?
Lol, so every time somebody uses the phrase “evidence of theft,” they are asserting that there is evidence of theft?
Anyway, here is the actual exchange:
(my bolding)
(my bolding)
And then later:
(my bolding).
In short, it was always extremely clear that I was talking about unsubstantiated allegations.
And yet you insisted on telling the lie that I was equating “there is a rumor” with “evidence of theft”
I have my own rules of debate, and one rule is that I don’t engage with people who insist on misrepresenting my position.
Goodbye, liar.
Well that’s a bit of a catch 22. “If found operative in this case” by whom? I think Zimmerman can be sued in civil court, but:
*(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
*
But who knows, the money collected from all the licensing fees on the trademarked “I am Trayvon” items may make the penalties for the loss of the case just a drop in the bucket.
The one fly in the ointment here is that, as with the robbery/murder of the two British tourists in Florida recently. they may take the goods you so willingly surrender and shoot you afterwards anyway, either on the old principle that dead men tell no tales or just for the sheer hell of it.
I get that you’re willing to take that chance. Me, not so much.
In this context, yes. You said there was evidence of theft. I took that to mean that you believed there was evidence of theft. Not a big stretch. Words do have meanings you know. I guess what you meant to say was “there were rumors of theft”. Two quite different things.
And goodbye to you. Good luck with your ongoing communication problems.
Nonsense, I am making no secret at all about my position:
At this time, I have not reached a conclusion as to Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence. The most important piece of evidence for me will be the physical evidence if Zimmerman’s alleged injuries. Also of importance will be the witness statements.
Zimmerman is more likely than not an asshole wannabe cop loser and it would not surprise me at all if it turns out that he did not have an adequate basis to open fire. On the other hand, I would not be surprised if his actions were justified.
Similarly, it would not surprise me at all if Martin turns out to be a thug. On the other hand, the evidence of his character is sketchy and it would not surprise me if it turns out that he was an ordinary high school kid with minor disciplinary problems.
Anyone (in the general public) who has reached a firm conclusion about Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence is some combination of prejudiced, bigoted, and stupid.
No, what’s painfully transparent is that (ETA: many) people on Team Trayvon are extremely eager to attack anyone who questions their position. Even to the extent of setting up strawmen to attack.
He’s just asking questions!
Well, join the club of people that Brazzy has decided he “won’t engage” because they “broke his rules”.
We have hats, weekly meetings and a bowling league.
A while ago he informed me I was a member of the club which I found hysterical because I honestly didn’t even remember him or the spat that caused this.
I since found out. It was in one of the Israel/Pslestinian threads where he was arguing that because of their birth rates Jewish settlers on the West Bank would soon outnumber the Palestinians on the West Bank and he got angry at me for showing him how absurd that was.
Yes, he is that stupid.
Wrong as ever. I have spoken in very simple language about my position here, but obviously my language wasn’t simple enough for you. I’ll try again.
You and others read news stories and then create a narrative of what you think happened that night. I don’t do that. I am simply happy to wait and let our society’s truth-finding function do it’s thing.
So, it is not the case that I think Zimmerman’s actions were justified or not a crime or anything like that. I simply have not created my own personal version of events, so I have not taken a position on the ultimate issues.
Would you agree that this shit-storm began because weeks after the shooting, it appeared very clear that our society’s “truth finding function” appeared to be doing nothing of the sort, and seemed rather to be more of a “sweeping under the rug” function?
I agree that an investigation by competent authorities is very needed, and the rampant speculation (on all sides) has done nothing to shed light on what happened.