Because you can read and comprehend words in the English language.
Cherish this skill. As you can see, this isn’t something everyone can do.
You know, it’s just possible that some people consider taking the life of another human being to have a bit more moral heft than choosing to eat bananas on cereal.
Or is that the sort of “liberal groupthink” you believe is occurring here?
He is urinating in the approximate vicinity of footwear which may or may not be yours. While outlining the precise legal distinction between that and the meteorlogical event commonly referred to as “raining”…
Quite familiar with that one. See it a lot on the SDMB. Do you know what the transitive verb “to endorse” means? It’s what your lawyer is doing when she says “your proposed action is legal, and you are not wrong to pursue it.”
a) You are endorsing it. Seriously, grab a dictionary.
b) You have declared Zimmerman’s actions to be legal and have spent this and other threads castigating those who are calling those actions (and/or Z himself) immoral by emphasizing that legality. Ignoratio elenchi. Make a moral argument to defend a moral evaluation. “Then we can chat.”
But if you argued with me in thread after thread whenever I asserted there’s a moral element to such use of bananas if they aren’t free trade bananas, one would think you felt strongly about the subject of economic justice (or its related subject liberal hypocrisy). I’m pretty sure you can understand this point when cereal is involved, but since George Zimmerman is involved, your mind, infected by law school and that conservative stick up your ass, loses any ability to distinguish between legal codes and human behaviors.
When my son was ten he could indeed distinguish between behaviors I allowed, those I encouraged, those of which I disapproved and those I would not abide. He also knew, as did I, that if I observed a behavior and did not comment on it, I gave tacit approval for him to continue with it. Because if I thought it wasn’t “the best thing to do” considering his past issues in similar situations, I’d have discouraged the behavior and progressed to more firm disapproval or prohibition if it continued. Maybe that’s because I cared about my son and the people who had to interact with him more than I cared about the basic legal and social proprieties.
You seem to be assuming that Zimmerman’s killing of Martin was immoral. That’s fine but it is just rehashing the old debate.
If we assume that it was lawful self-defense and therefore not immoral, there is nothing morally wrong with putting yourself in a situation where there might be a remote possibility of having to engage in lawful, moral self-defense again. Or is it your position that lawful self defense can only be used once and no more?
Would you say that a police officer who has killed someone in self-defense is immoral by staying on the job?
Not true. I’ve told many clients that their proposed action is legal and moral, but they would be a fool for doing it.
Example: Client will be on trial for allegedly threatening the local county commissioner with violence.
Client continues to post criticism of county commissioner on social media.
Nothing legally wrong with criticizing county commissioner. Nothing morally wrong with criticizing county commissioner.
When on trial for making threats against county commissioner and continuing to post negative remarks about said commissioner which will be used against you at trial? Fucking stupid.
So you’re saying you’d tell your client he shouldn’t do that. That’s clearly not an endorsement.
But what if you just gave him the first part (“yes it’s legal, no it’s not immoral”) without advising against it? That’s clearly an endorsement.
What if your client’s family advised against it and you passionately reasserted the legality and neutral morality and quietly raised an eyebrow regarding the wisdom of the act?
What if your client had argued with, been assaulted by and then shot a different county commissioner previously? What if he didn’t limit his criticism to social media, but preferred to deliver it in person, stationing himself every afternoon on a public sidewalk near the commissioner’s parked car for that purpose? While carrying his duly licensed concealed handgun. Would you still see a moral neutrality in that?
No, I suspect the liberal groupthink prevents you from understanding that I was discussing the subject of the OP: Zimmerman in the parking lot.
Why yes, I do understand it. Better than you, it seems.
Just did. Linked to the definition of “endorse.” It means to publicly or officially say that you support or approve of someone or something. I am not saying I approve.
Picture something extremely simple, like the gearshift of a car. “D” means drive forward, or “I approve.” “R” means drive in reverse, or “I disapprove.”
And “N,” means, you stupid fucking brain addled liberal, that if can look at the gearshift of a car in “N,” and say, “That car is not in reverse,” and everyone except liberals will know that I did not say the car was in “Drive.”
Ok, I think maybe I see. You infer that because I spend the time correcting you on these points, perhaps I feel strongly on the subject, and have some unspoken additional words that, if I wrote them, would in fact be an endorsement, and so THAT’S why you said I endorsed Zimmerman’s actions?
Yeah, this is what passes for thinking in the lefty mind.
If you can’t quote me saying it, then I didn’t say it. OK?
Brilliant.
Well, you lame-brained Democratic doofus, you can be sure if I were speaking to George, I would have advised him against his parking lot escapades. Not because they were either illegal or immoral, but because they were unwise.
But here, an OP was posted which insinuated that George’s actions were wrong. Subsequent thread contributors explicitly took the position that those actions were wrong. And I posted to contradict that claim.
Not by endorsing them. Not by saying they were RIGHT. But by saying they were NOT WRONG.
Here’s a visual:
WRONG -------------- middle neutral ground ------------ RIGHT
IF the needle does not point to wrong, then it’s “NOT WRONG.”
Got it? Doesn’t mean it is pointing to RIGHT.
(No coincidence, by the way, that on that scale the word “wrong” is on the far left.) Knowhutimean?
Can you explain how the dictionary definition of the word “endorse” supports this whacky comment?
You’ve just disqualified yourself from holding any political office as a liberal — an understanding of simple language means you’re out.
Oooh, snap! Dennis Miller, look out!
Liberals, meet your King.
We could do worse.
It’s my position that those who cite Zimmerman’s acquittal are often ignoring a larger context (Zimmerman’s actions leading up to the shooting, whether the law, as written, is good public policy) and are guilty of a double standard (Martin’s right to defend himself from an apparent (and, as it turned out, real) threat, condemning his actions despite no legal conviction).
Where did I ever say that you were, or weren’t, discussing the subject of the OP?
See, two can play at that game.
Here is the post that made me infer it:
Zimmerman did not take any human life in the parking lot.
Zimmerman intentionally put himself in a position where he might have taken a human life had things turned out differently.
Looks like we found something that Bricker is even worse at than his “gotcha” games.
You could do better.
But I didn’t say it, did I? Your inference is clearly the result of conservative groupthink.
Ooh, this is fun.