I have like 5 people against me. Most people, probably quite rightly, don’t give a single shit.
Your reason for saying they aren’t murderers IS flawed. Juries can be wrong, so the fact that someone wasn’t convicted doesn’t make it “factually false” to say they should have been convicted. Both before and after the jury verdict, it remains a matter of opinion.
Holy crap, Steophan, this should be so easy. Just provide the cite, and quote.
He did. This is the quote.
That is why he claims that iiandyiiii explicitly called both Rittenhouse and Zimmerman murderers. Try to parse that if you will.
No, it’s a matter of fact. Facts actually exist, truth actually exists, and whilst our access to both is necessarily imperfect when there is sufficient evidence we can say what is factual and true.
“It’s just an opinion” is no more valid when there’s evidence that proves something than when a young earth creationist says evolution is “just a theory”. Both are literally denying reality.
In direct reply to a post of mine where I said they were not murderers. That was his response, a clear claim that they can be described as murderers, and that due to the differences in our morality he will do so. The difference, by the way, is that I care about facts and evidence and that he cares about how it makes him feel sad that a white man got to defend himself.
No, I did not say anything about your reasoning, except to note that some people use the term murderer in contexts beyond the purely legal.
I’m parsing all I can, and I don’t see it. Steophan, why not just provide a quote, a sentence, that proves your point?
You literally made the last part up. Yes, he said they can be described as murderers. No, he did not say “he will do so”. That part is complete fiction. And that is why you are accused of being a liar.
I think we’ve established that the difference is that you have no idea what facts are.
Because he can’t. He’s either trolling or so delusional that he actually expects his bizarre interpretation of andy’s posts to be self-evidently obvious.
That’s the important line - and I’ll note that andy didn’t bother to link to those threads, and I didn’t call him a liar for that.
He can jump around and say that he didn’t say a certain set of exact specific words he didn’t say what he clearly meant. He’s been calling Zimmerman a murderer for years, and the comparison to Rittenhouse is clear and obvious. Which is why he won’t deny it.
But sure, keep pretending he didn’t say it and doesn’t believe it. He did, he does, and his silly gaslighting games are just that.
I forgot to mention this, too… I’m somewhat ashamed to say that the only person who has even given the slightest defense of you in this discussion here today has been… me. As tepid as it has been.
No, he posted to refute the idea that the results of a criminal trial can’t ever be wrong, and that a person exonerated in a trial is therefore objectively innocent of the charge. He doesn’t say or imply anything about the guilt of anyone (other than the aforementioned KKK members). You are reading things into that post that aren’t there, because you’re reacting emotionally to the Rittenhouse trial verdict, and not using rational thought. This is probably because you’re not really equipped, mentally, for the latter.
More gaslighting. I actually understand what’s happening here now. How freeing.
Another cite free claim, and this one covers, apparently, multiple posts!
So put up or shut up. Let’s see cites for this claim that covers “years”.
Put up or shut up, liar.
So you now admit he “didn’t say a certain set of exact specific words”? You’re admitting he didn’t say the things you claim he said. You are extremely reluctant and surrounding it with weasel words and trying to simultaneously cast him in the worst light possible but you finally admit that what you claim is bullshit. That shouldn’t have been so hard.
You admit he didn’t say it. That’s what we have a problem with. Only iiandyiiii knows what he really believes, you don’t, I don’t, nobody else here does. You can claim you have sussed out what he really believes based on his posts. Maybe you’re right, maybe you’re not. You’ve been accused by multiple people here of being a racist, maybe they’re right, maybe they’re not. That’s immaterial to the issue of whether or not he explicitly said what you claim he did, when in fact even you now admit he didn’t.
The fact is that you claimed he said something that he didn’t. As you say, facts matter, and you’ve been denying the facts. For a ridiculously long time.
That’s not something I ever claimed, though, and I specifically made clear that it’s the evidence presented at the trial, not the result that proves their innocence. It’s unfortuante that no matter how often I explain the distinction people ignore it.
That said, and also something I’ve repeatedly said, innocence is not something that needs to be proven, it’s the presumed state. A not guilty verdict reaffirms that innocence, and proof isn’t needed. It’s just nice when it does exist, as it avoids the need to bring philosophy into things.
You can’t count either, can you?
If only there was some way that could be resolved. Maybe if someone asked him what he believed, surely he’d answer then?
Nah, preposterous. Better to pretend that he doesn’t mean what he clearly says because he uses implication rather than explication.
More that I couldn’t be bothered to. I can get up to 20 with my socks off.