I of course don’t speak for Stoid, but I suspect that much of what fuels your butting heads with her is disparate ideas of what “guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” means. To me, and I think to you, it means that, having considered all possible conclusions that could be drawn from the evidence, the only reasonable one is guilt. Even if one believes the accused to be guilty, unless reasonable scenarios in which they are not guilty can be disproved by the evidence, they are not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
To Stoid, I think it means that a person of sound mind believes that the likeliest conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence is guilt. That is to say, I don’t believe Stoid views the step of considering conclusions other than the one she’s drawn, and evaluating them for reasonableness, as being necessary.
No, it’s not correct. Why would I assume “likeliest” = “Beyond a reasonable doubt”? Beyond a reasonable doubt means exactly that: whatever doubts that may remain, if any, are not genuinely reasonable.
What fuels our butting heads is extremely simple and I’ve said what it is: Steophan is incapable of seeing it any way other than the way he sees it, AND he is absolutely convinced that anyone who actually does view it differently than he does is ignorant, or stupid, or dishonest, or intellectually dishonest, or unreasonable, or irrational, or hopelessly biased, or some combination.
That belief/POV leads inexorably to his dismissing/ignoring anything and everything that doesn’t match his view of it. Since, for Steophan, nothing really exists or is the truth except what Steophan believes is real or true, it is genuinely impossible to have any kind of debate, dialogue or discussion about it.
My post 804:
Steophan and those who see it as he does look at those facts and they add up to one thing that strikes them as extremely plain. I get that.
But the fact is that enormous numbers of well-educated, reasonable, intelligent, fair-minded people look at those facts and see something JUST AS PLAIN that is extremely different. Steophan doesn’t get that. To him such people are… well, see the start of the post.
As I’ve said… any attempt to engage under these circumstances is completely and utterly pointless. A worthwhile debate involves people who are capable of seeing beyond their own POV. Steophan can’t even accept that it exists… or rather that it exists in anyone that isn’t therefore a biased, ignorant moron for having such a view.
If you can think of a way to engage someone coming from that POV, hat’s off.
No, they do not. All the arguments for Zimmerman’s guilt that I’ve seen either require assuming facts not in evidence, or arguing that the law is other than it, in fact, is.
The list of facts you provide, which I shall accept as correct for the sake of argument, do not prove Zimmerman guilty under Florida law. That is not opinion, it is observation and analysis.
Likewise, it is my observation that no-one has provided a satisfactory argument for guilt. It is my opinion that no-one can. Should someone provide such an argument, both my observation and opinion will change. It’s really not complicated.
Perhaps you should focus on providing such a satisfactory argument instead of berating me for not accepting unsatisfactory ones.
This has nothing to do with my, or anyone’s, point of view. Facts, and the reasonable analysis thereof, are not a matter of opinion, but of observation and logic. And, of course, accepting unpalatable conclusions when they occur. Something I’ve had to do many times when I’ve been shown to be wrong.
Can you point to any occasion where you’ve acknowledged that you’re wrong? I’ve never seen it. I believe you are projecting your own behaviour and attitudes on to me, and assuming that I am acting without reason because that’s how you act, and deep down you don’t actually understand reason at all.
What do you expect. His post was a title and a link. Again. For all we know he was trying to make the same point you were. Without any substance to his post I’ll just assume that is the case.