I had no idea Al Sharpton had that much clout! But if you say that’s what happened, by golly, good enough for me!
Well, first, I do believe that I can simply not form an opinion. I wasn’t there, I haven’t seen the best evidence available of what happened, so there is nothing to move me from the position of “I don’t know.”
Second, even if I did form an opinion, I would be aware that my opinion means absolutely nothing. I wouldn’t trumpet it from the rooftops, demanding that the world is all screwed up if other people don’t share my opinion.
Well, really, who could doubt you, given the calm indifference and modesty with which you express your thoughts.
Excellent. Nothing to add.
‘cept, fuck the openly racist, gun-totin’ a-holes who keep trying to defend this scumbag.
Thanx.
Hmmmm. I thought and said the very same, even before I ever heard a single word on the topic from Sharpton. I also find your reaction above pathetic, like that of a giant brainless conservative puss. Al Sharpton! Al Sharpton! Al Sharpton is coming to get us!
Why’s that? You’re never shy about playing us your downstairs trumpet.
I am happy to answer this question, but first please answer my question (which I asked you first):
Do you think I have been suggesting that according to gamerununknown, Zimmerman should go to jail even if he is acquitted?
I’m not sure what you mean by “make the rest of it true.” In some situations, evidence that part of a story is true makes it more likely that the rest of it is true.
There is a difference between proving something to be true and making it more likely. For example, suppose a stranger tells you that that he has a briefcase with $100,000 in it – one hundred packets of bills, each packet containing $1000. Depending on the circumstances, a reasonable person would be skeptical of this claim.
Now, suppose you opened the briefcase, and found that there were 100 packets of what appear to be money in the briefcase. You choose 95 at random, bring them to a bank, and the bank verifies that each of the 95 packets contains exactly $1000 in bills. Does this conclusively prove that the briefcase contained $100,000? Of course not, it proves only that the briefcase contained $95,000. But any reasonable person would conclude it’s very likely that the original claim – that the briefcase contained $100,000 – is correct.
Of course, the amount by which a reasonable person will adjust his probabilities depends on the context. The claim that a person can walk on water is so unlikely as to be pretty much zero. Even if the most honest person you knew swore on a stack of bibles that he could walk on water, you probably still would not believe him.
In the case of George Zimmerman, he (apparently) told a coherent story about what happened on the night in question; did so right after the event without a lot of time to cook up a story; did so while under a huge amount of stress; presumably did so without having the benefit of knowing what other evidence the police had; and had to be grilled by police about it for quite a while. If his story is corroborated in significant respects, it’s reasonable to conclude that he’s probably telling the truth – it’s just really hard to lie in circumstances like that.
Well, you did write this on the last page:
I did. To you, is it the same thing?
Some of us are unwilling to give the attention necessary to parse the precise meanings of your posts, given that you are such a complex and intricate thinker.
:shrug: If it turns out you have mischaracterized, misinterpreted or misunderstood my post, it should be easy enough to just admit it and apologize. As I did with gamerunknown a few posts back.
As you may have noticed, oftimes the subtle nuances of your thought elude us lesser minds. With all due awe.
Yes, I’ve noticed. To paraphrase George Orwell, figuring out my position usually requires constant struggle – at a minimum. For lesser minds such as yours, of course.
Well, you claimed that a reasonable person could infer from my post that “Zimmerman’s claims of being threatened and attacked are irrelevant” and that “the shooter should go to jail”. So I posit you’re suggesting that’s a reasonable interpretation of my post, which to me fits the criteria of “suggesting that according to gamerununknown, Zimmerman should go to jail even if he is acquitted?”.
It doesn’t seem like a fit to me. And the fact that you are having such a hard time giving a simple yes or no answer to my question suggests to me that you know it at some level.
Consider the following two statements:
-
Just based on the undisputed facts that Zimmerman pursued and ultimately shot an unarmed teenager, he should go to jail.
-
Even if Zimmerman is acquitted, he should go to jail because of what he has admitted to doing.
Are they equivalent? It seems to me the answer is clearly “no.” I happen to disagree with the first, but it’s not an outrageous position to take. One can argue with a straight face that the holder of a concealed weapons permit should not do anything to provoke another person, even if it is otherwise legal conduct. And that the law should provide that such provocation waives the right to use one’s weapon in self-defense.
The second position is clearly ridiculous. It’s one thing to say that a certain course of conduct should be treated by the system as a crime. It’s another thing to say that the system should simply ignore a jury’s decision to acquit a defendant and punish him anyway.
I asked you if you had taken the first position, which was a reasonable question. It turns out it was not your position, just a position others may have taken. Fine, I got the answer to my question.
Jack Batty pretended that I suggested you had taken the second position. That’s how he strawmanned me and why he is now on my ignore list.
Thank god for small favors.
Nevermind
Based on this photo I am reasonably confident that Zimmerman was indeed injured.
What do think the red substance is in this picture?
It looks like blood to me.
Well what about this picture? He doesn’t look fine to me.
Still think so?