Excuse me for fighting ignorance.
LordoftheFlies.com. Like 4chan, but with cannibalism.
For I think the fifth or so time on this board, I will call attention to the contempt that conservatives have for the very concepts of right, wrong, and objective morality.
I don’t agree that we know for sure Zimmerman is objectively morally at fault. I don’t agree that the mere act of carrying a gun transforms him into a moral monster.
I do personally feel that he has moral responsibility for this death, but that’s based on the scenario I have crafted in my mind about what happened. I don’t pretend that this scenario I’ve made up is the truth, however.
Just so. Whoever said that was wrong, and I join you in rebuking whoever said that. Which was who, exactly?
It seems to me that if they sued at federal level they could bypass the Florida law. I don’t see how a Florida law could make make you immune from a federal lawsuit.
I still think Crump would go after the homeowners association, because I don’t see how he could get enough from Zimmerman to make it worth his time.
O’Mara has already said that Zimmerman’s defense could cost over a million dollars. If Zimmerman got a book deal after the trial, I think there are ways to avoid having the funds going to anyplace a US court can access.
Actually Zimmerman’s best bet is to emigrate. He is going to be a pariah in the U.S., plus he will always have to worry about someone killing him. I wonder if he has derivative Peruvian citizenship?
I don’t think it’s fair to leave out the part about the beating. If Zimmerman’s story is true, and Martin attacked him, Martin would not have been shot without that part.
Regards,
Shodan
Actually, from my point of view, conservatives usually have very strong idea ideas of right and wrong, they just tend to different from yours. They also seem pretty strong on the idea of objective morality, which I find iffy. Actually one of the first thing posted on the internet was on ethical standards.
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/1.16.html#subj5
Do note that I do admit that there may be absolute ethical standards.
No matter what, he’ll go to his grave with Woulda-Coulda-Shouldas dancing in his head.
(Watch the best episode of Band of Brothers, no the very last one that they never seem to show where we meet the real guys we’ve been watching die and kill to live. Of all the people in the world who shouldn’t be second guessing their lives it’s those guys . . . and yet they do.)
…
But those Woulda-Coulda-Shouldas
All ran away and hid
From one little did.
Shel Silverstein
CMC fnord!
-
You are factually wrong about this. Many conservatives (however you want to define that) are totally into right, wrong, and objective morality.
-
I’m not into any of those things, but I don’t think it has anything to do with me being a fiscal conservative. It has to do with me being a rational person.
-
I’m not sure why you think you are scoring points simply by pointing out that I acknowledge there’s no such thing as objective morality. It’s something I’m proud of. I mention it all the time, and try to fight this bit of ignorance whenever it comes up. You are really just outing yourself as a fucking idiot.
What’s the federal cause of action?
One of you liberals. You all look alike to me.
Depends. If Martin knew that Zimmerman had a gun and had a “reasonable fear” that the was likely to use it, leaping upon him and pinning him to the ground would be an entirely sensible, and presumably legal, course of action. Both the conjectures are supported by “eyewitnesses”, for whatever that may be worth.
Not much, in my estimation. Maybe the Gospel truth, but its the gospel where Mark contradicts Matthew and Luke contradicts both of them.
If you were all as ugly as “Fat Tony” Scalia, you’d be extinct.
It’s not fighting ignorance. It’s reveling in it. The morality against killing exists because, as a society, we’ve learned that letting people think it’s okay to kill makes it more likely that people will kill. Not having this base morality is enough to get you diagnosed with a mental disorder.
Not to mention that a lack of belief in objective morality is itself irrational, seeing as, to believe it, you have to believe there is an objective morality that objective morality is wrong. It’s like saying, “Rule 1: There are no rules.” It’s a flat out contradiction.
You aren’t fighting ignorance. If I had to take your comments seriously, there would be no rational reason for me not to conclude that you’ve actually killed someone yourself in such a way as that you won’t get caught. Being perfectly rational, there would be nothing to prevent that. And even knowing that you most likely are not perfectly rational about this point, I still have to wonder about what other immoral acts you’ve done: have you cheated on your wife? Have you lied to us entirely about who you are? How many socks do you have?
Objective morality is the glue that allows us to function as a society–we can’t function without an assumption that there are some basic rules that everyone follows. If you have rejected that, then you provide nothing to society, and it is in society’s best interest to remove your influence upon it.
I sure hope you’re just some asshole on a message board.
Good, because otherwise I’d have to worry about you, too.
BigTard, care to define “objective” for us? It doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means.
There’s plenty of other stupidity in this post (as per usual from you), but let’s just start with that.
Nevermind. Never argue with a troll.
Not the greatest example. Scalia has nine children.
Yeah, but Catholics are grimly determined.