Zimmerman vs. DMX - Boxing Match?

by **BigBallinStalin** on Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:36 pm

Neoteny wrote:My money's on the French. Rioting seems to be an actual profession there. Tax exempt, I hear.

I know, right? Those Frenchies! They're all the same! lololol

by **BigBallinStalin** on Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:37 pm

bedub1 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
bedub1 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
bedub1 wrote:we decided that if George get's off with anything less than Life in Prison, the blacks will riot.

What does CC think about the underlined? Is that an example of racism, prejudice, or "nope, nothing at all"?

I found the statement awkward, and attempted to revise it so it didn't sound so awkward, but I was unable to come up with a better way to say it. How would you say it?

"... some people might riot, and the New Black Panthers would be likely to start some shit."

You're just presuming that a whole group of people (black people) will take to violence.

1) That's just stupid because you actually have no good reasons/evidence, and (2) other people who aren't black might riot, or do something violent. But really, it isn't this simple, no matter how much you presume.

You're implying that an entire group of people are beyond reason, thus will riot. This is based on your prejudiced notions of all black people. This is reinforced most likely by confirmation bias, refusal to critically think, etc. Thank you for revealing to everyone that you're a dumb racist.

So do you think a bunch of white people will riot? A bunch of Peruvians?

Hey, you're improving: "a bunch of..." as oppose to "whites" or "Peruvians."

Good job!

by **bedub1** on Wed Apr 25, 2012 3:16 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:Hey, you're improving: "a bunch of..." as oppose to "whites" or "Peruvians."

Good job!

See I knew the wording was awkward! Let me go replace "blacks" with "a bunch of black people".

by **BigBallinStalin** on Wed Apr 25, 2012 3:22 pm

bedub1 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Hey, you're improving: "a bunch of..." as oppose to "whites" or "Peruvians."

Good job!

See I knew the wording was awkward! Let me go replace "blacks" with "a bunch of black people".

Why only black people?

How do you know with certainty that zero non-blacks will not riot? (Because it's implied with the statement "a bunch of black people will riot.")

by **Doc_Brown** on Wed Apr 25, 2012 3:53 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
bedub1 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Hey, you're improving: "a bunch of..." as oppose to "whites" or "Peruvians."

Good job!

See I knew the wording was awkward! Let me go replace "blacks" with "a bunch of black people".

Why only black people?

How do you know with certainty that zero non-blacks will not riot? (Because it's implied with the statement "a bunch of black people will riot.")

Actually, that's logically incorrect. The validity of an implication says nothing about the validity of its contrapositive. More specifically, the statement is "If A then B" (if a person is black he will riot) - or in the revised version "if A then probably B." But in logic, the "If A then B" statement does not mean that "if not A then not B" (if a person is not black he won't riot). The only thing that can logically be deduced is "if not B then not A" (if a person isn't rioting he's not black).

Put more simply, you exhibited a logical fallacy (though a pretty common one). Saying something about black people specifically has no logical implication about people of other races.

by **Phatscotty** on Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:51 pm

God I hope I am never corrected by Doc. How embarrassing!

by **Lootifer** on Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:54 pm

Got sum sauce?!

edit: also why do you care about this single small issue?

by **BigBallinStalin** on Wed Apr 25, 2012 6:07 pm

Doc_Brown wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
bedub1 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Hey, you're improving: "a bunch of..." as oppose to "whites" or "Peruvians."

Good job!

See I knew the wording was awkward! Let me go replace "blacks" with "a bunch of black people".

Why only black people?

How do you know with certainty that zero non-blacks will not riot? (Because it's implied with the statement "a bunch of black people will riot.")

Actually, that's logically incorrect. The validity of an implication says nothing about the validity of its contrapositive. More specifically, the statement is "If A then B" (if a person is black he will riot) - or in the revised version "if A then probably B." But in logic, the "If A then B" statement does not mean that "if not A then not B" (if a person is not black he won't riot). The only thing that can logically be deduced is "if not B then not A" (if a person isn't rioting he's not black).

Put more simply, you exhibited a logical fallacy (though a pretty common one). Saying something about black people specifically has no logical implication about people of other races.

http://www.nooooooooooooooo.com/

lol, thanks for pointing that out.

by **BigBallinStalin** on Wed Apr 25, 2012 6:09 pm

Phatscotty wrote:God I hope I am never corrected by Doc. How embarrassing!

Haha, it's not as nearly bad as saying dumb, racist stuff.

If one is corrected, and the criticism is true, then hopefully one will learn something and remember it.

by **Night Strike** on Wed Apr 25, 2012 7:07 pm

Neoteny wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
Neoteny wrote:If you were interested in the facts of the case, you would have called for a trial. That's how our justice system works, for better or worse (by the way, I don't think it was a hate crime; I think it was an escalated situation based on certain prejudices both Zimmerman and Martin probably have).

If I wanted the facts, why would I have automatically called for a trial? If the facts show that a person acted in self-defense, why should they still have to face a trial? If the facts show that Zimmerman properly followed the Stand Your Ground law that specifically bars someone from being arrested, why would I call for a trial? Trials aren't always necessary to elicit the facts, and there are some facts that would preclude having a trial. Furthermore, this specific case could still be thrown out before it even gets to trial if the judge decides that it was self-defense or a proper application of Stand Your Ground.

While I'm happy that you're content to trust all judges and prosecutors to be balanced and unbiased, the facts of the case are that an unarmed minor was shot, there is evidence of a struggle, and a 911 call that implicates Zimmerman in exacerbating the situation. We also have two conflicting stories about the lead up to the struggle. Those are the facts we have. It is not a home invasion or something that cut and dry. I don't expect a judge will throw it out (though I'll admit it's not a longshot to occur), and if a prosecutor had good enough evidence to demonstrate self defense (that Zimmerman didn't escalate), then it certainly hasn't been released, and it should come out at the trial.

But, if the prosecutor thinks there's nothing to it, and Night Strike says there's nothing to it, then I guess that's that. Again, I don't care now that "the facts" will "come to light" and probably be reviewed by a jury of his peers. I officially give no shits. But I do give many shits about the continued insistence that a person who shot another person should not have the incident reviewed in a court setting, especially when the insistence is built upon a foundation of racism

If this situation was built on a "foundation of racism", why was there a hate crime enhancer attached to the charges? Answer: there's no indication, muchless proof, that this was racially motivated.

Your third "fact" of the 911 call implicating him is a dubious claim, at best. And you're assuming that all juries are unbiased by demanding that this case go to trial. A person who defends himself or appropriately follows the Stand Your Ground law should NEVER be forced to go to trial. A trial is not required for the presence of facts.

by **Symmetry** on Wed Apr 25, 2012 7:27 pm

Night Strike wrote:
Neoteny wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
Neoteny wrote:If you were interested in the facts of the case, you would have called for a trial. That's how our justice system works, for better or worse (by the way, I don't think it was a hate crime; I think it was an escalated situation based on certain prejudices both Zimmerman and Martin probably have).

If I wanted the facts, why would I have automatically called for a trial? If the facts show that a person acted in self-defense, why should they still have to face a trial? If the facts show that Zimmerman properly followed the Stand Your Ground law that specifically bars someone from being arrested, why would I call for a trial? Trials aren't always necessary to elicit the facts, and there are some facts that would preclude having a trial. Furthermore, this specific case could still be thrown out before it even gets to trial if the judge decides that it was self-defense or a proper application of Stand Your Ground.

While I'm happy that you're content to trust all judges and prosecutors to be balanced and unbiased, the facts of the case are that an unarmed minor was shot, there is evidence of a struggle, and a 911 call that implicates Zimmerman in exacerbating the situation. We also have two conflicting stories about the lead up to the struggle. Those are the facts we have. It is not a home invasion or something that cut and dry. I don't expect a judge will throw it out (though I'll admit it's not a longshot to occur), and if a prosecutor had good enough evidence to demonstrate self defense (that Zimmerman didn't escalate), then it certainly hasn't been released, and it should come out at the trial.

But, if the prosecutor thinks there's nothing to it, and Night Strike says there's nothing to it, then I guess that's that. Again, I don't care now that "the facts" will "come to light" and probably be reviewed by a jury of his peers. I officially give no shits. But I do give many shits about the continued insistence that a person who shot another person should not have the incident reviewed in a court setting, especially when the insistence is built upon a foundation of racism

If this situation was built on a "foundation of racism", why was there a hate crime enhancer attached to the charges? Answer: there's no indication, muchless proof, that this was racially motivated.

Your third "fact" of the 911 call implicating him is a dubious claim, at best. And you're assuming that all juries are unbiased by demanding that this case go to trial. A person who defends himself or appropriately follows the Stand Your Ground law should NEVER be forced to go to trial. A trial is not required for the presence of facts.

NS, you're too smart to ignore the racial aspects of this case, and I think you know that much of the outcry was in the way that the police department initially handled and investigated the shooting.

Skepticism over the evidence will always be clouded by that poor initial investigation.

by **Phatscotty** on Wed Apr 25, 2012 7:28 pm

The list of hate crimes committed against people in Trayvon's name grow everyday.
Congratulations media w/pawns. Their blood is on your lying, division promoting hands.

13 year old boy set on fire for no reason, other than his skin is white. Could have been your child.

http://gimmemo.com/03/2012/teen-hate-cr ... ing-school

78 year old man beaten for no reason, other than his skin is white. Could have been your grandpa.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/kill-th ... ed-attack/

19 year old beaten and robbed for no reason, other than his skin is white. Could have been your brother.

http://nation.foxnews.com/trayvon-marti ... ed-chicago

Man beaten within an inch of his life, for telling kids in street to be quiet. "That's justice for Trayvon!" the mob said

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/justice ... b-beating/

by **Night Strike** on Wed Apr 25, 2012 7:37 pm

Symmetry wrote:NS, you're too smart to ignore the racial aspects of this case, and I think you know that much of the outcry was in the way that the police department initially handled and investigated the shooting.

Skepticism over the evidence will always be clouded by that poor initial investigation.

So because the protestors were defined by race, the actual case also must have been defined by race? How was the original investigation poor? They questioned Zimmerman for much of the night and ultimately decided not to press charges. The evidence has to fit the charges filed, and even now most outsider observers think that the prosecutor has completely over-charged unless she has some piece of evidence that no one else is aware of.

by **Symmetry** on Wed Apr 25, 2012 7:38 pm

Phatscotty wrote:The list of hate crimes committed against white people in Trayvon's name grow everyday.
Congratulations media w/pawns. Their blood is on your lying, division promoting hands.

[youtubeDOSyr5VZK3g[/youtube]

Has PimpDave influenced you so so much that you feel the need to reflect the shtick he uses to beat the Tea Party with?

As the wise philosopher of NSFW images once wrote:

nietzsche wrote:He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.

And nobody is going to watch a 25 minute Glenn Beck video when Jon Stewart'll show the highlights.

by **Symmetry** on Wed Apr 25, 2012 7:47 pm

Night Strike wrote:
Symmetry wrote:NS, you're too smart to ignore the racial aspects of this case, and I think you know that much of the outcry was in the way that the police department initially handled and investigated the shooting.

Skepticism over the evidence will always be clouded by that poor initial investigation.

So because the protestors were defined by race, the actual case also must have been defined by race? How was the original investigation poor? They questioned Zimmerman for much of the night and ultimately decided not to press charges. The evidence has to fit the charges filed, and even now most outsider observers think that the prosecutor has completely over-charged unless she has some piece of evidence that no one else is aware of.

I'm not sure the protesters were defined by race, except by a few right wingers who felt that the protests would erupt into racial violence. Pretty sure people of all races were kind of appalled.

I think you know a little better than you're letting on about how this case was handled. The lack of id and information given to the family, the video evidence, calls, and eyewitnesses that didn't seem to have been even looked at before press attention.

Now, I'm not saying he's guilty under Florida law because the stand your ground rule seems to give him licence to kill whatever happened. But I don't think you can say that this was investigated properly. And you'll have a long hard time convincing people that there wasn't a racial element in this case, at the very least at an investigative level.

by **Phatscotty** on Wed Apr 25, 2012 7:58 pm

Symmetry wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:The list of hate crimes committed against people in Trayvon's name grow everyday.
Congratulations media w/pawns, Spike Lee, President Obama, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, Roseanne Barr etc. Their blood is on your lying, division promoting hands.

13 year old boy set on fire for no reason, other than his skin is white. Could have been your child.

http://gimmemo.com/03/2012/teen-hate-cr ... ing-school

78 year old man beaten for no reason, other than his skin is white. Could have been your grandpa.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/kill-th ... ed-attack/

19 year old beaten and robbed for no reason, other than his skin is white. Could have been your brother.

http://nation.foxnews.com/trayvon-marti ... ed-chicago

Man beaten within an inch of his life, for telling kids in street to be quiet. "That's justice for Trayvon!" the mob said

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/justice ... b-beating/

Has PimpDave influenced you so so much that you feel the need to reflect the shtick he uses to beat the Tea Party with?

As the wise philosopher of NSFW images once wrote:

nietzsche wrote:He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.

And nobody is going to watch a 25 minute Glenn Beck video when Jon Stewart'll show the highlights.

It's okay Symm. Nobody really expects you to open your mind. Keep it closed. I wouldn't expect anything other than an attack from you when all I did was show the recent hate crimes committed in Trayvon's name. Who cares who reports them. They happened. Say whatever you want about me, trolling won't change anything.

by **Symmetry** on Wed Apr 25, 2012 8:11 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
Symmetry wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:The list of hate crimes committed against white people in Trayvon's name grow everyday.
Congratulations media w/pawns. Their blood is on your lying, division promoting hands.

13 year old boy set on fire for no reason, other than his skin is white. Could have been your child.

http://gimmemo.com/03/2012/teen-hate-cr ... ing-school

78 year old man beaten for no reason, other than his skin is white. Could have been your grandpa.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/kill-th ... ed-attack/

19 year old beaten and robbed for no reason, other than his skin is white. Could have been your brother.

http://nation.foxnews.com/trayvon-marti ... ed-chicago

Man beaten within an inch of his life, for telling kids in street to be quiet. "That's justice for Trayvon!" the mob said

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/justice ... b-beating/

Has PimpDave influenced you so so much that you feel the need to reflect the shtick he uses to beat the Tea Party with?

As the wise philosopher of NSFW images once wrote:

nietzsche wrote:He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.

And nobody is going to watch a 25 minute Glenn Beck video when Jon Stewart'll show the highlights.

It's okay Symm. Nobody really expects you to open your mind. Keep it closed. I wouldn't expect anything other than an attack from you when all I did was show the recent hate crimes committed in Trayvon's name. Who cares who reports them. They happened. Say whatever you want about me, won't change anything.

You say the sweetest things. Perhaps Beck is right in exposing the murderous empire of this dead child. I've sat through a fair number of your videos in the past. Almost always the same intrepid investigator, Glenn Beck. A more rational man than I might suggest that your constant referral to a single, fairly unreliable, source, might be a sign that you're not greatly open-minded in your choice of reportage.

However, I can accept the criticism that I'm closed-minded on Mr Beck. After all, even a broken clock weeps correctly twice a day, right?

Just don't demand I watch 25 minutes of the dude in the hope he gets it right at some point.

by **bedub1** on Wed Apr 25, 2012 8:24 pm

Symmetry wrote:nobody is going to watch a 25 minute video

I couldn't agree more.

by **Night Strike** on Wed Apr 25, 2012 8:26 pm

Symmetry wrote:I'm not sure the protesters were defined by race, except by a few right wingers who felt that the protests would erupt into racial violence. Pretty sure people of all races were kind of appalled.

Then you didn't pay attention to what was happening. When the national news opens the story by claiming Zimmerman is white, of course they were trying to promote a racial agenda. People were protesting because they were convinced that a black kid was killed by a white man, and were seeking racial justice. And the people that are now committing violent crimes are doing so against white people because they think Trayvon was killed for being black.

Symmetry wrote:You say the sweetest things. Perhaps Beck is right in exposing the murderous empire of this dead child. I've sat through a fair number of your videos in the past. Almost always the same intrepid investigator, Glenn Beck. A more rational man than I might suggest that your constant referral to a single, fairly unreliable, source, might be a sign that you're not greatly open-minded in your choice of reportage.

However, I can accept the criticism that I'm closed-minded on Mr Beck. After all, even a broken clock weeps correctly twice a day, right?

Just don't demand I watch 25 minutes of the dude in the hope he gets it right at some point.

I didn't know linking to local news stories and sharing them on a national level amounted to Beck being wrong about the stories and making them up. In fact, isn't that the same thing the other people in the media did when they made the Samford, Florida case into a national story? Why aren't those other media people doing follow-ups on how there are several stories showing black people mobbing white people as "Justice for Trayvon"?

By the way, a group last year published a study on Beck's claims/predictions and found that he was correct about 93% of the time. Maybe you should listen to what he says and then investigate it for yourself before assuming he is wrong.

by **Phatscotty** on Wed Apr 25, 2012 8:32 pm

When a video about recent hate crimes gets up to 25 minutes, that should be a signal to your brain that the problem is getting worse and needs to be paid attention to now more than ever. Not my fault that goes against your habit of ignoring things and refusing to hear other points of view, and it certainly does not suggest anything in the realm of being open-minded and willing to expand you understanding of any given issue.

You could use a little work at being more tolerant to different sources of information. Your pattern of closing your mind to anything that is different from what you believe reminds me a lot of a fundamental religious person.

by **thegreekdog** on Wed Apr 25, 2012 8:35 pm

Baldur's Gate wrote:He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.

One thing on this (before I bail) - Drudge has been doing a bang-up job posting to all this violent crime that is supposedly Trayvon related. Where was Drudge a year ago before Trayvon? I'm sure hate crimes against all sorts of different people of different colors happened a year ago and he didn't publish shit.

by **Night Strike** on Wed Apr 25, 2012 8:39 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
Baldur's Gate wrote:He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.

One thing on this (before I bail) - Drudge has been doing a bang-up job posting to all this violent crime that is supposedly Trayvon related. Where was Drudge a year ago before Trayvon? I'm sure hate crimes against all sorts of different people of different colors happened a year ago and he didn't publish shit.

Probably because those hate crimes weren't being done in the name of a situation whose racial-motivations were fabricated by the media. And moreso because the national media is not reporting on those actual acts of racial violence. The fact that Drudge didn't report on much racial violence before Samford, Florida doesn't excuse the media from ignoring racial violence linked to that city today.

by **Phatscotty** on Wed Apr 25, 2012 8:41 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
Baldur's Gate wrote:He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.

One thing on this (before I bail) - Drudge has been doing a bang-up job posting to all this violent crime that is supposedly Trayvon related. Where was Drudge a year ago before Trayvon? I'm sure hate crimes against all sorts of different people of different colors happened a year ago and he didn't publish shit.

I suppose the reality that the Florida shooting has garnered serious national attention, along with presidential comments might have something to do with it, as well as the fact that hate crimes are up. Not to mention the original narrative of the Florida incident has turned out to be complete bullshit.

Evidence: The criminals in the stories I pointed out have attacked white's to "avenge Trayvon". The guy who shot Trayvon in self defense is Hispanic. DIRECT results of media lies, and the media pawns who fanned those flames of hatred and racism that did not even exist.

by **thegreekdog** on Wed Apr 25, 2012 8:44 pm

I made a funny and you guys didn't pick up on it (Baldur's Gate quote).

Look dudes, I'm all for pointing out inconsistencies in media coverage; I'm just also pointing out Drudge's inconsistentices. I agree that the media sensationalized this and now there's all this ridiculous violence that is completely misguided (as if violence is not misguided of its own accord). But Drudge's insistence on not letting this go is annoying. I want more politics and more sharks.

by **Phatscotty** on Wed Apr 25, 2012 8:48 pm

thegreekdog wrote:I made a funny and you guys didn't pick up on it (Baldur's Gate quote).

Look dudes, I'm all for pointing out inconsistencies in media coverage; I'm just also pointing out Drudge's inconsistentices. I agree that the media sensationalized this and now there's all this ridiculous violence that is completely misguided (as if violence is not misguided of its own accord). But Drudge's insistence on not letting this go is annoying. I want more politics and more sharks.

It's more than ridiculous. It's deadly serious. But why don't you send Drudge a letter, telling him not to report on hate crimes anymore. That way we don't have to be bothered with what is going on around us until something bad happens to someone in our family or someone we know.

Zimmerman vs. DMX - Boxing Match?

Concerning Zimmerman Verdict

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: Evidence of Self Defense Claim Emerge

Re: George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin

Re: George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin

Re: George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin

Re: George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: Evidence of Self Defense Claim Emerge

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: Evidence of Self Defense Claim Emerge

Re: George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: Evidence of Self Defense Claim Emerge

Re: George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin

Re: George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: Evidence of Self Defense Claim Emerge

Re: George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: Evidence of Self Defense Claim Emerge

Re: George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: Evidence of Self Defense Claim Emerge

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: Evidence of Self Defense Claim Emerge

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: Evidence of Self Defense Claim Emerge

Re: George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: Hate Crimes Spike

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: Hate Crimes Spike

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: Hate Crimes Spike

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: Hate Crimes Spike

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: Hate Crimes Spike

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: Hate Crimes Spike

Who is online