Zimmerman vs. DMX - Boxing Match?

[Symmetry]

And you haven't answered my other questions, why did you say that I didn't care about other murders, or cases? Are you seriously trying to make an argument that I don't? Or that I haven't in the past.

No. I'm saying why do you care about this particular case? I explained why I think you are in the most recent post I made. I don't know why this is so hard, unless you're just trolling me for some reason.

I'll ask you the symmetrical flipside, why are you suggesting that I shouldn't care about the killing of this child? If you can answer that, maybe we'll reach a point of accommodation.

[thegreekdog]

And you haven't answered my other questions, why did you say that I didn't care about other murders, or cases? Are you seriously trying to make an argument that I don't? Or that I haven't in the past.

No. I'm saying why do you care about this particular case? I explained why I think you are in the most recent post I made. I don't know why this is so hard, unless you're just trolling me for some reason.

I'll ask you the symmetrical flipside, why are you suggesting that I shouldn't care about the murder of this child? If you can answer that, maybe we'll reach a point of accommodation.

I hope so.

You shouldn't care about this murder because you haven't cared about most other murders that occur in the United States. So you don't accuse me of singling you out, I also don't care about most other murders that occur in the United States (except for those that occur close to where I live) and Phatscotty shouldn't care. And Night Strike shouldn't care. And the president shouldn't care. And Glenn Beck shouldn't care. Etc.

Again, the only reason that anyone cares about this particular murder is because it was politically beneficial for the president and liberals to comment on it and it was politically beneficial for conservatives to comment on it. If it was not politically beneficial such that politicians and political commentators didn't comment on it, you, Phatscotty, me, Night Strike, etc. would not have heard of this murder and thus would not care.

[Symmetry]

And you haven't answered my other questions, why did you say that I didn't care about other murders, or cases? Are you seriously trying to make an argument that I don't? Or that I haven't in the past.

No. I'm saying why do you care about this particular case? I explained why I think you are in the most recent post I made. I don't know why this is so hard, unless you're just trolling me for some reason.

I'll ask you the symmetrical flipside, why are you suggesting that I shouldn't care about the murder of this child? If you can answer that, maybe we'll reach a point of accommodation.

I hope so.

You shouldn't care about this murder because you haven't cared about most other murders that occur in the United States. So you don't accuse me of singling you out, I also don't care about most other murders that occur in the United States (except for those that occur close to where I live) and Phatscotty shouldn't care. And Night Strike shouldn't care. And the president shouldn't care. And Glenn Beck shouldn't care. Etc.

Again, the only reason that anyone cares about this particular murder is because it was politically beneficial for the president and liberals to comment on it and it was politically beneficial for conservatives to comment on it. If it was not politically beneficial such that politicians and political commentators didn't comment on it, you, Phatscotty, me, Night Strike, etc. would not have heard of this murder and thus would not care.

What a craven stance. To not care about something because it happens elsewhere. I didn't get into this argument to help the President, or liberals, and I don't think you can justify your statement that it was the only reason I care.

Do you even accept that I might have a modicum of sympathy for the Martin family? Would that be motive enough for me to post?

I don't accept that I shouldn't care about the death of a child, nor that I shouldn't care because I haven't spent the same amount of time on other deaths.

You argue for nihilism, and your post is hypocritical, unless of course, you think that you shouldn't care about my posts, because, of course, you don't care about all the other posts on the internet.

[thegreekdog]

What a craven stance. To not care about something because it happens elsewhere. I didn't get into this argument to help the President, or liberals, and I don't think you can justify your statement that it was the only reason I care.

Do you even accept that I might have a modicum of sympathy for the Martin family? Would that be motive enough for me to post?

I don't accept that I shouldn't care about the death of a child, nor that I shouldn't care because I haven't spent the same amount of time on other deaths.

You argue for nihilism, and your post is hypocritical, unless of course, you think that you shouldn't care about my posts, because, of course, you don't care about all the other posts on the internet.

You've misunderstood me again, so let me ask the question a different way - How did you know this incident happened?

[Symmetry]

What a craven stance. To not care about something because it happens elsewhere. I didn't get into this argument to help the President, or liberals, and I don't think you can justify your statement that it was the only reason I care.

Do you even accept that I might have a modicum of sympathy for the Martin family? Would that be motive enough for me to post?

I don't accept that I shouldn't care about the death of a child, nor that I shouldn't care because I haven't spent the same amount of time on other deaths.

You argue for nihilism, and your post is hypocritical, unless of course, you think that you shouldn't care about my posts, because, of course, you don't care about all the other posts on the internet.

You've misunderstood me again, so let me ask the question a different way - How did you know this incident happened?

Hmm, somehow the part I misunderstood got deleted in your response. I'll put it back for you.

I hope so.

You shouldn't care about this murder because you haven't cared about most other murders that occur in the United States. So you don't accuse me of singling you out, I also don't care about most other murders that occur in the United States (except for those that occur close to where I live) and Phatscotty shouldn't care. And Night Strike shouldn't care. And the president shouldn't care. And Glenn Beck shouldn't care. Etc.

Again, the only reason that anyone cares about this particular murder is because it was politically beneficial for the president and liberals to comment on it and it was politically beneficial for conservatives to comment on it. If it was not politically beneficial such that politicians and political commentators didn't comment on it, you, Phatscotty, me, Night Strike, etc. would not have heard of this murder and thus would not care.

Which part of "you shouldn't care about this murder because you haven't cared about most other murders in the United States", do you feel I misread?

[thegreekdog]

How did you find out about the Trayvon Martin shooting?

[Iron Butterfly]

And we come full circle yet again. Your opinions can only be formed by the information provided.

I don't think anyone can suggest that someone with half a heart or soul can "not care" care about what has happened. Its like saying do we care about starving children in Africa, human rights abuse in China, the plight of the Lakota Nation on our reservation system, whale being slaughtered? The list could go on and on. My own personal opinion is that unless something directly effects on an emotional and personal level we can only give lip service to caring and understanding.

[Symmetry]

How did you find out about the Trayvon Martin shooting?

Via this website, probably, but I can't say exactly. I read a fair bit, so possibly from the Guardian, Andrew Sullivan's website, the NYTimes, or possibly, but less likely, somewhere else. This is in order of probability, from most to least. Now you can maybe answer my questions concerning your points?

You shouldn't care about this murder because you haven't cared about most other murders that occur in the United States.

Do you still stand by that nonsense?

[thegreekdog]

And we come full circle yet again. Your opinions can only be formed by the information provided.

I don't think anyone can suggest that someone with half a heart or soul can "not care" care about what has happened. Its like saying do we care about starving children in Africa, human rights abuse in China, the plight of the Lakota Nation on our reservation system, whale being slaughtered? The list could go on and on. My own personal opinion is that unless something directly effects on an emotional and personal level we can only give lip service to caring and understanding.

My point is that the only reason Symmetry cares is because he knows about it.

And the only reason Symmetry knows about it is because it's international news.

And the only reason it's international news is because the president, prominent liberals and prominent conservatives have commented on it.

And the only reason those people commented was for political or financial benefit to themselves.

Most murders in the United States are not international news because no prominent people comment on them and, thus, Symmetry does not comment on most murders in the United States.

[BigBallinStalin]

RE: The TGD-Symmetry meh session:


"What is (1) mainstream media" and, "what is (2) political self-interest?"

[eagerly awaits gameshow hosts acknowledgement] GIMME MY PRIZE MONEY!!

[thegreekdog]

Here you go Symm:

My point is that the only reason Symmetry cares is because he knows about it.

And the only reason Symmetry knows about it is because it's international news.

And the only reason it's international news is because the president, prominent liberals and prominent conservatives have commented on it.

And the only reason those people commented was for political or financial benefit to themselves.

Most murders in the United States are not international news because no prominent people comment on them and, thus, Symmetry does not comment on most murders in the United States.

Should you care about murder? Yes. Would you have cared about this murder if none of the above happened? No. I guess I meant "should" in the sense that in most cases you would never have heard about the murder in question and thus should've never commented on it.

[Symmetry]

And we come full circle yet again. Your opinions can only be formed by the information provided.

I don't think anyone can suggest that someone with half a heart or soul can "not care" care about what has happened. Its like saying do we care about starving children in Africa, human rights abuse in China, the plight of the Lakota Nation on our reservation system, whale being slaughtered? The list could go on and on. My own personal opinion is that unless something directly effects on an emotional and personal level we can only give lip service to caring and understanding.

My point is that the only reason Symmetry cares is because he knows about it.

And the only reason Symmetry knows about it is because it's international news.

And the only reason it's international news is because the president, prominent liberals and prominent conservatives have commented on it.

And the only reason those people commented was for political or financial benefit to themselves.

Most murders in the United States are not international news because no prominent people comment on them and, thus, Symmetry does not comment on most murders in the United States.

Utter rubbish. You're saying that I shouldn't comment on this subject because I know about it? Or because someone somewhere profits from reporting the news? And that I'm disqualified from commenting because I haven't commented on most murders in the US?

[thegreekdog]

And we come full circle yet again. Your opinions can only be formed by the information provided.

I don't think anyone can suggest that someone with half a heart or soul can "not care" care about what has happened. Its like saying do we care about starving children in Africa, human rights abuse in China, the plight of the Lakota Nation on our reservation system, whale being slaughtered? The list could go on and on. My own personal opinion is that unless something directly effects on an emotional and personal level we can only give lip service to caring and understanding.

My point is that the only reason Symmetry cares is because he knows about it.

And the only reason Symmetry knows about it is because it's international news.

And the only reason it's international news is because the president, prominent liberals and prominent conservatives have commented on it.

And the only reason those people commented was for political or financial benefit to themselves.

Most murders in the United States are not international news because no prominent people comment on them and, thus, Symmetry does not comment on most murders in the United States.

Utter rubbish. You're saying that I shouldn't comment on this subject because I know about it? Or because someone somewhere profits from reporting the news? And that I'm disqualified from commenting because I haven't commented on most murders in the US?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying; and it's not just you, it's pretty much everyone in this thread, every major media news outlet, every minor media news outlet and conservative schemers, and the president and any other politician.

When the president made his infamous comment, I thought two things. My first thought was "this is going to come back and bite him in the ass" (similar to the Harvard incident early in his presidency). My second thought was "come over to Camden and check out the real tragedy." It might be "utter rubbish" for me to think that way, but that's the way I think. Either help solve the real problems where kids are killing each other in the streets on a daily basis, or shut the f*ck up (not you, all the assholes in the media and the liberal politicians and leaders who are commenting on this).

[Symmetry]

And we come full circle yet again. Your opinions can only be formed by the information provided.

I don't think anyone can suggest that someone with half a heart or soul can "not care" care about what has happened. Its like saying do we care about starving children in Africa, human rights abuse in China, the plight of the Lakota Nation on our reservation system, whale being slaughtered? The list could go on and on. My own personal opinion is that unless something directly effects on an emotional and personal level we can only give lip service to caring and understanding.

My point is that the only reason Symmetry cares is because he knows about it.

And the only reason Symmetry knows about it is because it's international news.

And the only reason it's international news is because the president, prominent liberals and prominent conservatives have commented on it.

And the only reason those people commented was for political or financial benefit to themselves.

Most murders in the United States are not international news because no prominent people comment on them and, thus, Symmetry does not comment on most murders in the United States.

Utter rubbish. You're saying that I shouldn't comment on this subject because I know about it? Or because someone somewhere profits from reporting the news? And that I'm disqualified from commenting because I haven't commented on most murders in the US?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying; and it's not just you, it's pretty much everyone in this thread, every major media news outlet, every minor media news outlet and conservative schemers, and the president and any other politician.

When the president made his infamous comment, I thought two things. My first thought was "this is going to come back and bite him in the ass" (similar to the Harvard incident early in his presidency). My second thought was "come over to Camden and check out the real tragedy." It might be "utter rubbish" for me to think that way, but that's the way I think. Either help solve the real problems where kids are killing each other in the streets on a daily basis, or shut the f*ck up (not you, all the assholes in the media and the liberal politicians and leaders who are commenting on this).

I find it to be a poor argument. You're arguing for ignorance, for not hearing the news, not looking, not thinking critically, and indeed dismissing journalism as a whole. And all this time, you've been levelling this criticism at me, and not any other poster in the other threads that quote newspapers, or in which posters respond to other posters.

[oVo]

I'm not surprised to see this thread run on page after page --considering the ongoing debate nationally on the subject-- even though nothing new relating to the event has been published.

The circumstances surrounding this teenager's death motivates people to speak out and demand a full investigation into the events of that night. Maybe... some truth will be revealed
and justice can be served.

An investigation is going on. Not just state and local authorities either, but also the Justice Department of the Federal government.

If, in the course of the investigation, it is found that there is sufficient evidence of a legal defense of self defense by Zimmerman and these same authorities decline to press charges, would that not be justice served?

If, those authorities decide to proceed with an arrest and trial of the shooter on manslaughter charges, would that not be justice served?

If, in the event of that trial, Zimmerman is found not guilty by reason of self defense by a jury of his peers, would not justice be served?

If, in the event of that trial, Zimmerman is found guilty and receives the maximum sentence of 15 years with the possibility of parole, would not justice be served?

In your opinion, should Zimmerman be let go or charged with 1st degree murder or charged with 2nd degree murder or charged with manslaughter?

In my opinion we can only wait for the results of the investigation and not jump to premature conclusions. The issue is not the president or other politicians, not community activists, not the press, not the knee jerk response from a shocked public and not related to all the bad shit ignorant people have done in the past. I do hope the authorities in Florida manage to uncover the truth of what happened that night and I do believe Zimmerman royally fucked up regardless of the outcome.

A teenager's trip to a convenience store to buy candy and a drink should not result in an altercation with a neighborhood watch member (who's there to look after and protect the community) and end with a fatal gunshot. This tragic event was handled badly by ALL the people involved and hasn't improved much since.

[thegreekdog]

I find it to be a poor argument. You're arguing for ignorance, for not hearing the news, not looking, not thinking critically, and indeed dismissing journalism as a whole. And all this time, you've been levelling this criticism at me, and not any other poster in the other threads that quote newspapers, or in which posters respond to other posters.

Let's get this persecution complex you have out of the way now - I'm not levelling this criticism at you only. I'm levelling this criticism at everyone having this discussion in this thread (other than BBS, Saxitoxin, oVo, and others who have indicated we need to hear more); namely you, Phatscotty, Night Strike, and Natty Dread. And I'm levelling this criticism at people without this thread; namely, the president, nationally prominent speakers and leaders, and news media organizations (mainstream, liberal, conservative), and people who have latched on to this case.

I'm certainly not arguing for ignorance, although I suppose that's one way to put it. I'm arguing for consistency.

If one is going to rabble rouse about this one particular issue, what are one's motivations? Why are the motivations different for this case than any other case where a person is shot with a handgun? The motivations must be different, because we haven't heard a debate like this in a long time, if ever.

If anything, this case exhibits the ignorance with which Americans (and I suppose others, although I've only read two non-American sites on this) view crime in the United States on the whole. Instead of discussing the issues associated with crime in major cities (like Philadelphia or New York or Detroit) or minor cities (like Camden), instead of discussing potential solutions to those problems that occur on a regular basis, we're discussing the non-existent facts of this case. That's why I looked on this with a cynical eye.

[Aradhus]

Here you go Symm:

My point is that the only reason Symmetry cares is because he knows about it.

And the only reason Symmetry knows about it is because it's international news.

And the only reason it's international news is because the president, prominent liberals and prominent conservatives have commented on it.

And the only reason those people commented was for political or financial benefit to themselves.

Say nobody speaks out about it, and a fucking riot breaks out because segments of the black community think they're being mistreated.

People would then complain that Obama or prominent figures didn't speak out, therefore their negligence caused a riot.

Also, I read the news today, oh boy.

[Symmetry]

I find it to be a poor argument. You're arguing for ignorance, for not hearing the news, not looking, not thinking critically, and indeed dismissing journalism as a whole. And all this time, you've been levelling this criticism at me, and not any other poster in the other threads that quote newspapers, or in which posters respond to other posters.

Let's get this persecution complex you have out of the way now - I'm not levelling this criticism at you only. I'm levelling this criticism at everyone having this discussion in this thread (other than BBS, Saxitoxin, oVo, and others who have indicated we need to hear more); namely you, Phatscotty, Night Strike, and Natty Dread. And I'm levelling this criticism at people without this thread; namely, the president, nationally prominent speakers and leaders, and news media organizations (mainstream, liberal, conservative), and people who have latched on to this case.

I'm certainly not arguing for ignorance, although I suppose that's one way to put it. I'm arguing for consistency.

If one is going to rabble rouse about this one particular issue, what are one's motivations? Why are the motivations different for this case than any other case where a person is shot with a handgun? The motivations must be different, because we haven't heard a debate like this in a long time, if ever.

If anything, this case exhibits the ignorance with which Americans (and I suppose others, although I've only read two non-American sites on this) view crime in the United States on the whole. Instead of discussing the issues associated with crime in major cities (like Philadelphia or New York or Detroit) or minor cities (like Camden), instead of discussing potential solutions to those problems that occur on a regular basis, we're discussing the non-existent facts of this case. That's why I looked on this with a cynical eye.

And yet you argue for consistency inconsistently. Nor does your argument stand up to any weight at all. I've been open to hearing more, and have posted more. And yet you criticise me for posting exactly what you asked for- more. All the while, you dodge the simple questions I ask you.

Why are you deleting the parts of my replies to you that might be troubling to reply to?

[thegreekdog]

Here you go Symm:

My point is that the only reason Symmetry cares is because he knows about it.

And the only reason Symmetry knows about it is because it's international news.

And the only reason it's international news is because the president, prominent liberals and prominent conservatives have commented on it.

And the only reason those people commented was for political or financial benefit to themselves.

Say nobody speaks out about it, and a fucking riot breaks out because segments of the black community think they're being mistreated.

People would then complain that Obama or prominent figures didn't speak out, therefore their negligence caused a riot.

Also, I read the news today, oh boy.

Yeah, but riots don't break out about other stuff that happens. Some guys were killed in Philadelphia last week. No riot. No call for the president to speak.

If the president hadn't spoken, at least we wouldn't have the conservatives going apeshit.

[Symmetry]

Here you go Symm:

My point is that the only reason Symmetry cares is because he knows about it.

And the only reason Symmetry knows about it is because it's international news.

And the only reason it's international news is because the president, prominent liberals and prominent conservatives have commented on it.

And the only reason those people commented was for political or financial benefit to themselves.

Say nobody speaks out about it, and a fucking riot breaks out because segments of the black community think they're being mistreated.

People would then complain that Obama or prominent figures didn't speak out, therefore their negligence caused a riot.

Also, I read the news today, oh boy.

Yeah, but riots don't break out about other stuff that happens. Some guys were killed in Philadelphia last week. No riot. No call for the president to speak.

If the president hadn't spoken, at least we wouldn't have the conservatives going apeshit.

So roughly speaking, all of your BS about me can be traced to you don't think Obama should have spoken about it?

[thegreekdog]

Here you go Symm:

My point is that the only reason Symmetry cares is because he knows about it.

And the only reason Symmetry knows about it is because it's international news.

And the only reason it's international news is because the president, prominent liberals and prominent conservatives have commented on it.

And the only reason those people commented was for political or financial benefit to themselves.

Say nobody speaks out about it, and a fucking riot breaks out because segments of the black community think they're being mistreated.

People would then complain that Obama or prominent figures didn't speak out, therefore their negligence caused a riot.

Also, I read the news today, oh boy.

Yeah, but riots don't break out about other stuff that happens. Some guys were killed in Philadelphia last week. No riot. No call for the president to speak.

If the president hadn't spoken, at least we wouldn't have the conservatives going apeshit.

So roughly speaking, all of your BS about me can be traced to you don't think Obama should have spoken about it?

It's not about you.

Well, the president spoke about it because he was repeatedly asked about it. So I would say a combination of the media and the president, yes.

[Symmetry]

So you were being a dick because Obama spoke about a topic I was interested in? I haven't even read Obama's statements on the issue, and have never said that I have. I don't see why it's relevant to my arguments. I have posted sources for everything I have stated.

[thegreekdog]

So you were being a dick because Obama spoke about a topic I was interested in?

How was I being a dick?

[patches70]

[Symmetry]

So you were being a dick because Obama spoke about a topic I was interested in?

How was I being a dick?

You were saying that I should't care about this topic because I didn't care about other murders, a standard you fail to apply anywhere else, or even to yourself. How's that for point 1?