Page 5 of 15 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 147

Thread: Sourcing Trayvon Martin “Photos” From Stormfront

  1. #41
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Sourcing Trayvon Martin “Photos” From Stormfront

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    It sounds more like ****ing pooped or ****ing poofed instead of ****ing coon.
    Yeah, those make sense in the context of a 911 call. I mean, if I could say it sounds more like "Sueprcalafragalistic expialadocious" if I really wanted to, but most peopel would think "Why th e**** would anyone say that?

    At least "****ing goons" (one argument I have heard about what he said) actually makes sense in the context.

    It seems that since you and many others are trying to paint the man as a racist you are trying to claim a practically inaudible word is something racist.
    right. But "****ing poofed" is the height of logical objective analysis.

    It looks more like he was following someone he thought was up to no good , not seeking a confrontation.
    Following a person you think is up to no good is seeking a confrontation.

    Yes he ignored the 911 dispatcher's advice.
    Thus justifying any fears that the boy had about him. Trayvon was being followed by an armed and paranoid individual who was clearly engaging in irrational behaviors despite the fact that he had been advised otherwise.

    Trayvon, sensing that Zimmerman meant to do something to him, attempted to escape form his stalker, but this dangerous person continued to follow him, engaged in a confrontation with him, and ended his life.





    There is no evidence who started the altercation.
    There most certainly is. Zimmerman sought out the confrontation from the start by following him and staring at him.

    Following someone does not justify starting a fight.
    Following and staring at someone is most certainly a threatening behavior. Test it out some time. Stare at and follow a stranger for a while. Make sure they know that you are staring at them and following them.

    See what their reaction is. If they try to run away from you, keep at it. Find them again and continue to stare at them and follow them.

    Or even better, imagine that someone is doing that to you. Or a loved one.

    ****, go out and pay a stranger to do it to one of your loved ones. Just follow and stare. Perhaps even talk on the phone while they are doing it.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  2. #42
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 03:32 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Sourcing Trayvon Martin “Photos” From Stormfront

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    Problem is, it's not against the law to be a racist dickhead. It's also not against the law to follow and even confront someone else by asking questions or even following them unless it can be construed as stalking as per the statute. Nor is it against the law to be a douche either. Tucker is exactly incorrect. Seems impassioned instead of factual and that leads usually, to the wrong conclusions and the wrong answer.
    All of that is correct. It's not against the law to be a racist dickhead douche and no matter what anyone believes of events, it doesn not call within the legal definition of stalking nor may a person violently assault someone who is a stalker.

  3. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The greatest city on Earth
    Last Seen
    08-04-12 @ 04:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    31,089

    Re: Sourcing Trayvon Martin “Photos” From Stormfront

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    All of that is correct. It's not against the law to be a racist dickhead douche and no matter what anyone believes of events, it doesn not call within the legal definition of stalking nor may a person violently assault someone who is a stalker.
    SYG allows you to defend yourself against a stalker, if he gets in your face.

  4. #44
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Sourcing Trayvon Martin “Photos” From Stormfront

    Quote Originally Posted by ric27 View Post
    Lol..."Clear evidence, racist dickhead", etc...and once again you devolve to tool status.
    Once again? Who are you again?

    You paint Zimmerman with a broad brush, regardless, and you look fwd to these situations to enhance your bias.
    Wow. you know a lot about me. Stuff that isn't even real! Where'd you get this information anyway?

    I've...(as well as you) have seen cases publicized as complete miscarriages of justice that weren't, when someone bothered to do the background on the cases.
    I've seen the opposite more often: Where apparent miscarraiges of justice are actually miscarriages of justice. Why do you assume that this case is the exception to the rule?

    Everything published in the paper was slanted, so as not to offend this "respected individual"
    I see, you aren't even reading what I wrote and you are instead arguing against a fantasy of your own creation.

    For example, You think I'm referring to "the paper" rather than the 911 tape. Frankly, I wasn't even aware of the fact that there was only one "paper" in the world but you are clearly what my father used to call "the brains of the operation" so I'll take your word for it that there is only one paper in the world and that all of the other ones that have ever existed magically disappeared overnight before this situation occurred.

    So, when you went by what made the media
    I went by the 911 tape. I clearly indicated that in the first words of my post. They are the ones that say "The 911 call is all one needs to think Zimmerman was a racist dickhead."

    and then compared that to what was actually in the court's records?
    I just heard the 911 call and a description of what happened, actually. As I said, that's enough.

    Looked like two different cases, entirely.
    As I said, the evidence from Zimmerman's own words is pretty clear. No "evil media" conspiracy theory required.



    Anything you hear or see in the news or from second-hand sources needs careful evaluation for bias
    It's a damned good thing I'm not using thing I'm using the 911 tapes and the order of events to develop my opinion, then. Why are you arguing against someone who is not using the media to base their opinions on?

    A tragic incident no doubt, and the facts will come out.
    Plenty of facts are already out. Zimmerman initiated the confrontation, the kid ended up dead because of it. Those are facts.


    So here's my point. Forget the law, forget the facts, forget common sense.
    while you might think it is a god idea to forget teh facts and forget common sense. I don't.

    Unless you know all of the specifics of a particular case, including the venue, the judge, the attorneys and their relationships, etc., you can't make a reasonable determination if it was a good, fair result, or if it stinks to high heaven.
    Why do you think that relates to my post?

    You're dismissed, dude
    in order to dismiss a person, you must be their superior.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  5. #45
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 03:32 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Sourcing Trayvon Martin “Photos” From Stormfront

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
    SYG allows you to defend yourself against a stalker, if he gets in your face.
    Nice shift from "defend" away from felony aggravate assault and murder the stalker.

  6. #46
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Sourcing Trayvon Martin “Photos” From Stormfront

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    Problem is, it's not against the law to be a racist dickhead. It's also not against the law to follow and even confront someone else by asking questions or even following them unless it can be construed as stalking as per the statute. Nor is it against the law to be a douche either.
    And if I had been making a comment about what was or was not against the law instead of about the person who is George Zimmerman, this imaginary problem you have invented would would be relevant to what I said.

    but I didn't say jack **** about the law. That's just some pointless drivel you made up and pretended was a rebuttal to my position. You can look through my posts and at no point do I make any claims about the law. the closest thing is my improper use of the word "murder", which I will agree was incorrect since it is not known if the killing really was unlawful.

    I should have simply stated that he killed the kid in an immoral fashion.


    Tucker is exactly incorrect.
    Before you make claims like this, you really should have a clue what I am actually saying since nothing you wrote as a response actually contradicted anything that I said.

    Seems impassioned instead of factual and that leads usually, to the wrong conclusions and the wrong answer.
    Good advice. Try taking it yourself before you make this same mistake again in the future.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  7. #47
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Sourcing Trayvon Martin “Photos” From Stormfront

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    And if I had been making a comment about what was or was not against the law instead of about the person who is George Zimmerman, this imaginary problem you have invented would would be relevant to what I said.
    What you said is emotionally charged nonsense. Perhaps if you dealt in facts instead of innuendo and emotion, the issues may become more clear.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    but I didn't say jack **** about the law.
    And that's the problem, because this is or could be a legal matter. The question is, why AREN'T you saying jack **** about the law? Or about facts... Only you can answer that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    That's just some pointless drivel you made up and pretended was a rebuttal to my position.
    Actually you're incorrect. I cannot rebut something that has no basis in fact, nor can I rebut an emotional rant. What I'm trying to do is steer you out of the mire of emotional fallacy and rants to something a little more solid. Obviously if you want to stay mired, you will and nothing I can do will change that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    You can look through my posts and at no point do I make any claims about the law. the closest thing is my improper use of the word "murder", which I will agree was incorrect since it is not known if the killing really was unlawful.
    To be honest, you're posts in this thread don't have much worth to review. Granted, this doesn't seem to fit murder to me either and while I'm still stumped as to why the States DA didn't arrest Zimmerman and take their chances with the Grand Jury - given that their foresight on this matter was myopic to say the least...


    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    I should have simply stated that he killed the kid in an immoral fashion.
    Immoral using what moral basis? What would have been a "moral" way to kill the kid?


    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Before you make claims like this, you really should have a clue what I am actually saying since nothing you wrote as a response actually contradicted anything that I said.
    I make claims because your posts were rambling. The purpose and intent of my post was to point that out because you generally are not an emotional ranting person in my experience.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Good advice. Try taking it yourself before you make this same mistake again in the future.
    I'll continue to show you the error of your ways. You already know I already take my own advice, so the hyperbole aside... you're welcome.
    Last edited by Ockham; 03-28-12 at 03:14 PM.
    “I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  8. #48
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Sourcing Trayvon Martin “Photos” From Stormfront

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    What you said is emotionally charged nonsense.
    What I have said was my opinion of what it is that portrays Zimmerman as a racist douchebag (the 911 tapes, not the media).


    Perhaps if you dealt in facts instead of innuendo and emotion, the issues may become more clear.
    What did I say that wasn't a fact? Hint: there's nothing that isn't a fact.

    And that's the problem, because this is or could be a legal matter.
    So what? The issue I'm talking about is what paints Zimmerman in a bad light. Note my first words in this thread. Note the claims about pictures being what paints Zimmerman in a bad light prior to me posting my first post.

    Take all of the facts that are present into account and then make claims about my argument. Not before.

    The question is, why AREN'T you saying jack **** about the law?
    Because, I'm not talking about the law. Why would I say something about something I'm not talking about? I'm not trying to make any claims about the law because that's not what I am discussing.

    Or about facts... Only you can answer that.
    I am talking about facts. It is a fact that the only thing a person needs to determine that Zimmerman is a racist douchebag is to hear the 911 tape. That's my claim, and I have presented myself as evidence that it is a fact. I have also explained exactly why those tapes are all that was necessary for me to form said opinion.

    Actually you're incorrect.
    Frankly, until you prove that you understand what I a saying, you are not capable of making any such assessment.

    I cannot rebut something that has no basis in fact, nor can I rebut an emotional rant.
    Fortunately for you, everything I said is based in fact. Perhaps if you took the time to look back at my pots in light of what I am now telling you my point is, you might see where you went wrong.

    What I'm trying to do is steer you out of the mire of emotional fallacy and rants to something a little more solid.
    Before you attempt to do that, you should really reassess your understanding of my arguments.

    When you attempt to "correct" my behavior without really understanding what it is that I am doing, you only engage in fallacy yourself (specifically, the strawman fallacy).

    Obviously if you want to stay mired, you will and nothing I can do will change that.
    Or perhaps the problem isn't me at all, but your understanding of what I have been doing? Did that possibility ever enter your mind?

    To be honest, you're posts in this thread don't have much worth to review.
    How can you really say that if you haven't bothered to understand what was being done?

    Granted, this doesn't seem to fit murder to me either and while I'm still stumped as to why the States DA didn't arrest Zimmerman and take their chances with the Grand Jury - given that their foresight on this matter was myopic to say the least...
    Frankly, I have absolutely no opinion about whether or not the "powers that be" made the right decision based on the laws as written. I do not have enough knowledge of th esituation and th elaws in place to make a legal assessment.

    Of course, my opinion of Zimmerman himself based on this event is in no way, shape, or form dependent on the laws.


    Immoral using what moral basis?
    My own, of course. What other moral basis can I possibly use?

    In my morality it is morally wrong to initiate threatening behaviors (defined by any behavior that can reasonably be construed by any rational person as threatening. One example of that being staring at and following a person, even after they have attempted to flee your vicinity) towards another person and then, when they react to said threatening behaviors, to shoot and kill them for it. It's even worse when the person in question is unarmed.

    I don't really care what the law says about it.

    What would have been a "moral" way to kill the kid?
    In this case I don't see how there would be a moral way to kill the kid. But that, of course, doesn't mean there are not moral ways to kill a person in my morality.


    I make claims because your posts were rambling.
    Even if my posts are rambling, at no point in those rambling was there anything that would indicate I claimed that Zimmerman violated any laws by being a racist douchebag or following the kid.

    If you were somewhere remotely close to what I was talking about, that'd be one thing, but you jumped down an entirely different rabbit hole and then claimed that I was "exactly incorrect" based solely on the strawman you invented.

    The purpose and intent of my post was to point that out because you generally are not an emotional ranting person in my experience.

    Excellent. That's a fact you should take into account before you claim I am exactly incorrect. The fact that I not usually an emotional ranting person should probably indicate one of the following two things:

    1. I'm just totally overwhelmed by emotion on this issue so I forgot myself.
    2. There's a good logical reason for me to allow my emotional reactions to become a major theme in my post.

    In this instance, it's option 2. This is an instance where my emotional rant actually serves a logical purpose. I did not develop my personal opinion about Zimmerman being a racist douchebag based on media reports or the pictures shown of him in the media (the claim I am specifically arguing against).

    My opinion is based solely on what I heard in the 911 tapes coupled with a very simple description of the event.

    I even stated clearly that my opinion of Zimmerman is not at all dependent on whether or not Trayvon Martin threw the first punch. I have my opinion based entirely on Zimmerman's words and actions.

    Here's a key point: even if he was arrested, tried, and found innocent of any crimes in a court of law, my opinion of him as a racist douchebag who killed this kid immorally would not change.

    My opinion here is based only on the 911 call and a very simple description of the order of events. And my opinion is certainly a strong one. That opinion is, in and of itself, evidence supporting the position that I am arguing.

    My point was, and always has been, "who really gives a **** what pictures are being used? All you need to determine that he is a racist douchebag is the 911 tapes."

    Does that mean everyone will reach that conclusion? Of course not. I assumed that was a given since not everyone has that same opinion despite the fact that they have heard the 911 tapes, but I could see why someone might have taken that way. But I'm saying that the 911 tapes alone are enough to reach that conclusion.

    In fact, if you had said "I listened to the 911 tapes and I certainly didn't come to the conclusion that Zimmerman is a racist douchebag, therefore Tucker is exactly incorrect" I would have apologized for my lack of clarity on that point and corrected myself by noting that I didn't mean that everyone would reach that conclusion. That criticism of my post would have been an appropriate one. AS would criticizing my use of the word "murder". (Ironically enough, I'm the only person who actually presented these criticisms)

    My other posts in this thread (after that first one) are me defending my opinion of him being a racist douchebag by explaining my reasoning for that opinion. My opinion in this matter is not dependent on what the law says. I make no claims about the laws because they are irrelevant to the issue at hand. I would certainly disagree with any law that allows a person to get away with something I consider an immoral killing, but I cannot reasonably expect everyone else in the world to abide by my morality, although, like most people, I would certainly like that to be the case.

    I'll continue to show you the error of your ways.
    After reading the above, do you still believe that there was an error in my ways? I'm not actually trying to convince anyone else of my opinion. I don't expect anyone who disagrees with my opinion to change their opinion, regardless of what I say to support my opinion. I will defend my reasoning, though. For example: staring at and following a person is most certainly a threatening behavior (It definitely causes a person feel threatened), and it becomes even more threatening if it continues after an attempt to flee from the watcher/follower.

    I challenge anyone who disagrees with this to actually experiment with it. Stare at and follow a stranger. If they try to flee from you, seek them out again and resume staring and following. Note their reactions.

    Pay someone to do the same to one of your loved ones. Afterward, ask your loved one what it felt like to be subjected to this. Take note of how happy they are with you after you tell them that you actually paid a stranger to do this to them.

    If a person is unwilling to do these things because it would be "creepy" or even dangerous (you don't know how the victim will react to this, right?) then you have the answer to the question of whether or not it is a threatening behavior. Whether or not it is legal is irrelevant to that.

    If someone is willing to do this (although I find it highly unlikely that anyone will actually do this), let us know what the reactions they dealt with are. Did the target become nervous? Did they even notice you (as we know Trayvon Martin noticed Zimmerman)? Did they calmly walk over and ask you out on a date?

    All I ask is that the person performing said experiment is totally and completely honest about the reactions that they receive.

    But by defending that, I am not really defending my opinion so much as I am defending a fact that my opinion is based on. I'm not expecting anyone to change their opinion on Zimmerman based on those facts since they will interpret their import very differently from the way I have.

    But all of this certainly provides ample evidence that my primary position about the 911 tapes and the pictures in the media is spot on.

    You already know I already take my own advice....
    I have no way of knowing if you actually do or not. All I really do know that you jumped to erroneous conclusions about my use of emotion in my posts as well as what I was arguing. I find it hard to believe that this erroneous conclusion was based on the available facts rather than your emotional reaction to my use of emotion, to be honest, but as I said, I have no way of knowing for sure.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  9. #49
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Sourcing Trayvon Martin “Photos” From Stormfront

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    I have no way of knowing if you actually do or not. All I really do know that you jumped to erroneous conclusions about my use of emotion in my posts as well as what I was arguing. I find it hard to believe that this erroneous conclusion was based on the available facts rather than your emotional reaction to my use of emotion, to be honest, but as I said, I have no way of knowing for sure.
    Not going to address anything else... I'll just be repeating myself. The conclusion I arrived at was the logical one. You were not arguing you were ranting emotionally. There's nothing erroneous about the conclusion. I'm sure it was an honest one - just not a practical one.

    Carry on... you were going to continue about the fat douche bag...
    “I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  10. #50
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Sourcing Trayvon Martin “Photos” From Stormfront

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    Not going to address anything else... I'll just be repeating myself. The conclusion I arrived at was the logical one. You were not arguing you were ranting emotionally. There's nothing erroneous about the conclusion. I'm sure it was an honest one - just not a practical one.

    Carry on... you were going to continue about the fat douche bag...
    I'm sure you conclusion was something you honestly believe to be true, but that doesn't prevent it from being erroneous and it is certainly erroneous because it was founded in ignorance.

    I can't force you to relinquish your ignorance, it appears you truly cherish it in this instance, but I can point it out when you are employing it to make a claim about me.

    Now, carry on, you were wallowing in your own ignorance and then using it to make **** up about people.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

Page 5 of 15 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •