• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Outrage..........really??

Jack Fabulous said:
And you just chose those two particular examples by coincidence, right?

You said you're not putting him in the same class and in the same sentence you put him in the same class. You said that the general perception was that Zimmerman was guilty as charged even though the general perception is just the opposite. You pwned yourself and now you're backpedaling.
Click to expand...

Wrong. I know what I said, I know what I think, despite the fact that you would like to make it something else. Like many things in life, this has layers. The OJ and Casey Anthony verdict are given as examples of people who received not guilty verdicts that many people believe truly were guilty. This is to make the point that it DOES happen. Therefore, the fact that Z received a not guilty verdict does not necessarily mean that he is innocent. Get it?
 
opendebate said:
Wrong. I know what I said, I know what I think, despite the fact that you would like to make it something else. Like many things in life, this has layers. The OJ and Casey Anthony verdict are given as examples of people who received not guilty verdicts that many people believe truly were guilty. This is to make the point that it DOES happen. Therefore, the fact that Z received a not guilty verdict does not necessarily mean that he is innocent. Get it?
Click to expand...
You chose those two cases because you want to put George Zimmerman into the same category. The fact is that very few people, I'm talking a small minority of people ever thought that George Zimmerman did anything that even approached 2nd degree murder. The only people that did were the same people that are now trying desperately to discredit the decision that the jury ultimately came to. You are dead wrong.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
You chose those two cases because you want to put George Zimmerman into the same category. The fact is that very few people, I'm talking a small minority of people ever thought that George Zimmerman did anything that even approached 2nd degree murder. The only people that did were the same people that are now trying desperately to discredit the decision that the jury ultimately came to. You are dead wrong.
Click to expand...

Once again you project. You can not claim to know my intent better than I do. You can not claim to know what I am stating more accurately than I do. It's precisely this kind of thinking that keeps dialogue about sensitive topics like this from progressing. If you refuse to hear me, the conversation is over.
 
opendebate said:
Once again you project. You can not claim to know my intent better than I do. You can not claim to know what I am stating more accurately than I do. It's precisely this kind of thinking that keeps dialogue about sensitive topics like this from progressing. If you refuse to hear me, the conversation is over.
Click to expand...
Let's pick this up where it all started and I'll break it down for you.

This is the post where you stated...

opendebate said:
Read this carefully please. Once again you are making assumptions about WHY the jury reached there verdict. You do not know WHY you only know what the verdict was. There responsibility is to determine, after the presentation of all evidence, if reasonable doubt remains. There was not enough evidence to remove ALL doubt for all 6 jurors so they had to return a not guilty verdict. There are several cases, OJ....Casey Anthony where a not guilty verdict was returned but more people agreed that the accused was probably guilty of the crime for which they had been accused. This is not to put Z in the same league as these two but merely to point out a more clear example for when a not guilty verdict was returned for similar reasons (reasonable doubt remained)
Click to expand...
See that bolded part? This is where you show your true colors. More people DO NOT AGREE that Zimmerman is "probably guilty" of the crime he was charged with. In fact, only a small minority think that he was guilty. This completely nullifies any comparison based on your own parameters. You pwned yourself by basing your example on an obviously false claim.

Show me ONE credible survey that indicates that "the majority" agrees that Zimmerman is guilty as charged. One.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Let's pick this up where it all started and I'll break it down for you.

This is the post where you stated...


See that bolded part? This is where you show your true colors. More people DO NOT AGREE that Zimmerman is "probably guilty" of the crime he was charged with. In fact, only a small minority think that he was guilty. This completely nullifies any comparison based on your own parameters. You pwned yourself by basing your example on an obviously false claim.

Show me ONE credible survey that indicates that "the majority" agrees that Zimmerman is guilty as charged. One.
Click to expand...

Did you read the sentence that follows? I am literally stating that these examples are not intended to imply that Z is in the same league. But to say that in these cases a not guilty verdict was returned because reasonable doubt remained. Zimmerman was also not convicted because reasonable doubt remained. That is the extent of their similarities.
 
opendebate said:
Did you read the sentence that follows? I am literally stating that these examples are not intended to imply that Z is in the same league. But to say that in these cases a not guilty verdict was returned because reasonable doubt remained. Zimmerman was also not convicted because reasonable doubt remained. That is the extent of their similarities.
Click to expand...
The only thing that follows a logical fallacy is more logical fallacy. You said that these cases were similar because they delivered not guilty verdicts that were unexpected. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Own it.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
The only thing that follows a logical fallacy is more logical fallacy. You said that these cases were similar because they delivered not guilty verdicts that were unexpected. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Own it.
Click to expand...

You own your assumptions and please don't burden with your misinterpretations. I own my my own version of what I meant not the inflammatory version you would like to twist it into being. Thanks anyways.
 
opendebate said:
You own your assumptions and please don't burden with your misinterpretations. I own my my own version of what I meant not the inflammatory version you would like to twist it into being. Thanks anyways.
Click to expand...
You jump in with a ridiculous and baseless comparison to two of the most hated people in America and I'm the one fanning the flames?

I'd actually be pissed if it wasn't so laughable!:lol:
 
Jack Fabulous said:
You jump in with a ridiculous and baseless comparison to two of the most hated people in America and I'm the one fanning the flames?

I'd actually be pissed if it wasn't so laughable!:lol:
Click to expand...


You're not getting it.
 
Rasmussen. :doh

We need go no further.
 
opendebate said:
My post was written a little sloppy so let me recount

I am not saying Z lied. I am saying that we do not know exactly what happened. He may be telling the absolute truth or he may not be .... we do not know.

Look up the word conjecture. I am not saying Z's testimony was conjecture. I am saying that if I say something happened in a particular way the only way to verify that it truly happened the way I said is if you were there, it becomes more believable if it is supported by multiple witnesses, but neither of these was provided to support Zs statements.

You might want to look up "truth" while you're at it.
Click to expand...

You just don't stop do you?? LOL, How many times do you have to be told, GZ's version of events were contradicted by NO evidence in the trial. Thus they are much more believable than you saying "we don't know". You don't know The reason you continue this diatribe is you refuse to accept the facts of the case.

You might want to look up denial, it's not a river in Egypt.
 
Oceandan said:
You just don't stop do you?? LOL, How many times do you have to be told, GZ's version of events were contradicted by NO evidence in the trial. Thus they are much more believable than you saying "we don't know". You don't know The reason you continue this diatribe is you refuse to accept the facts of the case.

You might want to look up denial, it's not a river in Egypt.
Click to expand...

No, I don't stop. No evidence to contract is not evidence of its accuracy.
I do not refuse to accept the FACTS but I do debate what does and does not quality as a FACT
 
Oceandan said:
You might want to look up denial, it's not a river in Egypt.
Click to expand...

That would be "da nile"

Ya HEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRDDD MEH?
mMQnIRQ2Sp3ZQuOXXT7miQA.jpg
 
opendebate said:
No, I don't stop. No evidence to contract is not evidence of its accuracy.
I do not refuse to accept the FACTS but I do debate what does and does not quality as a FACT
Click to expand...

:rofl Seriously??? You're now going there?? The FACTS of this case are clear and simple. They have been from day one. The SPD reviewed them the night of the incident. Detective Serino reviewed them deeply in his investigation. The special prosecutor IGNORED them. The state tried to YELL past them! "SKITTLES!!!! <slam on table>......that he didn't even STEAL!!!!"

But you.....yes you!! You're here to tell us those facts are not facts. How did you conduct your investigation again??? I mean maybe you could get work as an "expert" for law enforcement. You're able to see things detectives who actually do it for a living, can't. Impressive or............ narcissistic. I keep getting those two confused, when I looked up "truth".
 
Twenty-One Acts of Post-Zimmerman Verdict Lawlessness, and Counting....

Updated. Is it just me or in light of the Hernandez arrest on murder charges, shouldn't the NFL take a hard look at Roddy White and Victor Cruz? Roddy White tweeted the jurors should all go home and kill themselves. Victor Cruz tweeted something to the effect "the hood will catch Zimmerman soon". I'd think Commish Goodell would be a bit uneasy with more players tweeting death.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom