Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[This is The End]

My reputation for consistently posting factual links is based on the fact that I consistently post factual links.

If you are going to keep calling me a liar, the burden of proof is on you to start proving that assertion, instead of playing the 'memory hole' game.

That's complete nonsense. I posted a quote from the Washington Post with a link. The least you can do is the same.

I don't represent that Washington Post quote. The Washington Post does.

If the articles debunking it are so prevalent I don't see why it would be hard for you to find one.

I've used the search function here at the JREF to re-post links for people countless times, never having complained once.

If you don't feel like searching for links, that's fine. Just say so.

Also, this isn't the first time you've been asked for a link in this thread and you say basically what you said in the first sentence there. That works once, but twice?

If you'd like me to search for a post where you did just that, feel free to ask.

-------

I love everyone's reaction to me asking about Z's prescription pills after dozens of posts about how M talked some guys into buying blunts.... at least that ended it.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I love everyone's reaction to me asking about Z's prescription pills after dozens of posts about how M talked some guys into buying blunts.... at least that ended it.

So you still don't have a thing to add, either speculative or otherwise about GZ having a prescription for sleeping pills? You just wanted to complain that people hadn't given it enough attention even though you have nothing to add about it yourself?

 

[This is The End]

So you still don't have a thing to add, either speculative or otherwise about GZ having a prescription for sleeping pills? You just wanted to complain that people hadn't given it enough attention even though you have nothing to add about it yourself?

Here's the post again just as a refresher:

This is some grand speculation we are taking part in.

There was what, one or two posts in the entire thread about the prescription drugs we have evidence Z was on at the time.

Compared to maybe one or two hundred posts in the thread about the supposed drugs of which we have no evidence M was on at the time. Blunts, weed, codeine, cough medicine, have I missed any?

Tell me where in that post I make any claims as to whether or not we should have been speculating about either situation.

It's a bit telling that several of you read into that the desire for me to join in and start spectating about Z, instead of perhaps read into it that maybe neither is appropriate.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

It's a bit telling that several of you read into that the desire for me to join in and start spectating about Z...

It's a bit telling that you didn't get that was sarcasm, and that everyone already knew you had nothing to add. The last time we went at it you were complaining about whether it was appropriate to make jokes. This time you're complaining about whether it's appropriate to speculate. You are adding nothing to this thread with these types of posts. If you don't want to read people speculating about things you don't think are "appropriate", than don't read the thread.

You can't even keep your argument straight from sentence to sentence:

Here's the post again just as a refresher:

Tell me where in that post I make any claims as to whether or not we should have been speculating about either situation.

Oh cool, so you weren't making any claims about whether or not we should be speculating.

It's a bit telling that several of you read into that the desire for me to join in and start spectating about Z instead of perhaps read into it that maybe neither is appropriate.

Oh shoot, never mind, so you were suggesting it isn't appropriate. That may be on the of most hilarious examples of cognitive dissonance I've ever seen displayed on the Internet. More likely though it's confirmation bias, you wanted to say I was wrong so badly that in an attempt to do so you tried to go at it from two different angles, in the first angle it prevented you from being honest about what the intent of your previous posts was, and than you go at it from a second angle not even realizing you're now admitting to what your original intent was after all, while outright contradicting what you just said a sentence earlier.

 

[This is The End]

The last time we went at it you were complaining about whether it was appropriate to make jokes.

I literally can't believe you are still saying that. You were told, repeatedly, at the time that I was talking about you making fun of users.

It had nothing at all to do with making jokes or having humor.

Absolutely amazing you are still saying that.

It's telling that you remember only what you want to about the situation.

Oh shoot, never mind, so you were suggesting it isn't appropriate.

Just unbelievable that you did the very thing again!

Here's yet another refresher:

It's a bit telling that several of you read into that the desire for me to join in and start spectating about Z, instead of perhaps read into it that maybe neither is appropriate.

Nowhere in that statement do I say either of the two options are what was to be read from it.

In that sentence quoted I had typed, and then purposefully left off "or what it actually is, just a comparison" to see if you would do the exact same thing again. I saw a trend occurring and made a comparison, it's as simple as that.

Just as in the previous example, no claim was made about which was what the correct interpretation was.

"instead of perhaps / that maybe" clearly does not mean I am telling you what it actually meant.... You reading into words what you want them to say, yet again.

Though I do admit it was more of a trick than the original post in discussion, since I somewhat encouraged a fallacy of the excluded middle ground.

Perhaps you were having so much enjoyment typing about "cognitive dissonance" and "confirmation bias" that you failed to read for comprehension.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

In that sentence quoted I had typed, and then purposefully left off "or what it actually is, just a comparison" to see if you would do the exact same thing again.

There's a word for what you are full of here. If you think you are tricking anyone, you aren't. Trying to now pretend you were being really smart and setting a trap for me is pathetic.

"instead of perhaps / that maybe" clearly does not mean I am telling you what it actually meant.... You reading into words what you want them to say, yet again.

These type of word games and attempt to now make yourself look something other than silly are again, pathetic. I get it, when you said "instead of perhaps read into it that maybe neither is appropriate" you technically, didn't actually mean to in any way suggest that it wasn't appropriate, you actually said that perhaps maybe it was inappropriate. Gee, I never caught the words perhaps and maybe, that important distinction really changes everything, you were leaving it up to the readers interpretation, you were just so damn clever there .

You are doing nothing but pure tolling at this point.

Though I do admit it was more of a trick than the original post in discussion

 

[This is The End]

Are you seriously trying to claim that I don't know what I meant words to say, when I am the one that typed them.

Especially when they are quite clear if you actually re-read them?

I should have hit post with that qualifier at the end of the sentence, and then edited it, so that a mod could go back and prove that it was there.

BTW, do you have anything at all to say about your repeated claim that I admonished you for using humor, when it is quite clearly not true?

Let's not forget that you were one of the people who asked me:

Let's put it this way. Do you have ANY evidence or even speculation that GZ was under the influence?

...and then you claimed that not only were you being sarcastic, but everyone else was as well:

It's a bit telling that you didn't get that was sarcasm, and that everyone already knew you had nothing to add.

So, if true, then it's trolling. If not, it was a suggestion based on a biased reading of my comparison.

 

[a_unique_person]

Not that pot could make someone paranoid.

Maybe being followed at night could make someone paranoid.

 

[Dcdrac]

Maybe being followed at night could make someone paranoid.

It would certainly make me paranoid......

 

[Dan O.]

There's a word for what you are full of here.

"Here" on JREF, that is called a personal attack.

 

[kedo1981]

When I'm casing houses for future break-ins and someone notices me, I get paranoid.

 

[Dcdrac]

When I'm casing houses for future break-ins and someone notices me, I get paranoid.

And there is no evidence whatsoever to support the contention that TM was casing houses...

 

[Dan O.]

The best time to case houses is in the middle of the day when nobody thinks you are suspiscious and the lighting is better. Another tactic is to place colorful tags on the doors so when you walk by later you can easily see who has been home. Some people are paranoid and reluctant to leave their home. For those you need a ploy that will draw them out such as organizing a neighborhood watch meeting.

 

[Mumbles]

And there is no evidence whatsoever to support the contention that TM was casing houses...

And there's a far more obvious reason for Martin to run from Zimmerman - namely Zimmerman was obviously staring at Martin, and had pulled over his car to the side of the road in order to do so.

Which gets us back to the central point - when Martin was standing around, he was suspicious. When he was walking around, he was suspicious. When he ran from a guy who was strangely staring at him, he was suspicious. It seems like there was absolutely nothing he could have done, that would not have been seen as "suspicious" by Zimmerman.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Here's the post again just as a refresher:



Tell me where in that post I make any claims as to whether or not we should have been speculating about either situation.

It's a bit telling that several of you read into that the desire for me to join in and start spectating about Z, instead of perhaps read into it that maybe neither is appropriate.

If we shouldn't be 'speculating' about either side, I don't see how it matters that we have not been speculating equally about both sides. You could have just stated you don't believe anyone should be speculating about either side.
Instead, you made an observation about how lopsided the speculation was.

Speculation on both sides is relevant and appropriate, as long as you understand it is speculation and how it's relevant. I explained why I thought it was relevant.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

And there's a far more obvious reason for Martin to run from Zimmerman - namely Zimmerman was obviously staring at Martin, and had pulled over his car to the side of the road in order to do so.

Which gets us back to the central point - when Martin was standing around, he was suspicious. When he was walking around, he was suspicious. When he ran from a guy who was strangely staring at him, he was suspicious. It seems like there was absolutely nothing he could have done, that would not have been seen as "suspicious" by Zimmerman.

Yes, he should have kept running that 70 more yards to home.

We've already gone over the absolutely vague descriptions of what constitutes 'suspicious activity' in neighborhood watch circles. Walking slowly. Looking at cars or house. Walking through the grass instead of the using the sidewalk. Blame the neighborhood watch programs for turning all that into suspicious activity.

 

[GWCarver]

Maybe being followed at night could make someone paranoid.

Here is a picture of the sign at the entrance to the community:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...nity-was-on-edge-before-trayvon-shooting.html

Here is a link to a big map of the entire complex put up by "dontknowme" over at Wagist for download.

http://www.mediafire.com/?pyyt1nb74t1wqk6

 

[GWCarver]

And there's a far more obvious reason for Martin to run from Zimmerman - namely Zimmerman was obviously staring at Martin, and had pulled over his car to the side of the road in order to do so.

Which gets us back to the central point - when Martin was standing around, he was suspicious. When he was walking around, he was suspicious. When he ran from a guy who was strangely staring at him, he was suspicious. It seems like there was absolutely nothing he could have done, that would not have been seen as "suspicious" by Zimmerman.

Oh, come on now. If TM was scared there is no possible way he would have walked up and circled Ziimmerman's truck after "checking him out" and putting his hand in his pants as if he had a weapon. He had a number of alternative directions to go if he was scared, and he could have called 911. I would say the actions described of TM by Zimmerman could easily be considered to be both provocative and possibly those of a thug. And, clearly he took off running while Z was just sitting there, which could be construed as the actions of someone who was guilty of something.

 

[crimresearch]

That's complete nonsense. I posted a quote from the Washington Post with a link. The least you can do is the same.

I don't represent that Washington Post quote. The Washington Post does.

If the articles debunking it are so prevalent I don't see why it would be hard for you to find one.

I've used the search function here at the JREF to re-post links for people countless times, never having complained once.

If you don't feel like searching for links, that's fine. Just say so.

Also, this isn't the first time you've been asked for a link in this thread and you say basically what you said in the first sentence there. That works once, but twice?

If you'd like me to search for a post where you did just that, feel free to ask.

-------

I love everyone's reaction to me asking about Z's prescription pills after dozens of posts about how M talked some guys into buying blunts.... at least that ended it.

I'd like you to back up your assertion that I'm lying about having posted those links the first time... that's the way things are supposed to work around here, instead of your game playing.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Are you seriously trying to claim that I don't know what I meant words to say, when I am the one that typed them.

I didn't claim that, nice try.

BTW, do you have anything at all to say about your repeated claim that I admonished you for using humor, when it is quite clearly not true?

Nope.

Let's not forget that you were one of the people who asked me:

Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic View Post
Let's put it this way. Do you have ANY evidence or even speculation that GZ was under the influence?

...and then you claimed that not only were you being sarcastic...

So you still don't have anything to add about what you complained about? NM, it was all because you thought perhaps maybe people should consider whether it's appropriate for speculation, but weren't actually suggesting one way or the other. Cool story bro!

but everyone else was as well:

Nope, I didn't claim that either but again, cool story bro! What I actually said was below, and was not meaning to suggest that everyone was being sarcastic:

It's a bit telling that you didn't get that was sarcasm, and that everyone already knew you had nothing to add.

However I can see you might interpret it that way, and I should have been clearer that I was not saying that everyone was being sarcastic, so just to be extra fair I'll grant you on this point, even a blind chicken can find a kernel of corn once in a while. I also congratulate you on not arguing against your own point from one sentence to the next in your last post. I was genuinely getting worried about you there for a moment.