Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[TheL8Elvis]

Except I'm not the one who lauded one straw man argument before deriding another based on my biases about this case.

But your hypocrisy is noted.

Thanks for being honest about it.

Since I only see you responding certain posts or posters, I'll just go ahead and assume I am in good company.

 

[This is The End]

It makes a difference from the perspective of you not understanding the facts.

You claimed a poster was wrong for saying it was 10+ years ago. He was not.

You claimed she was 21, she was not.

You claimed GZ was not a minor, he probably was.

Every single one of those was from a news article. Not my claims. I stood corrected and apologized.

You claimed they were not 2 years apart, they were.

Wait a second. I'm the one that claimed they were 2 years apart.

You pointed out that they aren't. That even though their birth years are 83 and 85, they are really only 19 or 20 months apart.

So, could you clarify that one?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The reason you can't tell why it's worse is that you are thinking that the existance of God or not makes a difference. It doesn't.

The key point is one statement was made by a grieving mother seeking consolation. The other was made by a suspect claiming justification.

Seeking consolation through justification.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Wait a second. I'm the one that claimed they were 2 years apart.

You pointed out that they aren't. That even though their birth years are 83 and 85, they are really only 19 or 20 months apart.

So, could you clarify that one?

Yeah, I'm a dope, I meant the other way around.

 

[sgtbaker]

Wait a second.

I'm not the one that snipped "allegedly" from the quote, NBS is.


Secondly, I didn't have to "make sure the "allegedly" was in there".

Unabogie was recounting the victims claims, which you summarized as "Unabogie speaking as though GZ has already been found guilty of rape".

Even if Unabogie hadn't added the word allegedly, that still would not be true. Summarizing the victims claims does not = Unabogie speaking as though GZ has been found guilty.

Well, I just figured that accuracy was important, in context and all. I don't understand why it wasn't important enough to bring up before. Now that I call that statement out, you are all, "everybody look.." Really? Like I honestly believe

It continued for a decade, until George was all growed up. He was no longer a minor when he committed acts of rape. Sure, he started his career as a rapist early, but he kept at it until he got it right.


...allegedly

is a summarizing of the victims account. Really? That's not the only time he used ...allegedly. Is context really that important to you or only a matter of convenience.

In all of this, though, no matter how many times you lnk the conversation, you still haven't shown me where NBS stated that A) teenage rapists don't exist or B) you may as well rape and terrorize. You can keep dodging and trying to play gotcha or you can just admit that it was an over the top strawman.

 

[This is The End]

And, to top it all off, all we have is her allegations.

Which include claims that both sets of parents were told and that Z was banned from extended-family gatherings and that Z was confronted and he said he was sorry and got up and left.

You would think if those claims were false that the families would say so. Then again if those claims are true they might have reason to not want to discuss it.

Also there is the claim that she knows of another girl who was molested.

So just keep on saying that all we have is her word. Technically it is true. Just like technically saying that the molestation happened when they were 8 is true. Leaving out key details.

I will say though that leaving out those key specifics of her claim isn't nearly as bad as people doing the latter. Not by a long shot.

 

[Noztradamus]

And the whole point of the '2 years' is when she was 16, GZ was likely 17... even though they are '2 years apart'.

No. If they are 19 months apart then most of the time she was 16, George was likely 18. Maths rules!

 

[johnny karate]

Since I only see you responding certain posts or posters, I'll just go ahead and assume I am in good company.

Neutrality or noncomittal is one thing. Openly expressing support is another.

I'm not in the habit of calling anyone out for the former.

And if you can find instances of me deriding behavior that I recently was engaging in or condoning, feel free to quote them and offer criticism.

Until then, I'm afraid you'll be keeping your own company.

And I gather that this lame attempt at a tu quoque means you can neither substantiate or defend the straw man argument with which you earlier agreed.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

No. If they are 19 months apart then most of the time she was 16, George was likely 18. Maths rules!

You are correct. I will limit my 'likely 17' to be only true if the event happened in the summer after high school, as I understand the story. Maybe it was later in the year, and GZ was 18.

 

[This is The End]

Yeah, I'm a dope, I meant the other way around.

Well that's OK, you're still about 3 mistakes behind me on the day.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Neutrality or noncomittal is one thing. Openly expressing support is another.

I'm not in the habit of calling anyone out for the former.

And if you can find instances of me deriding behavior that I recently was engaging in or condoning, feel free to quote them and offer criticism.

Until then, I'm afraid you'll be keeping your own company.

And I gather that this lame attempt at a tu quoque means you can neither substantiate or defend the straw man argument with which you earlier agreed.

Whether I can or not, it's certainly easier for me to say 'no, I can't' and that I probably shouldn't have agreed to it.

*shrugs*

Again, not the first time I will have made a poor argument or agreed to something without thinking it through all the way, won't be the last.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Which include claims that both sets of parents were told and that Z was banned from extended-family gatherings and that Z was confronted and he said he was sorry and got up and left.

You would think if those claims were false that the families would say so. Then again if those claims are true they might have reason to not want to discuss it.

Also there is the claim that she knows of another girl who was molested.

So just keep on saying that all we have is her word. Technically it is true. Just like technically saying that the molestation happened when they were 8 is true. Leaving out key details.

I will say though that leaving out those key specifics of her claim isn't nearly as bad as people doing the latter. Not by a long shot.

All I will say is you should probably read some more sources and listen to the interview.

And until someone corroborates her story, I don't care who she claims to have told.\
ETA:
You would think if those claims were true that the families would say so. Then again if those claims are false they might have reason to not want to discuss it. See what I did there?

 

[This is The End]

In all of this, though, no matter how many times you lnk the conversation, you still haven't shown me where NBS stated that A) teenage rapists don't exist or B) you may as well rape and terrorize. You can keep dodging and trying to play gotcha or you can just admit that it was an over the top strawman.

NBS claimed that these things aren't prosecuted and just happened to leave out the fact that it is because of the Statute of Limitations. I already explained this about 20 posts ago.

NBS specifically responded with "almost unprecedented for prosecutors to prosecute this type of case" making it sound like it had to do with the accusations that Unabogie listed, not with the Statue of Limitations.

"This type of case" is teen rape.

NBS didn't backtrack and try and clarify that NBS was just talking about how it was 10+ years and that Z was 17 not 18 until many posts later. I did not have that explanation (or possible goalpost move) information at the time.

If NBS was talking about the Statue of Limitations then NBS sure did it in a roundabout way.

If I extrapolated it unreasonably then I apologize. I don't know how to explain it further but I will try:

It continued for a decade, until George was all growed up. He was no longer a minor when he committed acts of rape. Sure, he started his career as a rapist early, but he kept at it until he got it right.

Maybe it did. Doesn't change the cold hard facts that it's almost unprecedented for prosecutors to prosecute this type of case. In fact, I'd be curious if there are any precedents for prosecuting someone under similar circumstances. I can't recall reading about anything similar in my lifetime.

Read Unabogies post. A list of the claims of the case, the circumstances of the case. To which NBS responds directly with "this type of case" and "similar circumstances". Both points directed at Unabogies post. Context.

Notice how NBS's post was not only did not contain anything about the Statute of Limitations part of the case, but was specifically responding to the the child molestation part of the case.

Again, even if I made a mistake in reading it, the mistake I made should be quite clear. I hope you don't claim that NBS's post was clearly referring to the Statue of Limitations.

The goalpost moving that it was about the number of years ago and Z's age at the time and not about Unabogies post didn't happen until several posts later.

I'm not sure how you can read it in context and not see what I'm talking about.

 

[This is The End]

You would think if those claims were true that the families would say so. Then again if those claims are false they might have reason to not want to discuss it. See what I did there?

Yeah except that doesn't work the other way around.

Why would Z's parents not say so if she is lying about them banning Z from family events?

Obviously if asked they probably will say she was lying. So both sets of parents would have bias.

What would be interesting to know is if the extended-family can back up the claim that Z didn't show up at any family events after a certain point in time.

 

[sgtbaker]

NBS claimed that these things aren't prosecuted and just happened to leave out the fact that it is because of the Statute of Limitations. I already explained this about 20 posts ago.

NBS specifically responded with "almost unprecedented for prosecutors to prosecute this type of case" making it sound like it had to do with the accusations that Unabogie listed, not with the Statue of Limitations.

"This type of case" is teen rape.

NBS didn't backtrack and try and clarify that NBS was just talking about how it was 10+ years and that Z was 17 not 18 until many posts later. I did not have that explanation (or possible goalpost move) information at the time.

If NBS was talking about the Statue of Limitations then NBS sure did it in a roundabout way.

If I extrapolated it unreasonably then I apologize. I don't know how to explain it further but I will try:



Read Unabogies post. A list of the claims of the case, the circumstances of the case. To which NBS responds directly with "this type of case" and "similar circumstances". Both points directed at Unabogies post. Context.

Notice how NBS's post was not only did not contain anything about the Statute of Limitations part of the case, but was specifically responding to the the child molestation part of the case.

Again, even if I made a mistake in reading it, the mistake I made should be quite clear. I hope you don't claim that NBS's post was clearly referring to the Statue of Limitations.

The goalpost moving that it was about the number of years ago and Z's age at the time and not about Unabogies post didn't happen until several posts later.

I'm not sure how you can read it in context and not see what I'm talking about.

I didnt think he/ she was talking about the statute. Keep in mind that Unabogie's summary was in response to NBS stating that a case like this is not an ideal case for a prosecutor; ten years old, no physical evidence, and no corroboration (as far as we know). Unabogie responded by basically saying that Zimmerman is a tactical rapist ...allegedly. NBS just basically restated his/her position that while the accusations may be true, the case still sucks. That's how that entire conversation read to me.

 

[Dan O.]

But the question of the persons past that GZ claims assaulted him is irrelevant. Got it! And as has been pointed out to you about 1000 times, IF he attacked GZ he most definitely was committing a "crime". You needn't worry yourself with such minor details or any pretense of objectivity though.

No, you haven't got it. Would you accept the statement: IF George shot Trayvon he most definitely was committing a "murder"? Mayby someday you will learn to reflect on what you are saying.

 

[KatieG]

The reason you can't tell why it's worse is that you are thinking that the existance of God or not makes a difference. It doesn't.

The key point is one statement was made by a grieving mother seeking consolation. The other was made by a suspect claiming justification.

Thanks for that. Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Rare Truth]

...
You would think if those claims were true that the families would say so. Then again if those claims are false they might have reason to not want to discuss it. See what I did there?

This may come as a complete surprise to you, but the trial hasn't started yet.

 

[Dancing David]

And until the parents/sister/friend speak up to corroborate the story, it's still no more than her word at this point.

Given that we don't know the state of the investigation at this point, this just seems to be a statement of mindless pedantry.

 

[Dancing David]

OK, thanks, shouldn't be too hard. Here is the claim:



Here is your first strawman:



Please point out where NBS said they don't exist.

Now, onto the second strawman:



I can't see where he says that the reason GZ won't be prosecuted is the age difference. In fact, I don't see that he says GZ won't be prosecuted at all.

I don't know what you think the 'context' of Unabogies statement adds.

Requesting split thread.