Latest GeorgeZimmerman News

[Upchurch]

If I tell you that I am married and have two kids, do you have any reason to doubt it?

I'm not drawing any conclusions based on your claim, so I really have no reason to evaluate it, specifically.

But, if I must, I would say that the most I know is that you would have said that you are married and have two kids. I cannot say that I know you are married and have two kids. Likewise, I cannot say that I know that you aren't married and have two kids.

So, yes, I have reason to doubt in that I lack certainty or faith in your unsupported claim. It isn't that I think you are necessarily lying. It is that I do not know.

eta: As I said before, unlike with the law, there is nothing wrong with the answer being "I don't know". In fact, it is preferable to having the wrong answer.

 

[Jules Galen]

If I tell you that I am married and have two kids, do you have any reason to doubt it?

I depends on the context - as it always does. And you are trying to over simplify the issue to the point of absurdity.

Now, if you tell me on this forum that you have a wife and two kids, then fine. I'll accept that. However, if you were to approach me in person and say, "I got a wife and two kids that need lots of money for food else we will starve to death", then before I hand you anything, I will verify that you indeed have a wife and two kids....and I'll also verify that they are at risk.

Again...it depends on the context and without a consideration of the context, the question, "If I tell you that I am married and have two kids, do you have any reason to doubt it?" - becomes meaningless.

 

[sunmaster14]

I'm not drawing any conclusions based on your claim, so I really have no reason to evaluate it, specifically.

But, if I must, I would say that the most I know is that you would have said that you are married and have two kids. I cannot say that I know you are married and have two kids. Likewise, I cannot say that I know that you aren't married and have two kids.

So, yes, I have reason to doubt in that I lack certainty or faith in your unsupported claim. It isn't that I think you are necessarily lying. It is that I do not know.

eta: As I said before, unlike with the law, there is nothing wrong with the answer being "I don't know". In fact, it is preferable to having the wrong answer.

Well, then I guess we're speaking different languages to some degree, which is fine. I would say that you have no reason to doubt that I am married with two kids. That doesn't mean that you should believe it with 100% certainty, or even greater than 50% certainty. Of course I could be lying, or perhaps even mistaken. But I think that if I am not making an unlikely claim, I have not contradicted any other statements I have made, and my claim is not contradicted by any other evidence you have, then you have no reason to doubt my claim. That there exist plausible scenarios where my claim is incorrect is not the same as a reason to doubt. I think that having a reason to doubt indicates actual evidence to the contrary.

 

[Belz...]

So that meaning is true because you want it to be true, even though it's not actually contained in the words. Got it.

That's not what "context" means.

Why do you constantly try to reword or rephrase what other people write? Don't you have actual arguments to bring forth?

You made this personal between us, not me.

Really? So what prompted this:

I thought my question was rhetorical, but evidently it wasn't. You don't understand the difference.

?

 

[Belz...]

I disagree.

I understand your point but one has to take context into consideration. If I'm on the phone with the 911 dispatcher and they ask me if I'm following the suspect, and I say yes, and they say "I don't need you to do that", it means "stop following him and let us handle this."

 

[Upchurch]

Well, then I guess we're speaking different languages to some degree, which is fine. I would say that you have no reason to doubt that I am married with two kids. That doesn't mean that you should believe it with 100% certainty, or even greater than 50% certainty. Of course I could be lying, or perhaps even mistaken. But I think that if I am not making an unlikely claim, I have not contradicted any other statements I have made, and my claim is not contradicted by any other evidence you have, then you have no reason to doubt my claim. That there exist plausible scenarios where my claim is incorrect is not the same as a reason to doubt. I think that having a reason to doubt indicates actual evidence to the contrary.

"There is a bag of apples on my desk."

True or false?
Do you believe me?

 

[Ziggurat]

Really? So what prompted this:

Seems your memory, and your eyes, aren't that great.

Like I said, you made this personal, not me.

 

[sunmaster14]

I depends on the context - as it always does. And you are trying to over simplify the issue to the point of absurdity.

Now, if you tell me on this forum that you have a wife and two kids, then fine. I'll accept that. However, if you were to approach me in person and say, "I got a wife and two kids that need lots of money for food else we will starve to death", then before I hand you anything, I will verify that you indeed have a wife and two kids....and I'll also verify that they are at risk.

Again...it depends on the context and without a consideration of the context, the question, "If I tell you that I am married and have two kids, do you have any reason to doubt it?" - becomes meaningless.

Sure, but I think the context actually could provide evidence to the contrary. For example, if I approach you dressed in nice clothes and looking like I'm well-fed, there is reason to doubt my claim, since it seems unlikely that I didn't have enough money for food for my kids if I had enough money for clothes and food for myself.

In the Zimmerman case, I'm looking for some tangible evidence that contradicts Zimmerman's claim that Martin attacked him first. That doesn't mean you have to believe with high probability that Martin attacked first, or even greater than 50%. People will believe what they want to believe, and in part it might depend on cognitive biases, or judgments about the character of the individuals involved based on one's personal experiences. I'm just looking for something more than, "well, there are two people involved, and either one could have started the fight, therefore I doubt Zimmerman's claim that Martin started it because the possibility still exists that Zimmerman started it."

Now, post-hoc (and we're now very post-hoc), you could argue that Zimmerman is prone to getting into confrontations with people, and Martin wasn't (although I don't think the latter is true), and therefore there is reason to believe that Zimmerman attacked Martin and therefore reason to doubt that Martin attacked Zimmerman first. If that is your reason (or Upchurch's rather) then that would be acceptable. I don't actually agree with it, however, because I think Zimmerman's path through life has been irredeemably altered by his experience. He now has a combination of paranoia, self-pity, and self-importance that is very damaging. I don't think he necessarily had that before. He struck me as something of a friendly but unambitious sort beforehand who tried hard (too hard maybe) to be a do-gooder.

 

[sunmaster14]

"There is a bag of apples on my desk."

True or false?
Do you believe me?

I have no reason to doubt you, except that the a priori probability was low (because most people don't have a bag of apples on their desk at work). Given that it's apple-picking season, however, I think the probability is probably not that low. I give it a 25% probability.

 

[Upchurch]

I have no reason to doubt you, except that the a priori probability was low (because most people don't have a bag of apples on their desk at work). Given that it's apple-picking season, however, I think the probability is probably not that low. I give it a 25% probability.

That's a specific way of saying "I don't know".

Do you believe me?

 

[sunmaster14]

That's a specific way of saying "I don't know".

Do you believe me?

No, although I really don't have a good reason for doubting you.

 

[Upchurch]

No, although I really don't have a good reason for doubting you.

So, then, why not? I have provided you anecdotal evidence that is perfectly plausible and isn't contracted by any evidence available to you.

And, if you do not believe me, does that mean that there were no apples on my desk when I posted my statement? (They may still be on my desk. They may have been moved to the office food table for all to share. That doesn't change the truth value of the statement when I made it.)

Moreover, there are two plausible possibilities:

1. There were apples on my desk when I made my statement.
2. There were no apples on my desk when I made my statement.

Both are equally plausible, given the information available, and there is now no way to independently test which is true. So, can we or can we not draw any conclusions about the state of apples on my desk when I made that statement?

 

[asydhouse]

This.


What's the standard for warranting a smack in the mouth? How many people have to believe that the victim is a jerk who deserves it to make it open season on jerks? Can I go punch Boris with impunity?

Please do. It's the only way to shut his lying mouth.

As to the poster who took the moral high ground and decried the pleasure expressed over this piece of **** getting a very small part of the stuff he shovelled out coming back to hit him in the face, all I can say is that none of us are perfect, and it's possible to subscribe to nonviolence in general but still find it fitting on occasion to let some thug feel what it's like to be on the receiving end for a change. That's natural justice, or karma, if you will.

A prissy lecture reminding us of our better selves goes no distance to alter that dynamic at all. Tough. Eat it.

 

[Jules Galen]

Sure, but I think the context actually could provide evidence to the contrary. For example, if I approach you dressed in nice clothes and looking like I'm well-fed, there is reason to doubt my claim, since it seems unlikely that I didn't have enough money for food for my kids if I had enough money for clothes and food for myself.

In the Zimmerman case, I'm looking for some tangible evidence that contradicts Zimmerman's claim that Martin attacked him first. That doesn't mean you have to believe with high probability that Martin attacked first, or even greater than 50%. People will believe what they want to believe, and in part it might depend on cognitive biases, or judgments about the character of the individuals involved based on one's personal experiences. I'm just looking for something more than, "well, there are two people involved, and either one could have started the fight, therefore I doubt Zimmerman's claim that Martin started it because the possibility still exists that Zimmerman started it." Now, post-hoc (and we're now very post-hoc), you could argue that Zimmerman is prone to getting into confrontations with people, and Martin wasn't (although I don't think the latter is true), and therefore there is reason to believe that Zimmerman attacked Martin and therefore reason to doubt that Martin attacked Zimmerman first. If that is your reason (or Upchurch's rather) then that would be acceptable. I don't actually agree with it, however, because I think Zimmerman's path through life has been irredeemably altered by his experience. He now has a combination of paranoia, self-pity, and self-importance that is very damaging. I don't think he necessarily had that before. He struck me as something of a friendly but unambitious sort beforehand who tried hard (too hard maybe) to be a do-gooder.

After watching a drive thru of the scene that Zimmerman and the detectives, and after hearing his (Trayvon's) friend's testimony, I have no doubt that Trayvon hit Zimmerman first. I also have no doubt that Zimmerman artfully provoked the incident.

Zimmerman showed us all a nice blueprint for how to get away with murder.

Zimmerman will kill again unless he is put behind bars. Wait for the next time....it's coming.

I once heard the great Mykeru tell a story (which i can only remember well enough to paraphrase) about how he used to have a dog that rolled around in dead-animal carcarsses and dung in order to disguise his smell so that he could better launch an attack on his prey (i.e., Bunny Rabbits). You see, when the dog rolled in carcasses and dung, it disguised his smell and prevented the bunnies from quite realizing via their noses what was lurking behind the bushes awaiting an ambush.

Well, George Zimmerman is just such a predator. In order to disguise himself, George rolls about in Victimhood before and after an attack in order to disguise his real self.

It works for dogs. It works for George. It's a typical Sociopathic ploy.

 

[Belz...]

Like I said, you made this personal, not me.

And that's all that matters to you, apparently, because you sure aren't discussing this topic with anyone.

Also, there's a difference (and that's ironic that I have to tell you this) between saying that your memory isn't very good based on the fact that reality disagrees with you, and you telling me that I don't understand something based on nothing at all. But again, any excuse is good to avoid the topic and get into a pissing contest.

 

[sunmaster14]

So, then, why not? I have provided you anecdotal evidence that is perfectly plausible and isn't contracted by any evidence available to you.

Because the a priori probability of there being a bag of apples on your desk was very low. It is not something people usually have on their desks, particularly at work. In contrast, the a priori probability of there being a computer on your desk, or a phone, or a pen is very high. Once you tell me that there is a bag of apples on your desk, the a posteriori probability changes dramatically. First, because you claimed it, and I don't think of you as the sort to fantasize or make stuff up, and second, the fact that you even thought of a bag of apples indicates that it popped into your mind for a reason. The a posteriori probability is diminished somewhat by the current context which is that you might be making it up solely to make a point. By way of example, if you had mentioned as an aside in Forum Community that you had a bag of apples on your desk and you wanted some advice on making a pie with them, then I would have thought the probability of your claim being true was well in excess of 90%, even though the a priori probability would have been well under 1%.

And, if you do not believe me, does that mean that there were no apples on my desk when I posted my statement? (They may still be on my desk. They may have been moved to the office food table for all to share. That doesn't change the truth value of the statement when I made it.)

No, my current belief has no effect on reality. I do try to let reality have an effect on my current belief, however.

Moreover, there are two plausible possibilities:

1. There were apples on my desk when I made my statement.
2. There were no apples on my desk when I made my statement.

Both are equally plausible, given the information available, and there is now no way to independently test which is true. So, can we or can we not draw any conclusions about the state of apples on my desk when I made that statement?

Those two possibilities are not equally plausible, a priori. I think, however, there is little reason to think that, a priori, Zimmerman attacking Martin first was more likely than Martin attacking Zimmerman first. There are a whole host of reasons I could give for it being less likely, even before we got into the physical evidence of the encounter (i.e. the fact that Zimmerman had the crap beaten out of him).

 

[Upchurch]

No, my current belief has no effect on reality.

Then, why bring belief up at all? It doesn't matter if anyone believes or disbelieves Zimmerman's story about how the encounter began. What matters is the evidence and there is no evidence of how the encounter began. Belief in Zimmerman's story is not evidence any more than disbelief in Zimmerman's story is evidence that he lied.

Those two possibilities are not equally plausible, a priori.

Still just speculation based on incomplete knowledge.

There are a whole host of reasons I could give for it being less likely, even before we got into the physical evidence of the encounter (i.e. the fact that Zimmerman had the crap beaten out of him).

I completely do not understand why anyone thinks that Zimmerman being beaten up indicates that Martin started the encounter. It is a complete non-sequitur.

What are your host of reasons? Are any of them concrete? Because, that "Zimmerman knew the police were coming" thing actually works just as well against him.

 

[Ziggurat]

And that's all that matters to you

It's not all that matters to me, but it matters.

, apparently, because you sure aren't discussing this topic with anyone.

I've made my case. You disagree, because reasons. What more is there to say on that specific sub-topic?

Also, there's a difference (and that's ironic that I have to tell you this) between saying that your memory isn't very good based on the fact that reality disagrees with you

Except of course that it did agree with me. You dispute the significance of the difference that existed between the quote and the transcript, but even you aren't trying to argue now that there's no difference at all.

and you telling me that I don't understand something based on nothing at all.

I base it on the fact that you demonstrated that you didn't understand.

 

[Light23]

Counterpoint: Put yourself in Martin's position: walking home, in the dark, a strange adult following you in a pick-up, who then gets out and begins following you on foot. Would you feel in danger of death or serious bodily harm?

These appeals to emotion are logical fallacies for a reason.

No, not really? If a guy walking the same direction as you in a gated neighbourhood makes you fear for your life, you're crazy.

Zimmerman had no reason to confront Trayvon- he'd had seen what house he went into and would've been able to tell the police.

It's not unthinkable that a guy who got into fights a lot, was annoyed at this guy keeping an eye on him and decided to fight him.

Zimmerman could've done x, y, z, but we don't know. If you're sure he did anything other than leave his car, it's your prejudices coming into play.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[sunmaster14]

Then, why bring belief up at all? It doesn't matter if anyone believes or disbelieves Zimmerman's story about how the encounter began. What matters is the evidence and there is no evidence of how the encounter began. Belief in Zimmerman's story is not evidence any more than disbelief in Zimmerman's story is evidence that he lied.

You're the one that took issue with my claim that I had no reason to doubt Zimmerman's story. I thought that meant that you had a reason - meaning evidence that his story was untrue. I see now that you simply meant that there was a reasonable probability that Zimmerman was lying (or even just remembering incorrectly).

Still just speculation based on incomplete knowledge.



I completely do not understand why anyone thinks that Zimmerman being beaten up indicates that Martin started the encounter. It is a complete non-sequitur.

Because attacking first gives a huge advantage in a fight, provided that the opponent isn't expecting to be attacked. At the very least, the attacker has a decent probability of leaving a mark on his opponent. So the fact that Martin didn't have a scratch, other than the bullet hole in his chest, and that Zimmerman had a broken nose, deep cuts in the back of his head, and wet grass all over his back, shows that he lost the fight big time and therefore lowers the probability that he was able to gain the advantage by attacking first.

On top of that, it also shows that Zimmerman isn't a particularly good fighter, which he undoubtedly knew. People who know they aren't good fighters tend to avoid fights rather than instigate them.

What are your host of reasons? Are any of them concrete? Because, that "Zimmerman knew the police were coming" thing actually works just as well against him.

I gave some of them already. As somebody who was acting as a self-appointed watchman, Zimmerman couldn't really afford to be aggressively confrontational. It is not rational to put oneself in a dangerous confrontation several times a month, because, inevitably, something bad will happen (as, actually, it did in this case). The only tenable protocol for Zimmerman was to call the police and try to keep an eye on the suspect until they arrived. That's why I believe that was how he operated.

As for the imminent arrival of the police, I see that as a reason not to initiate a confrontation. It's a reason to try to maintain sight of the suspect but not to get too close. First, if you get into a physical confrontation, the police might end up viewing you as the aggressor, if, for example, they arrive on scene just as you're pummeling the other guy. Second, the police might end up tasing, or even shooting, the wrong guy if there are two people wrestling on the ground. The fact that Zimmerman had a gun would make it even less likely that he would want to be in the middle of a melee when the police arrived.