57
   

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

 
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2021 10:40 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
The trial testimony clearly shows zim was trhe aggressor, not trayvon.

Sometimes people lie during trials.

The actual physical evidence shows that Trayvon was 100% the aggressor.


MontereyJack wrote:
Chris Cooper was a Harvard educated nerdy bird watcher, hardly a thug, and all he ever did was try to get the dog leashed as the law said. No threats from him.

Wrong again. He bragged on his Facebook page about how he had threatened her.


MontereyJack wrote:
Amy was the thug.

Wrong again. She merely wanted to prevent the thug from harming her or her pet.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2021 12:09 am
@oralloy,
nonsense, as usual..None of t
s dna on zim's gun, so z lied abouy t trying totake ot away frpm him. none of z'ds dna on t's hoody, inconsistent with z' claim t beat him. z's wounds insignificant, incpnsistent with claim t beat his head multiple times on sidewalk. facts shpw z chased t. accpsted him. t said to z, get off me. z started it all and killed an innokcent kid. chris cooper only tried to get sm's dog on the required lkeash. anything other than that, as oralloy keeps claiming is purely his own fevered imagination. she was the thug in the picture. Again all oralloy's claimsfalsely cast black people as commiting crimes against whites when the wrongdoing went the other way, and that is racist.
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2021 12:16 am
@MontereyJack,
You manufacture imaginary scenarios out of whole cloth to put black people in the wrong.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2021 12:57 am
@MontereyJack,
Wrong again. There is nothing imaginary about the fact that it is wrong for black people to rape and murder white people.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2021 12:58 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
nonsense, as usual..

Progressives really hate facts and reality, but no. Facts and reality are not nonsense.


MontereyJack wrote:
None of ts dna on zim's gun, so z lied abouy t trying totake ot away frpm him. none of z'ds dna on t's hoody, inconsistent with z' claim t beat him. z's wounds insignificant, incpnsistent with claim t beat his head multiple times on sidewalk.

Wrong. Mr. Zimmerman's wounds were consistent with Trayvon trying to beat him to death.


MontereyJack wrote:
facts shpw z chased t. accpsted him. t said to z, get off me. z started it all and killed an innokcent kid.

Wrong again. The facts show that Trayvon was violently assaulting Mr. Zimmerman when he was shot.


MontereyJack wrote:
chris cooper only tried to get sm's dog on the required lkeash. anything other than that, as oralloy keeps claiming is purely his own fevered imagination.

Wrong again. The thug bragged on his Facebook page about threatening her.


MontereyJack wrote:
she was the thug in the picture.

Wrong again. The thug was the black guy who threatened to harm her pet.


MontereyJack wrote:
Again all oralloy's claimsfalsely cast black people as commiting crimes against whites when the wrongdoing went the other way, and that is racist.

Wrong again. When black people rape and murder white people, it's the black people who are in the wrong.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2021 05:12 am
@MontereyJack,
I repeat, you manufacture imaginary scenarios unsupported by the evidence and usually i;;ogica;. I wentr back and read the trayvon-zim testimon y, zim's insignificant wounds do NOT support his picture of head bashing. T's DNA was NOT on the gun he claimed T tried to take from him. You're flat wrong. What threats do you allege chris cooper made against amy. None exist. He was not threatening her or her dog. He wanted the dog leashed, that's all he did.. that's the law she was breaking. Detail what threat you think he made. He didn't. /BLM do not want to kill police. They want ;police to stop; killing them. Basic logical difference. George Floyd is a clear example of that. And your touting of the three s's is purely murderous against innocent black people. Your "facts" and "reality" are really neither. They're ill-thought-out to boot.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2021 10:40 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
I repeat, you manufacture imaginary scenarios unsupported by the evidence and usually illogical.

There is nothing imaginary about it being wrong to rape and murder white people.


MontereyJack wrote:
I went back and read the trayvon-zim testimony, zim's insignificant wounds do NOT support his picture of head bashing. T's DNA was NOT on the gun he claimed T tried to take from him.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/George_Zimmerman_front_of_head.jpghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/George_Zimmerman_back_of_head.jpg


MontereyJack wrote:
You're flat wrong.

The location of the fight shows that Mr. Zimmerman had stopped following Trayvon when he was advised that it was a bad idea. The fight could only have happened because Trayvon came up to Mr. Zimmerman and assaulted him.


MontereyJack wrote:
What threats do you allege chris cooper made against amy.

He told her that she was not going to like what he was about to do, and then he tried to lure her pet away from her.


MontereyJack wrote:
None exist.

He bragged about threatening her on his Facebook page.


MontereyJack wrote:
He was not threatening her or her dog.

He bragged about threatening her on his Facebook page.


MontereyJack wrote:
He wanted the dog leashed, that's all he did.. that's the law she was breaking. Detail what threat you think he made.

He told her that she was not going to like what he was about to do, and then he tried to lure her pet away from her.


MontereyJack wrote:
He didn't.

He bragged about threatening her on his Facebook page.


MontereyJack wrote:
BLM do not want to kill police.

Sure they do. That's why they want police to be prevented from defending themselves.


MontereyJack wrote:
They want police to stop killing them. Basic logical difference.

You are leaving out some very important context.

BLM want police to stop killing them in self defense when they try to kill police officers.


MontereyJack wrote:
George Floyd is a clear example of that.

George Floyd is not what BLM is about. BLM are about helping black people murder police officers.


MontereyJack wrote:
And your touting of the three s's is purely murderous against innocent black people.

Self defense is not murder.


MontereyJack wrote:
Your "facts" and "reality" are really neither.

Yes they are.


MontereyJack wrote:
They're ill-thought-out to boot.

Facts and reality are not something that anyone "thinks out".
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2021 04:02 pm
@oralloy,
the doctokr who examined zim said his wounds were insiignificant. that is clearly the case in tho\se pictures. those are not wounds from the multiple heavy beatings he described. and he did decline hospitalization. And to repeat the encounter took place far from his vehicle, around several corners, well away from the street, in the communal BACKYARD of the block T's dad was staying at. Z had to have been chasing him to have ended up there. T was trying to get away from the creepy man (Z) who was chasing him. Z was the instigator. That's cleaYour claim Chris Cooper threatened Amy on facebook is completely unsuppoerted by what he said. From NY Post:

Quote:
Christian Cooper recounts incident with Amy Cooper before Central Park video
By Kate SheehyMay 26, 2020 | 4:46pm | Updated
Enlarge Image
Christian Cooper, left, and Amy Cooper
Christian Cooper (left) and Amy CooperFacebook
MORE ON:
AMY COOPER
Details of unheard 911 call emerge in Central Park 'Karen' case
Central Park bird watcher getting ‘graphic’ about racist encounter
Michelle Obama says 'white America' acts like black women don't exist
Why New York's new 'anti-Karen' law will backfire
The black man accosted by a white dog-walker in Central Park has posted an online rundown of what happened right before videotaping the now-infamous confrontation.

Christian Cooper — a Harvard University grad, former Marvel Comics editor and a current member of the board of directors for the New York City chapter of the Audubon Society, according to reports and the nature organization — wrote on Facebook on Monday:

“Central Park this morning: This woman’s dog is tearing through the plantings in the Ramble.

“ME: Ma’am, dogs in the Ramble have to be on the leash at all times. The sign is right there.

“HER: The dog runs are closed. He needs his exercise.

“ME: All you have to do is take him to the other side of the drive, outside the Ramble, and you can let him run off leash all you want.

“HER: It’s too dangerous.

“ME: Look, if you’re going to do what you want, I’m going to do what I want, but you’re not going to like it.

“HER: What’s that?

“ME (to the dog): Come here, puppy!
–– ADVERTISEMENT ––


“HER: He won’t come to you.

SEE ALSO

Things just went from bad to worse for Central Park 'Karen'
“ME: We’ll see about that…” before adding, “I pull out the dog treats I carry for just for such intransigence. I didn’t even get a chance to toss any treats to the pooch before Karen scrambled to grab the dog.

“HER: DON’T YOU TOUCH MY DOG!!!!!

“That’s when I started video recording with my iPhone, and when her inner Karen fully emerged and took a dark turn..

-then posted vid”

“Karen” refers to the social-media term for white women who call the cops on black people over harmless incidents.

Christian later explained that he pulls the dog-treat ploy on owner scofflaws hoping they’ll leash their pooches to restrain them from taking the goodies, thus getting them to comply with the rule. The Central Park dog-walker, investment banker Amy Cooper, has said she freaked out partly because she was afraid what was in the treats.

Amy was caught on the footage threatening to call the cops on Christian, to which he replied, “Please call the cops.”

Amy screamed back, “I’m going to tell them there’s an African American man threatening my life!” — a claim that has drawn widespread outrage for what critics, including Mayor Bill de Blasio, call its blatant racist undertone.

Christian responded, “Please tell them anything you like.”

Amy proceeded to call 911 and report that an “African American man” was “threatening me and my dog.”

She has since insisted she’s no racist, although it didn’t stop her employer, Franklin Templeton, from giving the University of Chicago business-school grad the boot Tuesday.

After cops arrived for a report of an “assault” at the park, they ended up leaving without filing any charges against anyone, police said.

Christian said in an interview set to air Tuesday that he had “the choice of either capitulating to this racist spin she was going to try to use to alter my behavior, or I could continue doing what I was doing, which was recording her scofflaw behavior on my iPhone.

SEE ALSO

De Blasio says Central Park 'Karen' showed 'racism, plain and simple'
“So I decided I wasn’t going to be racially intimidated and just keep recording on my iPhone,” he told Newsy app, according to producer Matt Simon on Twitter.

Christian studied government at Harvard between 1980 and 1984, when he received a bachelor’s degree, according to a LinkedIn page attributed to him by such outlets as Heavy.com.

He also worked for nine years as a writer and editor at Marvel Comics, where he developed the first gay character for the “Star Trek” comics, said the LGBT magazine The Advocate.

Christian is currently a biomedical editor, according to LinkedIn.

He also is a board director for the local Audubon Society. The national organization put out a statement Tuesday saying, “We unequivocally condemn racist sentiments, behavior, and systems that undermine the humanity, rights, and freedom of Black people.

RELATED VIDEO
Video length 54 seconds:54Amy Cooper, Central Park dog-walker at center of race storm, is fired
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2021 04:14 pm
@MontereyJack,
That he threatened her is clearly just your ownmalign inference totally unsupported by what chris actually said and posterd. it's purely only in your own mind, not in the facts.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2021 04:28 pm
@oralloy,
You're reall going full on racist hdere, no way to deny it. You've got the context completely wrong. BLM want polisce to stop; killing black peok[le who are innocent or doing something really innocuous and are not in any way threatening police or doing anything that in any way would constitjute a threat to them. Like George Floyd, or the guy killed in his relatives yard holding a cellphone not a gun, or the off-duty cop whgo walked into sokmone else's apartment and thought it was hers and killed the rightful teneant, or Ahmad Arberry simply jogging and threatening no one. You're making murderous inferences here, not justified ones.
vikorr
 
  3  
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2021 04:32 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
The actual physical evidence shows that Trayvon was 100% the aggressor.
Just to be clear - the physical evidence shows only that Zimmerman lost of the fight. It does not show who the instigator / agressor was. Being attacked and being able defend yourself from attack while throwing a better punch, does not make the person throwing a better punch the agressor. Even ending up on top, particularly if you have rolled around a couple of times, does not make you the agressor.

--------------------------------

As for your nonsense claims regarding the Coopers. A vague threat is always subjective, and always requires context to understand. For example, you'll get whats coming to you, can easily mean:
- Karma will get you
- "I'm going to sue you for everything"
- you'll be on social media and condemned by everyone
- I'm going to kill you
- etc
...only context, including the nature of the person saying the thing, can help interpret such a vague 'threat', as to its meaning, and even if it is a 'threat' (ie. not a 'karma will get you', and not a unlawful threat - like I'm going to sue you, or a non violent threat - ie, I'm posting your behaviour on instagram).

The nature of Christian Cooper was:
- lawful (asking her to leash her dog)
- calm
- sounded somewhat bemused
- no moves towards her
- videoing (people with the above behaviour do not do this in order to attack or threaten another)

Your biased interpretation of events...where you admit to ignorning context (including the nature/behaviour of the person) in order to reach your conclusions...of a vague threat...your ignoring of anything that does not support your congemnations of the black guy...coupled with a history of favouring the white persons side....You even said she would have been justified shooting him. ...show just how racist you are in this area.

In these types of situations, you have no interest in justice, which accounts for all contributing circumstances. You have no interest in fairness...which accounts for all contributing circumstances an perceptions. You have no interest in truth, which looks at and acknowledges all angles of an incident. You claims that these are what is important to you are just fables made up by yourself, and largely only for yourself - your own posts show this, and no-one else seems to buy your claims (at least in these types of posts. I've seen others were you are articulate and consistent with the evidence).
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2021 04:54 pm
@vikorr,
So on the multitude of interpretations of vague 'threats (from Karma statements, to lawful ones, to non-viiolent ones like posting on social media)....the only relevant threat we can use in this discussion is a threat of violence:

Person A says to Person B "you won't like what will happen"

= If Person A is at a distance and makes no move towards B - is there any imminent threat from A of violence?

= If Person A's body language and voice is calm - is there any imminent threat of violence?

= If Person A's body language and voice is clam - is there any actual threat of violence?

- If Person B calls police, and Person A remains calm - is there any actual threat of violence by A?

- If Person A still remains at a distance, and starts video'ing....is there any actual threat of violence?

- If Person A remains calm in the fact of Person B's aggression - is there any actual threat from A of violence?

As we all know, actions speak much louder than words. The only person who was any threat of committing violence in that video, was Miss Cooper, who displayed aggression, anger, racism, and unpredictability. Mr Cooper was calom, videoing, and never made any move towards her, and left as soon as she controlled her dog (which was all he asked in the first place)
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2021 06:38 pm
@vikorr,
Wrong. She displayed no racism of any kind. It's not racist of white people to not want to be raped or murdered (or have their pets harmed).

And you conveniently left out the fact that the thug tried to lure her pet away from her.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2021 06:39 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
That he threatened her is clearly just your ownmalign inference totally unsupported by what chris actually said and posterd. it's purely only in your own mind, not in the facts.

That is incorrect. The thug bragged on Facebook about how he threatened her.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2021 06:41 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
You're reall going full on racist here, no way to deny it.

You and Vikorr are the only racists here, with your support for allowing black people to murder police officers and white people.


MontereyJack wrote:
You've got the context completely wrong. BLM want police to stop; killing black peokle who are innocent or doing something really innocuous and are not in any way threatening police or doing anything that in any way would constitute a threat to them. Like George Floyd, or the guy killed in his relatives yard holding a cellphone not a gun, or the off-duty cop who walked into someone else's apartment and thought it was hers and killed the rightful tenant, or Ahmad Arberry simply jogging and threatening no one.

That is incorrect. BLM goons specifically protest cases where police officers and white people justifiably defend themselves.


MontereyJack wrote:
You're making murderous inferences here, not justified ones.

That is incorrect. Police officers and white people have every right to defend themselves when someone tries to murder them.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2021 06:42 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
the doctokr who examined zim said his wounds were insignificant. that is clearly the case in those pictures. those are not wounds from the multiple heavy beatings he described. and he did decline hospitalization.

They are wounds from being punched in the face and having the back of his head banged against the sidewalk.


MontereyJack wrote:
And to repeat the encounter took place far from his vehicle,

That is incorrect. The encounter took place near Mr. Zimmerman's vehicle, a couple blocks away from Trayvon's apartment.


MontereyJack wrote:
around several corners, well away from the street,

Agreed. The encounter was around several corners and well away from the street.

Mr. Zimmerman had followed Trayvon for 20 seconds or so until the dispatcher advised him that it was a very bad idea.


MontereyJack wrote:
in the communal BACKYARD of the block T's dad was staying at.

That is incorrect. The encounter took place near Mr. Zimmerman's vehicle, a couple blocks away from Trayvon's apartment.


MontereyJack wrote:
Z had to have been chasing him to have ended up there.

He did follow him for 20 seconds or so, but then the dispatcher advised him that following him was a bad idea, and Mr. Zimmerman stopped following him.

Trayvon had four minutes to get home after Mr. Zimmerman stopped following him, yet somehow Trayvon ended up back near the truck banging Mr. Zimmerman's head against a sidewalk.


MontereyJack wrote:
T was trying to get away from the creepy man (Z) who was chasing him.

The evidence shows otherwise. Trayvon had four minutes to get away, yet somehow he ended up back near Mr. Zimmerman's truck banging Mr. Zimmerman's head against the sidewalk.


MontereyJack wrote:
Z was the instigator. That's clea

That is incorrect. The location of the encounter proves that Trayvon was the instigator.


MontereyJack wrote:
Your claim Chris Cooper threatened Amy on facebook is completely unsuppoerted by what he said.

I didn't say he threatened her on Facebook. He threatened her verbally in the middle of the park.

Facebook is where he bragged about having threatened her.


MontereyJack wrote:
From NY Post:
Quote:
"ME: Look, if you're going to do what you want, I'm going to do what I want, but you're not going to like it.

"HER: What's that?

"ME (to the dog): Come here, puppy!

"HER: He won't come to you.

"ME: We'll see about that..." before adding, "I pull out the dog treats I carry for just for such intransigence. I didn't even get a chance to toss any treats to the pooch before Karen scrambled to grab the dog.

"HER: DON'T YOU TOUCH MY DOG!!!!!

As I said.

Had she practiced the three S's, her life would not have been destroyed.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2021 06:44 pm
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
Just to be clear - the physical evidence shows only that Zimmerman lost of the fight. It does not show who the instigator / agressor was. Being attacked and being able defend yourself from attack while throwing a better punch, does not make the person throwing a better punch the agressor. Even ending up on top, particularly if you have rolled around a couple of times, does not make you the agressor.

The location of the fight proves that Mr. Zimmerman stopped following Trayvon four minutes earlier, when the dispatcher advised him that it was a bad idea.

That proves that Trayvon was the instigator.


vikorr wrote:
As for your nonsense claims regarding the Coopers.

Facts and reality are not nonsense.


vikorr wrote:
A vague threat is always subjective, and always requires context to understand. For example, you'll get whats coming to you, can easily mean:
- Karma will get you
- "I'm going to sue you for everything"
- you'll be on social media and condemned by everyone
- I'm going to kill you
- etc
...only context, including the nature of the person saying the thing, can help interpret such a vague 'threat', as to its meaning, and even if it is a 'threat' (ie. not a 'karma will get you', and not a unlawful threat - like I'm going to sue you, or a non violent threat - ie, I'm posting your behaviour on instagram).

The nature of Christian Cooper was:
- lawful (asking her to leash her dog)
- calm
- sounded somewhat bemused
- no moves towards her
- videoing (people with the above behaviour do not do this in order to attack or threaten another)

He did make a move towards her. He tried to lure her pet away from her.


vikorr wrote:
Your biased interpretation of events...where you admit to ignorning context (including the nature/behaviour of the person) in order to reach your conclusions...of a vague threat...

No such bias.


vikorr wrote:
your ignoring of anything that does not support your congemnations of the black guy...

Saying that I condemn him is pretty strong language.

I refuse to let anyone pretend that he did not threaten Amy Cooper. That's not exactly condemnation in my book.

Condemnation is what I am directing towards you and MJ for your horrible racism.

Anyway, getting back to the point, I tend to disregard anything that isn't relevant.

All this stuff that you complain that I ignore, is stuff that is not relevant.


vikorr wrote:
coupled with a history of favouring the white persons side....

No such history. I only favor the white person when the white person is in the right.


vikorr wrote:
You even said she would have been justified shooting him.

Yes. She would have been quite justified in shooting him. She genuinely felt threatened by his threats.

White people have every right to not be raped or murdered (or have their pets harmed).


vikorr wrote:
...show just how racist you are in this area.

You and MJ are the only racists here, with your claims that black people should be allowed to rape and murder white people.


vikorr wrote:
In these types of situations, you have no interest in justice, which accounts for all contributing circumstances.

Wrong. I'm the only one here at the moment who does care about justice.


vikorr wrote:
You have no interest in fairness...which accounts for all contributing circumstances an perceptions.

Wrong. I'm the only one here at the moment who does care about fairness.


vikorr wrote:
You have no interest in truth, which looks at and acknowledges all angles of an incident.

Wrong. I'm the only one here at the moment who does care about the truth.


vikorr wrote:
You claims that these are what is important to you are just fables made up by yourself, and largely only for yourself

Wrong again. I am the only person here at the present who cares about such things.


vikorr wrote:
your own posts show this,

No they don't. My posts show a consistent stand against the horrible racism that you and MJ post against white people.


vikorr wrote:
and no-one else seems to buy your claims

Appeals to the crowd are a logical fallacy.
vikorr
 
  3  
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2021 08:23 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
The location of the fight proves that Mr. Zimmerman stopped following Trayvon four minutes earlier, when the dispatcher advised him that it was a bad idea.
Uh no. Only Zimmerman can give the exact location he was when they told him to stop following. And anything he says would of course be self serving. As he was supposed to meet police, he should have been back at his car / on the roadway...but he was holed up in an alley. So you have no facts - just a self serving statement by Zimmerman.

Quote:
He did make a move towards her. He tried to lure her pet away from her.
Rolling Eyes Now you're making things up. He said "Come here puppy". Nothing he said was about moving towards her, and certainly nothing on the video showed him moving towards her or the dog.

Quote:
Saying that I condemn him is pretty strong language.
It's quite obvious you condemn him, when:
- you only argue for her perspective
- you remove his words from context
- you interpret them in the harshest light possible
- you say she would have been justified shooting him

Quote:
No such history. I only favor the white person when the white person is in the right.
And in each of these posts on these forums, you've a history of only supporting the white person, and giving almost no credence to the black person. That is your history on his forum. You've not been able to show anywhere where you do otherwise, despite numerous requests to back up your claims. This is your reality on this forum.

Quote:
Appeals to the crowd are a logical fallacy.
True- but I wasn't appealing to crowd authority, but the opposite. I was pointing out that here on this forum, you are the only one who thinks you deal in facts and reality, rather than your own opinion. And also that, I daresay everywhere else you hold these discussions the result is the same...perhaps excluding supremacists...That is to say, I wouldn't doubt virtually all others also think you deal in your own opinions. Ie. just because you think every other person on earth is crazy, does not make it so.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2021 08:54 pm
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
Uh no. Only Zimmerman can give the exact location he was when they told him to stop following.

That is incorrect. It is possible to estimate how far he would have traveled in the 20 seconds or so that he jogged after Trayvon.

It is also possible to estimate how far he would have traveled had he continued to pursue Trayvon for an additional four minutes.

The location of the confrontation is consistent with Mr. Zimmerman halting his pursuit after 20 seconds, when he was advised that it was a bad idea.


vikorr wrote:
And anything he says would of course be self serving. As he was supposed to meet police, he should have been back at his car / on the roadway...but he was holed up in an alley. So you have no facts - just a self serving statement by Zimmerman.

Wrong. I have the fact of the location of the confrontation.


vikorr wrote:
Rolling Eyes Now you're making things up.

Wrong. The thug admitted on Facebook that he tried to lure her pet away from her.


vikorr wrote:
He said "Come here puppy". Nothing he said was about moving towards her, and certainly nothing on the video showed him moving towards her or the dog.

He also tried to lure her pet away with treats.


vikorr wrote:
It's quite obvious you condemn him,

No. The only people who I am condemning are you and MJ.


vikorr wrote:
when:
- you only argue for her perspective

Her perspective is the only one that is relevant. She felt threatened by him.


vikorr wrote:
- you remove his words from context

The context of his words is not relevant. What is relevant is that she felt threatened by him.


vikorr wrote:
- you interpret them in the harshest light possible

Wrong. I don't interpret his words in any way at all.

The only things that are relevant is that he said those words, and that she felt threatened by what he said.


vikorr wrote:
- you say she would have been justified shooting him

Correct. I do say that.

She felt threatened by him, and people have the right to be secure from deranged thugs who try to harm them or their pets.


vikorr wrote:
And in each of these posts on these forums, you've a history of only supporting the white person,

Wrong again. I only support the white person when the white person is in the right.


vikorr wrote:
and giving almost no credence to the black person.

I give almost no credence to any person of any color, but instead focus on facts and evidence.


vikorr wrote:
That is your history on his forum.

No it isn't.


vikorr wrote:
You've not been able to show anywhere where you do otherwise,

I haven't seen any reason to even try.


vikorr wrote:
despite numerous requests to back up your claims.

Hold on here. Which claim of mine am I being asked to back up? I am unaware of any such request.


vikorr wrote:
This is your reality on this forum.

Not likely. This is the first I've heard of any request to back up a claim. I do not believe that there has been any such request.


vikorr wrote:
True- but I wasn't appealing to crowd authority, but the opposite.

That is incorrect. You are committing an appeal to the crowd fallacy.


vikorr wrote:
I was pointing out that here on this forum, you are the only one who thinks you deal in facts and reality, rather than your own opinion. And also that, I daresay everywhere else you hold these discussions the result is the same...perhaps excluding supremacists...That is to say, I wouldn't doubt virtually all others also think you deal in your own opinions. Ie. just because you think every other person on earth is crazy, does not make it so.

This is yet another appeal to the crowd fallacy.
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2021 09:10 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
That is incorrect. It is possible to estimate how far he would have traveled in the 20 seconds or so that he jogged after Trayvon.
Yes it is possible to estimate...and is completely irrelevant to where Zimmerman was when he was told to stop following, because:
- could could walk slower or faster
- he could have stopped
- he could have been returning to his car and then seen something and gone off again
- etc
Ie. estimates do not in any way shape or form say where he was. Only Zimmerman can say exactly where he was, and he should have been returning to his car / the roadway to meet police. One would expect his statement to be self serving. Ie. no facts, only conjecture.

Quote:
Wrong. The thug admitted on Facebook that he tried to lure her pet away from her.
See...condemning...Thug, despite:
- the calmness displayed by him
- the videoing
- the not approaching her

....and to the contrary for the white woman...full support, with no condemnation of her even thoush she was the only evidenced aggressor, she was the only one evidenced to walk up to him and jab fingers in his face...she was who emphasised his race, telling him she would lie about him to the police "I'm going to tell them there is an African American man threatening my life..."

Your criticism is all one sided, despite the many good qualities shown by the black man and the many ugly qualities shown by the white woman...it is the white woman you fully support, and the black man you fully condem...with barely an iota of recognition of the rights & wrongs on both sides.

Ie. One sided bias / obvious double standards.

But then again, neither was that your statement. Your statement was that he approached her...which when I pointed out there is no evidence of this (but certainly evidence of him not approaching her and asking her multiple times to stay away from him)...you ignored that you were wrong and changed the subject...so again displaying your bias for all to see.

People without underlying biases correct their false assumptions.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 05/08/2024 at 07:09:49