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

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

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

During the 20 seconds or so that he followed Trayvon, he was jogging at a brisk pace in the same direction that Trayvon had gone.

vikorr wrote:

Ie. estimates do not in any way shape or form say where he was.

Yes they do. They show where Mr. Zimmerman would be if he stopped after 20 seconds. And they show where he would be if he had kept going for another four minutes.

vikorr wrote:

See...condemning...Thug, despite:
- the calmness displayed by him
- the videoing
- the not approaching her

The menacing threats and the attempts to lure her pet away from her.

vikorr wrote:

....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 not an aggressor in any way.

vikorr wrote:

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..."

She did not say she would lie. She was telling the truth. That thug did threaten her.

vikorr wrote:

Your criticism is all one sided,

It is proper that I criticize you. What you are doing is horrible. You should be ashamed.

vikorr wrote:

despite the many good qualities shown by the black man

Good qualities like making threats and trying to lure her pet away?

vikorr wrote:

and the many ugly qualities shown by the white woman...

She showed no ugly qualities of any sort.

vikorr wrote:

it is the white woman you fully support,

Rightfully so. People have the right to protect themselves from menacing thugs.

vikorr wrote:

and the black man you fully condem...

I do not condemn him. I just refuse to let you get away with pretending that he did not threaten her and try to lure her pet away from her.

vikorr wrote:

with barely an iota of recognition of the rights & wrongs on both sides.

Wrong. I recognize that she was wrong for not having her dog on it's leash.

However, that does not remove her right to defend herself and her pet from a menacing thug.

vikorr wrote:

Ie. One sided bias / obvious double standards.

You are the one who is displaying bias and double standards.

vikorr wrote:

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.

That is incorrect. My statement was that he tried to lure her pet away from her.

vikorr wrote:

People without underlying biases correct their false assumptions.

Your underlying biases are quite deep.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

As testimony noted, he arrived out of breath at the scene where the confrokntation and murder happened, which was around two corners, away from any street, in the middle of the communal BACKYARD of the block, a place he would only have gotten to if he continued to chase T. Then according to testimony, Z attacked T and shot him and killed him.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

As testimony noted, he arrived out of breath at the scene where the confrontation and murder happened,

The murder was prevented when Mr. Zimmerman defended himself.

Mr. Zimmerman had four minutes to catch his breath after arriving at the scene, because that's how long it was before Trayvon doubled back and tried to kill him.

MontereyJack wrote:

which was around two corners, away from any street, in the middle of the communal BACKYARD of the block,

The communal backyard of the block where Mr. Zimmerman had parked his truck.

This was a couple blocks away from the communal backyard of Trayvon's apartment.

MontereyJack wrote:

a place he would only have gotten to if he continued to chase T.

That is incorrect. It only took him 20 seconds or so to reach that location.

The fact that he was in the same spot four minutes later shows that he was no longer following Trayvon.

MontereyJack wrote:

Then according to testimony, Z attacked T and shot him and killed him.

This testimony is contrary to the physical evidence.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Not sure what dream land you live in, but each of your replies went to display at great length just how much you think your opinions are fact, and just how biased you are towards white people.

My criticism of you that you only ever give credence to the white persons side when there are black & white people in conflict, is on full display.

You can tell yourself you aren't racist. But that is only in your own head. No one else believes it (and again, said only because it is not the rest of the world that is crazy). Show any non-supremicist, they will come to the same conclusion - you are displaying overt racism.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

I live in the real world, which is why you cannot point to an untrue statement in anything that I wrote. You also cannot provide any examples of me presenting my opinions as fact. And you can show no bias on my part of any kind.

Your criticism of me is an outright falsehood. I give credence to no side, but rather look at the hard physical evidence in a case.

Your appeals to the crowd are a logical fallacy. The fact that you need to resort to logical fallacies should tell you something about the strength of your position. In reality you are the only racist here. You refuse to accept when a white person is in the right, even when hard physical evidence proves that they are in the right.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

I point out nonsense arguments by you all the time, and biased arguments too. That you are too blind to your own minds failings to comprehend such isn't my issue.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

I point out nonsense arguments by you all the time, and biased arguments too.

No you don't. You make false accusations, but nothing that you say is backed up by any facts.

vikorr wrote:

That you are too blind to your own minds failings to comprehend such isn't my issue.

There is no blindness on my end. Unlike you I can actually back up what I say with factual citations.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Your response is once again your own minds failings.

You seem to have a filter where anything that hits it becomes warped. Outside of that you are fairly good.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

No failings on my end. I can back up everything that I say.

You cannot back up anything that you say.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

That's the problem with such issues, where your mind warps things when they hit your filters - you wouldn't necessarily / consciously recognise them.

That said, somewhere, I'm pretty sure you know you have these issues. You just choose to do nothing about them.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Nothing is being warped. You are just lying about me because you have no integrity.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

0 Replies

It is not normal for multitudes of people to individually, and different times, each arrive at a conclusion, and tell a specific person that:
- they aren't dealing with reality
- they can't tell the difference between their own opinions and fact

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Appeal to the masses is a logical fallacy. But that isn't what is happening here. What has happened on these forums over a great length of time is that a great many individuals, each in their own space, and each at differing times, have each come to the conclusion that you don't deal with reality well (despite your protestations) and that you think your opinion is fact (despite your protestations).

There is no 'logical' argument that can be made to a person who has a warped reality, that their reality is warped. One can only say that the persons reality is warped.

While I would be concerned if a great many people started saying that about my mind, individually, at different times while I was presenting arguments - No one can control whether or not that concerns you...but as I said, I think you suspect this, but choose not to do anything about it.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Again, nothing is being warped. You are just lying about me because you have no integrity. Repeating your lies doesn't make them any less dishonorable.

And yes, you are committing an appeal to the crowd fallacy. You resort to fallacies because I have logically and factually demolished your position, leaving you with nothing else but fallacies to rely on.

People with integrity will admit that they are wrong at this point. But not you. Instead you just start lying about whoever has proved you wrong.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

As I mentioned - there is no logical argument anyone can make to an individual whose reality is warped, that it is warped.

You will interepret this how you want, as a conspiracy, as lack of ethics, as an attempt to X, Y, Z. No one can stop you from doing this. I think you suspect that this is all your own minds issue though.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Your inability to make logical arguments is your own failing. I am not to blame for your failure.

There is nothing to interpret. You are a dishonorable person, and you are lying about me.

Like I said a few pages back (page 510 I believe): Vikorr can get nasty sometimes if you disagree with him.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Your inability to make logical arguments is your own failing. I am not to blame for your failure.

There is nothing to interpret. You are a dishonorable person, and you are lying about me.

Like I said a few pages back (page 510 I believe): Vikorr can get nasty sometimes if you disagree with him.

Yes. However he is not in my category of "progressives" that should be resisted. He obviously accepts discussion. His perception of facts is different from yours. He focuses on different aspects of the racial situation than you do.
If done with kindness this kind of discussion can be quite healthy.
My objection is to the power hungry progressives who refused to allow people like you and me to speak at all (often making up the term 'hate speech'). These people want to violate our Constitutional Rights. This is horrible.
MontereyJack does not act like that. However, he seems willing to allow those progressives in power to do so. The fact is that he should be opposing the violation of your Constitutional Rights.

1 Reply

@NealNealNeal,

Actually:
- I accept both sides of subjective arguments
- where something cannot be known, I keep an open mind
- I do draw conclucions from what is known, but admit that they are opinion

My 'issue' with oralloy in these type of discussions is:
- he concedes almost absolutely to only one side of subjective arguments
- reworded - he gives virtually no credence to the other side in subjective arguments
- many times, when something cannot be known for certain, he draws a conclusion and calls it certain
- he then calls that 'certainty' he feels fact, rather than his opinion; and
- multiple times this forum, the above behaviour falls only in favour of the white person

There is an obvious bias evidenced in his writings.

Pointing that out requires one to display arguments for the side he fervently ignores.

I don't think he consciously goes about doing this, in that I do think he tells himself that it is just coincidence that his writings have favoured the white people over the black people each and every time. But he also refuses to look at the bias he displays (he can barely bring himself to acknowledge any other aspect of subjective arguments). And it is his responsibility to look after his own mind, so that he can identify when he is engaging in obvious biases.

3 Replies

@vikorr,

The reason for this is that Ollie is always given the short side of the stick.
Let's take a very quick look at black/white history in America:
Pre-20th Century----blacks are considered less than human
1900-1950---blacks considered second class citizens. Jesse Owens and Jackie Robinson are major heros as human beings and in sports
1950-1970----blacks peacefully protest mistreatment of blacks. MLK is especially elegant in his speeches.
1970-2000---Affirmative Action means that a black person gets a job or goes to college over an equally qualified white person. Previous inequality is used as the excuse for this. Blacks who were taught good moral qualities end up prospering. There are still "ceilings" in the business world.
2000-2010----9/11 brings unity to our nation. Dems insist that banks let everyone buy a house whether or not they are qualified. The country goes into a depression
2011-now---Leftists take over the Dem party. Personal morality falls apart. Everyone is now "a victim" of something. The Dem leaders in the FBI, Justice Dept., Congress, etc do everything possible to hinder President Trump from success. Trump does a great job. However, the Virus brings down the economy with the help of Dems. Blacks are especially hurt by the results of the Virus. Constitutional Rights are taken away from conservatives.

2 Replies

@NealNealNeal,

So, how about us saying
"ALL Lives Matter" including the pre-born, autistic, below average intelligent, blind, deaf, etc.

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know