Hatrack River
Home   |   About Orson Scott Card   |   News & Reviews   |   OSC Library   |   Forums   |   Contact   |   Links
Research Area   |   Writing Lessons   |   Writers Workshops   |   OSC at SVU   |   Calendar   |   Store
E-mail this page
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » How to kill a child and get away with it (Page 22)

  This topic comprises 25 pages: 1  2  3  ...  19  20  21  22  23  24  25   
Author Topic: How to kill a child and get away with it
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You should get into politics Rakeesh, mudslinging, avoiding the question while blaming the other guy for it and lying at the same time...you have got a future son!
Posts: 5035 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sure. And as we all know, the death toll in countries that have banned these weapons has stayed the sa..... No wait its virtually non-existent.

Your hypothesis is, happily in the case of those countries, proven to be false.

Posts: 9493 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
You should get into politics Rakeesh, mudslinging, avoiding the question while blaming the other guy for it and lying at the same time...you have got a future son!

Nobody here finds your passive-aggression charming. I've told you this already.
Posts: 9493 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We never lived in harmony.

quote:
I'd be happier if guns were treated with such universal respect and with such a thorough culture of education and responsibility that there were no accidental deaths.
We don't need to be convinced this happy outcome is desirable.

quote:
Guns are the reigns of power, and it is important that we do not let them slip into lesser hands, it is important that we keep our independent traditions, but that doesn't mean we can't do it in a responsible and safe way.
Bunk. Guns aren't the reins of power in this country, and haven't been for some time. As for keeping our traditions, it's only important we keep them if they're good ones. Keeping them for their own sake is unwise.

American history, actually, shows that we *can't* do it in a safe and responsible way reliably. If we could, our rates of death wouldn't be so very much higher.

quote:
One accidental death is too many.
A minute ago, several hundred times that was 'not bad'. Which statement do you mean?
Posts: 16180 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ok, that didn't take long, Stone_Wolf. Man, I am some sort of mind-controller, because I'm sure I tricked you into saying that, too. Though of course your own personal attacks are hardly uncommon, and you just recently told a direct lie (I didn't say *you* were a dick, I just called you dickish wouldn't have fooled even you had I said as much to you).

Here, I'll show you how to actually avoid having another amusing temper tantrum when I say something you don't like. It's easy: watch!

Posts: 16180 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Laugh] You guys are funny. The militant compassionate. "WE CARE ABOUT PEOPLE! AGREE OR ELSE!"

[ July 03, 2012, 12:36 AM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]

Posts: 5035 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
[Laugh] You guys are funny. The militant compassionate. "WE CARE ABOUT PEOPLE! AGREE OR ELSE!"

Someone said almost the exact same thing to me when I said he was a dangerous idiot for disciplining his child with a rod. And yes, it's because I care about people, especially children whose parents are dangerous idiots. Regardless, not the best 'comeback.'
Posts: 13337 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
[Laugh] You guys are funny. The militant compassionate. "WE CARE ABOUT PEOPLE! AGREE OR ELSE!"

Someone said almost the exact same thing to me when I said he was a dangerous idiot for disciplining his child with a rod. And yes, it's because I care about people, especially children whose parents are dangerous idiots. Regardless, not the best 'comeback.'
Among the many strange things in this discussion: I'm not even sure which thing either of us said that would suggest that sort of label. Anger, sure, because goodness we all know I can just get into Stone_Wolf's head and force him to feel and say things, but 'militant compassionate' baffles me in this context. Is that just for pointing out the let's just be charitable 'Not bad!' and 'one accidental death is too many' contradiction? Still puzzled.

Anyway, rod. Sheesh. That's taking it old school.

Posts: 16180 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm unsurprised to see how much the thread has improved in my days of absence from it.

--

Another piece of evidence I've seen in the last week or so:
A photo of the back of Zimmerman's head, taken by a neighbour just three minutes after the shooting:
http://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk453/TalkLeft/zimmerman/injuryphoto.jpg

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/26/223357/828
"W-13, the first person to encounter Zimmerman after the shooting, said Zimmerman he had blood all over his face and on back of his head."

But it must be self-inflicted I'm sure: Deceiving the government about your finances is after all *exactly* as likely as breaking your own nose and then bashing the back of your own head with a blunt instrument so much that it bleeds from multiple locations.

That Zimmerman had the intelligence and presence of mind to fake his own injuries in the few seconds he had between shooting a shouting-for-help-Martin and people actually coming out to see what was happening, shows what a criminal mastermind he must be: and therefore it also shows that he could have very easily planned to say that he didn't know an address in *advance*, so that *afterwards* he could claim he kept walking just in order to see a street name.

Also, at the same time he's dumb; dumb enough to speak to the police without a lawyer present, dumb enough to do all this without any visible benefit to himself and to his great detriment. He's such a dumb criminal mastermind. We must keep these two contradictory ideas in our heads at the same time, my doubleplusgood brethren -- he was dumb enough to have been rash and recklessly confrontational, killing an innocent with no good reason and for no actual benefit to himself; at the same time he was clever enough to set up in advance his own later excuses and to fake his own injuries (with blunt injuries on the back of his head) in a timespan of a few seconds.

Posts: 668 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not sure why self inflicted injuries to sustain a claim of self defense are cast as a sign of a criminal mastermind.

That does nothing one way or another to lead to them being self inflicted or not, but I'm just saying: if there's a contradiction here, it's not between him being so dumb and him possibly inflicting injuries on himself.

Anyway, let's be clear, even if as is possible but unlikely a jury finds him not guilty, he *was* dumb, rash, and recklessly confrontational-even if every word he said is true.

Posts: 16180 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Another piece of evidence I've seen in the last week or so:
A photo of the back of Zimmerman's head, taken by a neighbour just three minutes after the shooting:
http://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk453/TalkLeft/zimmerman/injuryphoto.jpg

I'm not really taking a stance on any of this, but if that really is from 3 minutes after the incident and it wasn't cleaned up at all then that looks like an extremely minor head injury. Head wounds bleed a lot. With that little blood, and no visible break in the skin, I'd be inclined to think that it is basically a scratch.
Posts: 10108 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I thought as much myself, but from me it's not much of a guess-I've banged up my head a few times in my life, but always with hair, and I haven't seen them very many times at all in others.
Posts: 16180 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
MrSquicky, I was tempted to offer you 500 dollars if you managed to videotape yourself inflicting such a bloody injury on the back of your own head using a *blunt* instrument (or the ground) -- sharp objects wouldn't count (as the medics list it as a blunt injury).

But frankly, you'd most likely kill yourself or inflict permament brain damage in the attempt. So I am NOT making the offer, let me clear about that.

Posts: 668 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I could use $500...make it a grand and you got a deal.
Posts: 5035 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, and for the record, I'm not serious, that is a horrible idea.
Posts: 5035 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
I thought as much myself, but from me it's not much of a guess-I've banged up my head a few times in my life, but always with hair, and I haven't seen them very many times at all in others.

In my tempestuous youth I gave and received injuries that looked much worse than that that were pretty minor. I could be wrong, but coupled with the really minor broken nose - I've gotten worse than that taking a basketball to the face - it makes me doubt the described life threatening attack. I won't pretend to speak to what actually happened, but those injuries don't seem to me to be consistent with having one's head repeatedly bashed against the curb with deadly force. Were that the case, I'd expect his head to show broken and abraded skin and to be gushing blood. What showed up in the picture (again, assuming that it was taken around 3 minutes after the attack and there wasn't any cleanup) was pretty much a trickle of blood.
Posts: 10108 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:
Another piece of evidence I've seen in the last week or so:
A photo of the back of Zimmerman's head, taken by a neighbour just three minutes after the shooting:
http://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk453/TalkLeft/zimmerman/injuryphoto.jpg

I'm not really taking a stance on any of this, but if that really is from 3 minutes after the incident and it wasn't cleaned up at all then that looks like an extremely minor head injury. Head wounds bleed a lot. With that little blood, and no visible break in the skin, I'd be inclined to think that it is basically a scratch.
I got the same sort of injury when I was pulling on a backloading strap and it got loosed too early, I tripped and bunted my head against an ash tree.

It was such a little tiny scratch, too. Hardly anything, but even teensy little head wounds like that just hate to stop bleeding.

At any rate, yeah, you can show the pictures to people who've worked tours of duty as a paramedic or in forensics and the like and they have generally (well, wait a minute, I should say "so far universally") said that those injuries are not really consistent with Zimmerman's story.

Posts: 13337 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For sure though I could definitely show pictures of what the back of a head looks like when it has actually been violently slammed against concrete multiple times. Just, yanno, pictures of head trauma, family friendly forum, whatever.

hint: it does not look like the back of zimmerman's head did

Posts: 13337 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Let's assume for the sake of argument that TM (after one or the other started it) punched GZ once, broke his nose, climbed onto his chest and shoved his head down on the ground, hard enough to cause the injuries in the picture.

It is arguable that GZ felt fear for his life from that...whether that fear was founded in any sort of reality or not, i.e. was his life in imminent danger? I tell you if someone where to impact my head against the ground repeatedly I would consider that something more then a "punch you on the chin" fight.

I'm not an expert in law, especially not in Florida law, so I couldn't say if that is enough to make him not guilty. If it is, then he should be culpable for criminal stupidity for everything else.

Posts: 5035 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I won't pretend to speak to what actually happened, but those injuries don't seem to me to be consistent with having one's head repeatedly bashed against the curb with deadly force.
Since there was no curb in the location, and Zimmerman never spoke about any curb AFAIK -- yeah.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Let's assume for the sake of argument that TM (after one or the other started it) punched GZ once, broke his nose, climbed onto his chest and shoved his head down on the ground, hard enough to cause the injuries in the picture.

It is arguable that GZ felt fear for his life from that...whether that fear was founded in any sort of reality or not, i.e. was his life in imminent danger? I tell you if someone where to impact my head against the ground repeatedly I would consider that something more then a "punch you on the chin" fight.

I'm not an expert in law, especially not in Florida law, so I couldn't say if that is enough to make him not guilty. If it is, then he should be culpable for criminal stupidity for everything else.

Speaking hypothetically, if I were alone, in the dark and the rain and someone I was suspicious of attacked me without provocation, knocked me down, and aggressively climbed on top of me and I had a gun on me, I'd shoot them and I'm pretty sure I'd feel justified in doing so when thinking about it later.
Posts: 10108 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sure, but the "attacked with provocation" part is pretty much out...we don't know who started the physical altercation, and while I don't think that following someone or even verbally challenging them (assuming for the sake of argument that was all GZ did) warrants a physical attack, one can hardly categorize -if- TM attacked GZ "without provocation".

GZ provoked TM to a certain extent, and how it came to blows is utterly unknown at this point. We have what GZ said, but that currently is "he said" and we haven't heard the what the physical evidence, etc has to offer.

Posts: 5035 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I guess "Witness 9" might be getting back into the trial.

quote:
The witness, identified as "Witness 9" in prosecution documents, has not been publicly identified. One of her two statements has been withheld from the public so far, and O'Mara argues it should stay that way.

In her first statement, Witness 9 says that she knows Zimmerman, as well as his family.

"I know George, and I know that he does not like black people," she said, speaking to a Sanford police investigator. "He would start something. He's a very confrontational person. It's in his blood. Let's just say that."

She went on to describe Zimmerman and his family as "just mean and open about it, and I don't know what he's capable of, but I do know things that he's done to me that I would never, I would never talk to him about ever again."

O'Mara writes in his motion that the not-yet-released second statement "is not relevant" to the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, and "would not be admissible" at trial. O'Mara argues that its release would "serve to reignite and potentially enhance the widespread public hostility toward Mr. Zimmerman."

well, yeah.

Witness 9 is an ex-girlfriend of Zimmerman who filed a domestic violence injunction against Zimmerman in 2005, same year he was arrested and charged with battery against a police officer and had to enter an 'alcohol education class.'

they also want to keep some specific taped conversations private.

Man it is honestly not hard to paint a pretty bad profile of this guy in light of the tapes/shooting/etc. But I am sure plenty will be sure to remind me that trayvon was a criminal too and had thc in his system or whatever!

Posts: 13337 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You think it is unacceptable, so would you remove the rights of others, simply because they disagree with you about how likely they are to be attacked?


There will always be accidents, and errors. But we don't stop driving, or fishing, or hunting, or mountain climbing, or skydiving....

People take risks. It's a fact of life.


But if YOU think that someone saying "that's not bad" is the same thing as saying "who cares about those thousands of deaths" then that says more about YOU than the other person.

You are either honestly unaware of what he was discussing....the actual rate of risk from shooting, which is fairly low....or you just like misrepresenting other people's view to score easy points.

If you are callous, fine, but stop accusing other people of being callous and uncaring just because they disagree with you. It is intellectually dishonest, not to mention ineffective.

Posts: 14956 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
2800 people die each year from choking on chicken bones. Should we outlaw the sale of whole chickens? I know that doesn't have the same rate of risk, but still......

.....THOUSANDS of people die! We should stop it!!! [Big Grin]


(not a real argument, just poking fun [Big Grin] )

Posts: 14956 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That the defense would try to exclude that is hardly surprising. Time will tell if there is any corroboration (besides, well, encounters with police and domestic violence injunctions), but this does fit in with one of the things that makes Zimmerman appear worst, in my opinion-Martin was an a**hole who would get away, as a pedestrian who lived nearby walking along a high traffic walking area in that neighborhood-and Zimmerman would almost certainly know that about that path, if we're to credit his NW diligence.

So the most suspicious thing we're left with is that Martin was walking and sometimes standing in the rain.

Posts: 16180 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You think it is unacceptable, so would you remove the rights of others, simply because they disagree with you about how likely they are to be attacked?
Well, no-that would only-if I had the ability to do so, that is-a far flung late option. Well before that would be a major uptick in safety and regulation authority that people in this thread are saying they want, but that their side of the aisle fanatically inhibits.

In any case, though, again-it's not unreasonable for me or anyone else to take an interest in how much everyone has access to lethal tools, because sometimes they will accidentally kill me. It's very straightforward-like violent crime, accidental gun death or injury happens to people who didn't own the gun in the first place, too.

Bear that in mind, please. Bullets travel farther than the island no man is unto himself in the first place, so to speak.

quote:
There will always be accidents, and errors. But we don't stop driving, or fishing, or hunting, or mountain climbing, or skydiving....
Even including driving, these are a bunch of nonsense examples. It really *won't* involve me, ever, how much fishing or skydiving you do-presumably you won't land on me or accidentally hook me. So we can just throw these right out as bunk, Kwea. As for hunting and driving, the fact that smart hunters wear bright reflective vests shows they are, in fact, concerned with the behavior of other hunters-and driving, I would love to see guns regulated as much as driving.

quote:
But if YOU think that someone saying "that's not bad" is the same thing as saying "who cares about those thousands of deaths" then that says more about YOU than the other person.
I didn't say that, and I actually don't even think it. What I did was point out a straightforward pair of contradictory statements. They were at odds with each other, in letter and spirit. Labeling hundreds of unnecessary, preventable accidental gun deaths as 'not bad!' and then solemnly saying that even one is too many-these things don't fit together, Kwea. It's not about him being so callous, because actually I suspect the second was the more heartfelt statement whereas the first was more casually tossed off.

quote:
If you are callous, fine, but stop accusing other people of being callous and uncaring just because they disagree with you. It is intellectually dishonest, not to mention ineffective.
I'm still mystified at how the people saying 'that is far too many!' are the ones to be called, if anyone is, callous.

quote:
2800 people die each year from choking on chicken bones. Should we outlaw the sale of whole chickens? I know that doesn't have the same rate of risk, but still......

.....THOUSANDS of people die! We should stop it!!!


(not a real argument, just poking fun )

Not for nothing, but this is actually a very similar argument to the one you advanced about skydiving and fishing.
Posts: 16180 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Am I reading this right...that four times more people die of choking on a chicken bone per year then by accidental shooting?

According to MADD, in 2010 10,228 people died from drunk drivers in the US, or 17 times more people then from a shooting accident.

According to the CDC just under 4,000 people die of drowning per year on average in America, or about 6.5 times more people then from a shooting accident.

According to this site there are 146 deaths due to animal attack/riding accidents on average per year in this country, or over 4 times more likely to be killed by a gun accident.

According to this tottaly unreliable source 17,000 people die each year in the US of a slip and fall, or 28 times more likely to die from an untied shoe lace then a firearm accident.

What's my point? Just putting things in perspective is all.

Posts: 5035 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm still not sure why on Earth only accidents count, and not even a proportion of suicides and murders. Yes, the old saw goes, but they'll get a hatchet or something, but with a gun it's easier-that is the original point of guns, after all.

A hell of a lot more people drive or ride in automobiles than own firearms in this country, so that 'perspective' there is a bit lacking. It's not as though we handle DUI appropriately in this country in the first place anyway.

That's basically the problem with all of this 'perspective' being offered-it's a fundamentally flawed comparison. A whole lot of slip and fall deaths are more or less inevitable. An incredibly overwhelming majority of people use their legs to move around the world-and in any event, no amount of your walking conceivably poses any sort of risk to *me*. Likewise with swimming, owning an animal in your home, or eating chicken.

They're bad comparisons for one or both of two reasons: they're unavoidable (slips and falls, choking, automobile death) to some extent, in some cases quite a lot; or they involve activities that point the risk inwards, towards the participant; or both.

-----

Kwea, I am still interested to hear if you would say that hypothetical woman's judgment was sound and reasonable.

Posts: 16180 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, I get it Rakeesh, if I bring up any stat is it irrelevant, but you complain bitterly that I won't answer you about which stat would convince me...even though I did answer that.

The most interesting stat to me was that you are 19 times more likely to die from choking on a chicken bone then by animal attack. Animals: more dangerous to humans dead and being eaten then alive and kicking.

Posts: 5035 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, and suicides? Please! "If only this person had taken pills, jumped off a bridge/cliff, slit their wrists, given themselves an air embolism, breathed in oven/car fumes, suffocated themselves, jumped/drove in front of a train...then they wouldn't be dead. Clearly this gun is to blame and not the person willfully trying to end their lives. Damn these guns!"

I'll give you this, you have been making me laugh lately.

Posts: 5035 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
No, I get it Rakeesh, if I bring up any stat is it irrelevant, but you complain bitterly that I won't answer you about which stat would convince me...even though I did answer that.
First of all, no, you didn't.

Second, I explained in detail why those statistics weren't applicable in the way you claimed. They ARE relevant to the point that we're all very unlikely to die from accidental gunshot, yes. But that wasn't the point you were making, at least not with actual words in a post. It may have been what you intended, I couldn't say.

You're welcome to explain, at any time, which of the responses to your statistics was invalid or wrongly made at your leisure, of course, instead of crying foul and simply hitting the reply button.

Posts: 16180 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Oh, and suicides? Please! "If only this person had taken pills, jumped off a bridge/cliff, slit their wrists, given themselves an air embolism, breathed in oven/car fumes, suffocated themselves, jumped/drove in front of a train...then they wouldn't be dead. Clearly this gun is to blame and not the person willfully trying to end their lives. Damn these guns!"

I'll give you this, you have been making me laugh lately.

Clearly you either missed or ignored the part where I said 'some proportion', and seem to have totally ignored the idea of including murders, as well as conveniently ignoring the problem that a suicide attempt with a firearm is significantly more likely to be successful than, say, pills (hence the idea of including a portion of them). Yes, there's something laughable here, to be sure. But-as usual when you begin to crusade on behavior and tone around Hatrack-it's not what you think it is.

Anyway, look, *whatever* you do, don't address the specific points I made. You don't have to because, I don't know, I' mean or something. Actually your reluctance is understandable-I might exert some of that mind control I've got on you and make you flip out again. I'm trying now, but there must be some storms in the way or something.

Cmon, you know you wanna. It'll be at least the third time in two weeks. It's a good distraction from not actually replying to what I said, perhaps.

Posts: 16180 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:
...what sort of statistics *would* be persuasive?
None that come to mind, as statistics are just numbers, they must be interrupted, and given context. They should be taken into consideration, and I have considered the one you seem to answer all questions with...and it clearly speaks to me that we need to make safety a bigger part of our gun culture.
Owned.
Posts: 5035 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
Nobody here finds your passive-aggression charming.

Just for the record, I am -not- passive aggressive when it comes to Rakeesh. I am aggressive aggressive. I don't like him, with reason, he is dishonest. But he did prove a point. When he said that giving the benefit of the doubt can be detrimental, he was right, because if I gave him the benefit of the doubt, he would abuse it...when I have given him the benefit of the doubt he has abused it.

So, is it hypocritical of me to be less than courteous to Rakeesh after all the speachafying I did about politeness. Yes. But I'd rather be a little bit hypocritical then a victim of his overly aggressive, dishonest and all around dickish behavior. So, he is the exception. And I am a bit of a hypocrite. I can live with that.

Posts: 5035 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's at least the third time you've called me a dishonest dick in perhaps as many days. Of course for some reason, that's only a 'bit hypocritical' coming from you and not a flagrant display of hypocrisy or even dishonesty given your supposed ideals, but whatcha gonna do. You are again, even without using the word, claiming to be a victim.

So, if the request made in the whistle are followed, you won't be posting to me or anything I say indefinitely. To make that more enticing for out illustrious Janitor, I'll start us off. Hopefully you'll be able to restrain yourself better than the last time.

Posts: 16180 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I will, as always, listen to and respect the wishes of our friendly neighborhood Janitor...as for my enmity, you have put a lot of effort into earning it and richly deserve it. There was a time when I asked you to leave me alone, but you refused. Eventually JB -did- ask you to stop talking to me, but forgot to mention his request to me. So it was not restraint which failed, but communication. If indeed he wants us to not communicate I'm game. You are not valued by me. I dislike you rather strongly, and have no plans to stop sharing my distaste until such time as your own poisons are equally quieted.
Posts: 5035 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Or to put it in plainer language, there is no need for intervention of authority on your behalf...Want me to leave you alone? Just ask...only the one condition: You do the same.
Posts: 5035 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If the *only* allegations of racial hostility against Zimmerman come from a person who already has different reasons to be hostile against him and hasn't met him in 7 years, that's actually some evidence AGAINST Zimmerman truly ever showing racial hostility -- because in a world where he actually tended to show racial hostility there'd be more and more objective (and more recent) witnesses to the same.

We also know that just a year ago Zimmerman publicly testified against the Sanford police department in defense of a homeless black man.

We also know that he had tutored black kids, and he had black relatives and friends. If the prosecution brings such a character witness against Zimmerman, the defense will probably bring about a dozen black people who'll defend him against such character assassination.

I wonder if Trayvon Martin had any white or Hispanic friends on the other hand.

As for "charged with battery of police officer", accounts indicate that he just *shoved* a non-uniformed officer in a bar, who he hadn't realized was a police office and who he thought was harassing a friend of his. I leave it up to individual judgment how significant evidence that is.

Also: to find such evidence against Zimmerman you have to go back 7 years, and compare them against just the timespan of Martin *walking* just before the confrontation with Zimmerman -- because if one just decides to look at Martin's character in the last couple weeks or months, you'll find allegations of possible violence, participation in a fight club, possible burglary, drug use, multiple suspensions from school.

So, yeah, if we compare guilts between Trayvon in a selectively few minutes where he was only walking, and go all the way back 7 years for Zimmerman, we'll find Zimmerman having been accused of more things than Trayvon. Big surprise.

Posts: 668 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Also: to find such evidence against Zimmerman you have to go back 7 years, and compare them against just the timespan of Martin *walking* just before the confrontation with Zimmerman -- because if one just decides to look at Martin's character in the last couple weeks or months, you'll find allegations of possible violence, participation in a fight club, possible burglary, drug use, multiple suspensions from school.
Oh, this stuff again. Unsurprising that you rear it up again as though it was compelling-what's particularly interesting is the pointed way you phrase it-or is it sly? Slight traces of THC become 'drug use'-because as everyone knows, pot smokers are violent. A cousin's twitter posting about a rumor becomes 'allegations of possible violence', an interesting phrase. Refereeing in a fight club becomes 'participating'.

I think I understand why you empathize so strongly with Zimmerman: like him, you feel Martin is someone who will 'get away'.

Posts: 16180 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As a sidenote: People can't have it both ways. If Trayvon Martin was the one shouting for help, 20 times for about 30 seconds -- then that would make Zimmerman a cold-blooded murderer. Not just reckless or dumb or hotheaded or with tendencies to violence: but a cold-blooded murderer.

Again I'll have to leave it up to individual judgment whether the background of Zimmerman makes it likely that he wouldn't just be "violent" or "confrontational" but that he would be likely to shoot someone who was shouting 30 seconds for help.

And frankly I don't think that such cold-blooded murder generally fits with committing such in public, while being the one to summon the police, and making no attempts to hide participation in said killing.

But frankly, I think that even the prosecution may be slowly backing away from the pretense that it was Martin who was shouting. They didn't summon either Martin's parents nor any "experts" to testify it was their son's voice in audio during the bail hearing, though the defense summoned Zimmerman's father to testify it was *his* son's voice.

Posts: 668 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Slight traces of THC become 'drug use'-
It is drug use. He did do drugs. He was suspended for a bag with drug traces.

The claim that I implied that such drug use made him violent is a falsehood. I think Trayvon Martin was violent without any need for drugs to make him so.

quote:
like him, you feel Martin is someone who will 'get away'.
No, Martin was someone who did *not* get away with beating the shit out of a man who was crying out for help. He met immediate and lethal consequences for his violence.

The difference is that I'm *glad* he didn't get away with it. I'd have of course strongly preferred if Martin had just gone to jail for the rest of his life, instead of getting killed.

Posts: 668 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JanitorBlade
Moderator
Member # 12343

 - posted      Profile for JanitorBlade   Email JanitorBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Stone Wolf/Rakeesh: I feel like communication between both of you has completely broken down. Failure to communicate would be understating it. I don't think either of you wish to continue doing so, so for now I think you should both stop.

If you want to continue this song and dance somewhere else rather than on these forums, be my guest. But there isn't a thread where it's permissible for posters go on and on about how they don't like each other. If you are both honest in that sentiment, then act on it and leave each other alone.

edit: I haven't decided how long this injunction should persist, for now I'm going to say indefinitely. Or until such a time as both of you feel comfortable politely engaging the other.

Posts: 378 | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If you want to continue this song and dance somewhere else rather than on these forums, be my guest. But there isn't a thread where it's permissible for posters go on and on about how they don't like each other. If you are both honest in that sentiment, then act on it and leave each other alone.
One of us has shown the ability to *actually* stop, and with your injunction I'm happy to do so again. Thank you.
Posts: 16180 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It is drug use. He did do drugs. He was suspended for a bag with drug traces.

The claim that I implied that such drug use made him violent is a falsehood. I think Trayvon Martin was violent without any need for drugs to make him so.

Yeah, you suggested in a straightforward way that signs of marijuana use should be seen as a reason to think it likely that Martin just decided to try and beat a man to death that night.
Posts: 16180 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've not been exactly *shy* in saying exactly what I want to say. As my purpose is communication, I don't do the "suggest" or "imply" things -- I "say" instead.

So, if anyone is ever in doubt about what I mean to "suggest", I suggest that they simply ask me for a clarification.

Posts: 668 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
One of us has shown the ability to *actually* stop...

[Laugh]
Posts: 5035 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Slight traces of THC become 'drug use'-because as everyone knows, pot smokers are violent.

"slight traces" doesn't even do it justice.

1.5 ng/mL of THC. 7.3 ng/mL of THC-COOH

1. It is impossible to have those levels and have smoked anytime recently. Had Martin actually been a drug user anytime in the past few weeks, the active THC number would have been a multiple.

2. I probably (scratch that; sources say definitely) have much higher levels of THC and carboxy in my body right now. I never smoke pot. Ever. Environmental exposure from other smokers is well more than enough. You can get more just from having a pot smoking roomate.

3. This level of THC and caboxy decay proves something, and it's not something beneficial for Zimmerman; that amount of THC isn't even remotely high. There isn't enough there to cause any measurable amount of intoxication or drug influenced behavior. So it's fun to watch Zimmerman defenders having lept to the conclusion that indeed Zimmerman WAS right and Martin was obviously high.

By that standard, I'm just baked. High as a kite. It gives me the munchies. And also makes me aggressively violent, apparently? We all know THC does that.

Posts: 13337 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
By that standard, I'm just baked. High as a kite. It gives me the munchies. And also makes me aggressively violent, apparently? We all know THC does that.
To be fair, Aris didn't say anything that straightforward. What he seems to have said, though, is that Martin was a 'drug user' and that we should therefore consider it more likely he would've been violent.

Which is, to my mind, very very similar without quite being the same thing, since it still links pot smoking to violence, but it remains not *quite* what was said.

-------

quote:
No, Martin was someone who did *not* get away with beating the shit out of a man who was crying out for help. He met immediate and lethal consequences for his violence.

The difference is that I'm *glad* he didn't get away with it. I'd have of course strongly preferred if Martin had just gone to jail for the rest of his life, instead of getting killed.

Assuming your theory is true and Martin abruptly snapped into psychotic, murderous rage, it doesn't change the fact that Zimmerman had decided Martin was an 'asshole who would get away' on the basis of seeing him walk in a highly traveled area at night in the rain. Martin was going to 'get away' before he had, so far as Zimmerman knew, done anything wrong whatsoever, so your wordplay while clever rather misses the point.

quote:
As a sidenote: People can't have it both ways. If Trayvon Martin was the one shouting for help, 20 times for about 30 seconds -- then that would make Zimmerman a cold-blooded murderer. Not just reckless or dumb or hotheaded or with tendencies to violence: but a cold-blooded murderer.
First of all, so far as evidence shows thus far-though the trial will determine it-it wasn't Zimmerman shouting. You disagree, bad mad, phony experts, so on and so forth, yes, I know. Anyway, to shoot someone calling for help if they're still struggling and fighting doesn't necessarily strike me as cold-blooded. It would fit in with Zimmerman's provably awful judgment, not cold blooded murder.

quote:
But frankly, I think that even the prosecution may be slowly backing away from the pretense that it was Martin who was shouting. They didn't summon either Martin's parents nor any "experts" to testify it was their son's voice in audio during the bail hearing, though the defense summoned Zimmerman's father to testify it was *his* son's voice.
I don't know how such hearings operate well enough to speculate whether that amounts to the prosecution backing off it or not. Do you, or is it just what seems sensible? Serious question, not a shot.

I wonder if the prosecution was aware at the hearing that Zimmerman was hiding money. I mean it couldn't have been a difficult thing to sniff out, since it was publicly gathered. I don't say that's what happened, just wondering.

Posts: 16180 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Anyway, to shoot someone calling for help if they're still struggling and fighting doesn't necessarily strike me as cold-blooded. It would fit in with Zimmerman's provably awful judgment, not cold blooded murder.
No, someone shouting for help completely changes the moral equation.

Someone shouting for help isn't trying to prolong the confrontation, they're trying to resolve it as peacefully as possible by bringing more members of the community into it. Unless the whole community is hostile (and neither Martin nor Zimmerman have a reason to believe so), the person shouting for help IS TRYING TO STOP THE VIOLENCE, whether they're struggling or not.

Sure, we can imagine outlandish scenarios where someone is shouting for help as a *pretense*, but that goes back to imagining the participants of this incident to be criminal masterminds.

If Trayvon Martin was the one shouting for help, for 30 whole seconds, Zimmerman killing him would be murder that I can only describe as viciously cold-blooded. The most vicious early presentations effectively trying to depict him as deliberately "hunting down" Martin with the intent to murder him would be so close to the truth as to make no difference.

Posts: 668 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 25 pages: 1  2  3  ...  19  20  21  22  23  24  25   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2