quote: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.
Yes. Not via causation, but via correlation. If someone wanted me to explain this in further detail, then they could have asked, and I'd have told them something like the following points:
- First, I remind people that if the "bad judgment" of Zimmerman can be argued about given evidence as flimsy as some unnecessary 911 calls six years ago, then Martin's own terrible judgment can certainly also be discussed using evidence much bigger and much more recent -- such as getting suspended because of marijuana use.
- Second, I remind people that getting *punished* because of a victimless crime such as marijuana use doesn't endear people to authority figures. It might even make them *hostile* towards such.
- Third, I'd guess that people with even trace amounts of drugs in their systems, are loathe to bring police into situations and perhaps have to submit to alcohol/drug tests.
But of course people instead have to pretend I said something I didn't, like "marijuana causes violence".
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
This seems an unwarranted conclusion to me. I can easily imagine someone shouting for help while also not intending to run away or stop the violence. It doesn't seem like an ironclad declaration as you suggest.
In any event, now we're left with Martin as the cold-blooded murderer. Some pot and a cousin's Twitter post and refereeing are such a far cry from selling that notion that it makes clear how biased your perspective is here.
quote:- First, I remind people that if the "bad judgment" of Zimmerman can be argued about given evidence as flimsy as some unnecessary 911 calls six years ago, then Martin's own terrible judgment can certainly also be discussed using evidence much bigger and much more recent -- such as getting suspended because of marijuana use.
Oh, certainly, because after all his 911 calls are the bedrock of claims of his bad judgment, and we saw signs of Martin's bad judgment in the events leading up to his death-bad judgment such as walking on a heavily trafficked place in his own neighborhood, for example, and we see no signs of bad judgment on the part of Zimmerman leading up to things, such as targeting him as a burglar, exiting his car, following on foot, not waiting for police...
Yeah. The evidence that Zimmerman has terrible judgment as to what to do in an emergency isn't flimsy, it's overwhelming, and pointing to past events-even distant ones-that directly corroborate that isn't flimsy.
And it's certainly not the same thing as saying 'we should conclude he was more likely to have been violent because we know he smoked a tiny amount of pot'.
Bad judgment? Well, yes, obviously, no doubt. But it's also a very common kind of bad judgment, and the kind of bad judgment doesnt directly link to events the way Zimmerman's history does.
quote:- Second, I remind people that getting *punished* because of a victimless crime such as marijuana use doesn't endear people to authority figures. It might even make them *hostile* towards such.
Oh, here's another might: having a girlfriend file a domestic violence injunction against you 'might' make one bitter and hostile to the world in general for a long time. If we're talking these sorts of 'mights'.
quote:- Third, I'd guess that people with even trace amounts of drugs in their systems, are loathe to bring police into situations and perhaps have to submit to alcohol/drug tests.
Except Zimmerman wasn't the cops, and if we're positing this brink-of-violence criminal Martin, he would've known that given events. Or I should say as much as Zimmerman wished he were, he wasn't the cops. Martin would be alive if he was, most likely, given that cops actually are trained by more than cop movies and driving around their own neighborhoods in the pursuit of 'suspects'.
quote:But of course people instead have to pretend I said something I didn't, like "marijuana causes violence".
Hop on down off the cross, Aris. You said 'Martin smoked some weed and got in trouble for it, therefore it is more likely he was a near-psychotic would be thug and murderer'. There's not a whole lot of difference there, and it was scorned because it's almost as laughable a notion as 'marijuana causes violence'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:having a girlfriend file a domestic violence injunction against you 'might' make one bitter and hostile to the world in general for a long time.
Yeah, and you didn't see me complain long and bitter about *you* guys keep mentioning said domestic violence injuction, did you? I didn't ever argue it wasn't evidence against Zimmerman, did I?
NOR WILL I EVER. Because it *is* evidence against Zimmerman.
Because unlike you guys, I don't need to claim that evidence isn't evidence. Logical evidence has a very simple mathematical definition: Evidence 'E' for a conclusion 'C' is when P(C|E)>P(C|~E)
quote:You said 'Martin smoked some weed and got in trouble for it, therefore it is more likely he was a near-psychotic would be thug and murderer'.
No, I didn't. When you use quotes, I suggest you actually quote what I actually said. Or else it's just a lie.
quote:Or I should say as much as Zimmerman wished he were, he wasn't the cops. Martin would be alive if he was, most likely, given that cops actually are trained by more than cop movies and driving around their own neighborhoods in the pursuit of 'suspects'.
And now you're just grandstanding. Which I find rather dull -- feel free to support a future law that outlaws neighborhood watch, if you like, or that demands that neighborhood watch member must never be armed, or that demands that neighborhood watch members must never ever leave their vehicles, nor are they allowed to follow people they consider suspects -- or whatever other provision you want to make.
But until such a law is made, there's nothing illegal that you can show Zimmerman to have done.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, I didn't. When you use quotes, I suggest you actually quote what I actually said. Or else it's just a lie.
You've said, more than once, that Martin was a violent thug that night. You've also said, repeatedly, that his pot troubles ought to make us think he was more likely to be such that night.
Yeah, you said it. If it's troubling to hear, perhaps you should choose your words more carefully in the future. It's not a lie to point out in uncomfortable ways that you're saying something silly.
quote:Yeah, and you didn't see me complain long and bitter about *you* guys keep mentioning said domestic violence injuction, did you? I didn't ever argue it wasn't evidence against Zimmerman, did I?
___
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.
Yeah, you kinda did, actually. Long time ago, reason to be hostile, we can dismiss what she says on those and other grounds.
Now, do you want to continue throwing around the word 'lying', or shall I just burn in hell again?
quote:And now you're just grandstanding. Which I find rather dull -- feel free to support a future law that outlaws neighborhood watch, if you like, or that demands that neighborhood watch member must never be armed, or that demands that neighborhood watch members must never ever leave their vehicles, nor are they allowed to follow people they consider suspects -- or whatever other provision you want to make.
It's strange that you accuse me of grandstanding and in so doing put three suggestions I never said or even implied into my mouth. I also didn't say it was illegal, of course-it was a question of his judgment.
But, yknow, grandstanding and the thread hasn't improved in your absence, oh woe woe.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yeah, you said it. If it's troubling to hear, perhaps you should choose your words more carefully in the future.
I never used the words "near-psychotic". I never put those sentences together the way you pretend I did. If you use the 'quote' characters, or the "double-quotes" character be sure to copy-paste my words. It's easy enough to do in modern computers (select, CTRL+C, CTRL+V), therefore if you don't do that, you're going out of your way to lie.
And the fact of your lie is itself logical evidence that you know how weak your position is, or you wouldn't feel the need to go out of your way to quote me *wrongly*.
quote:Yeah, you kinda did, actually
No, I kinda didn't, actually. I didn't complain about people mentioning the domestic violence injuction (like you complained about my mention of Martin's drug use), I never said it wasn't evidence against Zimmerman.
You are now just trying to find something else I did, and pretend it's the same thing 'kinda'. FAIL.
quote:s strange that you accuse me of grandstanding and in so doing put three suggestions I never said or even implied into my mouth.
Those were suggestions I am making to *you*, not suggestions I claimed *you* made. If you were to make those suggestion, you'd be more consistent. Unfortunately you're not making them.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And btw, *yes*, I believe that people that do drugs are statistically more likely to be violent thugs than people who don't do drugs, all other things being equal.
Are you prepared to claim that they're statistically *equally* likely? Statistically *less* likely?
If they're statistically less likely, I'll reverse my position regarding this piece of evidence, and henceforth claim his drug use as evidence in favour of Martin and against Zimmerman.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I never used the words "near-psychotic". I never put those sentences together the way you pretend I did. If you use the 'quote' characters, or the "double-quotes" character be sure to copy-paste my words. It's easy enough to do in modern computers (select, CTRL+C, CTRL+V), therefore if you don't do that, you're going out of your way to lie.
The behavior you attribute to Martin fits such a definition. Are you seriously going to claim that the *only* way someone can reply to what you said is to use only the verbatim text? Because that's nonsense. According to you, Martin just decided to brutally and visciously, even lethally, attack someone who had done nothing to him.
I'm sure you're proud of your message board technique sarcasm, though.
quote:No, I kinda didn't, actually. I didn't complain about people mentioning the domestic violence injuction (like you complained about my mention of Martin's drug use), I never said it wasn't evidence against Zimmerman.
You are now just trying to find something else I did, and pretend it's the same thing 'kinda'. FAIL.
What, is this a thing now? CAPS MAKES IT TRUE? Who knew? Anyway, if what you did wasn't complaining, then neither is what you describe others as having done-that is pointing out why your reasoning re: pot and likelihood of violence is stupid. Carefully now, follow along, if that counts as 'complaining' then so did your remarks about the ex-girlfriend.
Now you can either continue to accuse me of lying, and have it demonstrated to be nonsense a post or two later, or you can get back to the more ordinary level of antagonism of two people who strongly disagree. It seems a difficult feat for fans of the Hero of the Neighborhood Watch.
quote:Those were suggestions I am making to *you*, not suggestions I claimed *you* made. If you were to make those suggestion, you'd be more consistent. Unfortunately you're not making them.
You put those sorts of things out there as though they were ideas I supported, or would support. That I seem to think NW ought to be banned-nothing I've said has even hinted at that, or anything except the armed part.
But hey, Aris, while you're so repeatedly accusing me of lying, could you do me a favor? Could you point to where I said those things ought to be illegal, or that Zimmerman doing them prior to the shooting was illegal?
If you know I was lying, you can certainly point to me saying so. I *seem* to remember saying it was a sign of bad judgment, but maybe I'm just crazy.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If they're statistically less likely, I'll reverse my position regarding this piece of evidence, and henceforth claim his drug use as evidence in favour of Martin and against Zimmerman.
That's not the only option. There are basically three options, one of which his 'drug use' (in apparently very small amounts) clearly fits: undecided. Unknown-not enough evidence to conclude one way or another, therefore the fact ought to be remembered in case more is learned later, but not weighted.
Are you prepared to substantiate your claim-I'll skip the part where I ask if you actually claim it, having done so repeatedly-that the amount of THC we're talking about makes it statistically more likely Martin would be aggressively violent?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The behavior you attribute to Martin fits such a definition. Are you seriously going to claim that the *only* way someone can reply to what you said is to use only the verbatim text? Because that's nonsense.
Rakeesh, in fairness, I would say that the only way one ought to attribute something to someone else using quotes is if they are, in fact, using the verbatim text. That's kinda what quotes indicate, neh?
I don't think you were lying or whatever else Aris accused you of. In fact, your interpretation of what he said seemed fairly accurate to me.
But if he has a different conception of what he said, then the best unambiguous way to reference it is to quote it verbatim. It's fine for you to also say "I think you're essentially saying X" and put it in other words, but I don't think it's a good idea to put your interpretation of what he said in quotes.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think you were lying or whatever else Aris accused you of. In fact, your interpretation of what he said seemed fairly accurate to me.
But if he has a different conception of what he said, then the best unambiguous way to reference it is to quote it verbatim. It's fine for you to also say "I think you're essentially saying X" and put it in other words, but I don't think it's a good idea to put your interpretation of what he said in quotes.
If I thought for a moment anyone would actually take that to mean 'I am saying he literally said', perhaps his outrage would be more reasonable. I don't think anyone would-you didn't, for example-and I doubt he did, either. It was a convenient way to divert from the topic, though, while taking a shot.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you prepared to substantiate your claim-I'll skip the part where I ask if you actually claim it, having done so repeatedly-that the amount of THC we're talking about makes it statistically more likely Martin would be aggressively violent?
I've never made any such claim about any amounts of THC found in Martin's bloodstream. So certainly I'm not prepared to substantiate a claim I've never made.
Try to find an actual claim of mine next time.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've never made any such claim about any amounts of THC found in Martin's bloodstream. So certainly I'm not prepared to substantiate a claim I've never made.
Try to find an actual claim of mine next time.
Ugh. Nice weaseling. Are you prepared, then, to substantiate your claim that people who have smoked pot-which absolutely was your claim-are more likely to be violent thugs than those who don't?
God, on such slender means as any such statistic would certainly be, how much we could condemn anyone for.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, I don't think that they are the same at all. At least guns serve multiple purposes, some of which are invaluable.
I don't oppose stricter gun laws, or licencing guns. Depends on what you mean by gun control, I suppose.
As far as why only accidents should count, not suicies....as a nurse who works with this population on a daily basis, I knwo that most of the people who attempt suicide do it with whatever is at hand. If tehy didn't have a gun, they would take pills, or jump off a bridge, or slit their wrists.
How many serious injuries and deaths occur using a knife each year?
To me, guns are a tool, They are more dangerous than some tools, and need specific instruction to lean how to use them properly, but they are only a tool.
Last point for this post.....why is it that years of bad judgement on Zimmerman's part are OK to repeat, years after the fact.....but years worth of poor judgement on Martin's part should be off limits? I am not saying he was high, or that the trace amounts of THC impaired his judgement. But he was not a person known for making good judgement either, and if Zimmerman's judgement is allowed to be questioned because of his past, Martin's should be under question as well.
(I am on vacation, spending time with my family. If I don't post quite as often for the next week or so, please don't assume I am not interested. I just have a limited time to spend with my nieces and nephew, so I am making the most of it. )
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you prepared, then, to substantiate your claim that people who have smoked pot-which absolutely was your claim-are more likely to be violent thugs than those who don't?
"The report, "Teens, Drugs, and Violence," released by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) today in Philadelphia, shows that teens who use drugs are twice as likely to commit violent acts than those who do not. "
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:One in four teens (27%) who used illicit drugs in the past year report attacking others with the intent to harm;
Nearly one in six teens (17%) who got into serious fights at school or work in the past year report using drugs
That was some nice cherry picking there, Aris. Except even a brief glance at that study would reveal some apparently contradictory findings, suggesting that there is more to it than simple drive use--->likelier to he violent.
Such as, among other things, the statistic that marijuana use is apparently up 25%, a very large sum-and yet youth violence doesn't show a proportionate uptick. These are the sorts of things which should suggest, to someone whose mind isn't made up already, that if there really *is* a correlation, it's very, very small-possibly to small to judge effectively on am individual level.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:suggesting that there is more to it than simple drive use--->likelier to he violent.
Such as, among other things, the statistic that marijuana use is apparently up 25%, a very large sum-and yet youth violence doesn't show a proportionate uptick
If I thought that marijuana *caused* violence, I wouldn't be in favor of its complete legalization (as I currently am).
The causation goes the other way around. The lawbreakers are more likely to be violent *and* more likely to do marijuana.
But if marijuana was legalized, that would just increase its usage among the law-abiders, it wouldn't increase violence.
Because correlation isn't causation.
Thankfully I never said that drug use *caused* Martin to be a violent thug. I said it was evidence for it. And evidence is all about correlation, not about causation.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rakeesh, I don't think that they are the same at all. At least guns serve multiple purposes, some of which are invaluable.
I'm not sure which things you're saying aren't the same. As for guns, though, they really only serve one purpose: to offer lethal force to their wielder at the squeeze of a trigger. Sometimes that is a good thing, sure. Sometimes. Plenty of other times it is also just much bad as it ever was good. And while the good things they can do will only ever impact you and your family, the bad things they can do stand a chance to impact me and mine-hence, my business as a fellow primate whose flesh isn't impervious to gunfire.
quote:As far as why only accidents should count, not suicies....as a nurse who works with this population on a daily basis, I knwo that most of the people who attempt suicide do it with whatever is at hand. If tehy didn't have a gun, they would take pills, or jump off a bridge, or slit their wrists.
How many serious injuries and deaths occur using a knife each year?
Does your experience as a nurse speak to no variation in suicide attempts, and which ones are successful? We can't simply write them off if we're actually attempting to look at the pros and cons-the fact that most gun deaths are suicides is probably relevant, yes?
As to the second, plenty, no doubt. But what this well intended example and other absurd ones continue to miss is this: your knife accident is very unlikely to maim *me*, or whoever happens to be wandering by.
quote:Last point for this post.....why is it that years of bad judgement on Zimmerman's part are OK to repeat, years after the fact.....but years worth of poor judgement on Martin's part should be off limits? I am not saying he was high, or that the trace amounts of THC impaired his judgement. But he was not a person known for making good judgement either, and if Zimmerman's judgement is allowed to be questioned because of his past, Martin's should be under question as well.
A few things. One, Martin wasn't doing anything fundamentally stupid or unwise when it started-meaning one of the parties involved wasn't starting off from a bad or dangerous decision. Zimmerman was-following him, deeming him a suspect for walking where lots of people walk, carrying a gun while acting on his NW 'authority', getting out of his vehicle, pursuing on foot (wait, I'm sorry, 'looking for an address', of course). Zimmerman *starts off* in the hole. Second, while things in Martin's background may well point to bad judgment or even violence, the only thing he's been gotten cold on, so to speak, was a laughable amount of pot and the suspensions. Everything else is either second or even third hand, or of simply unknown relevance. Cmon, Kwea, the 'report' of a cousin's Twitter account? The rest of it is supposed to seriously lend weight to the claim he just attacked a total stranger? Isn't that the sort of thing, were he in the habit of doing, we'd see substantially more evidence for that a cousin's tweet?
Whereas if we meander on down to Zimmermantown, well, we start to see a slew of things that lend weight to the idea that he started the confrontation with a grab or a shove, and things descended out of control from there. The history of bad judgment, not just generally but bad judgment of emergencies. The strong whiff of domestic violence. The deeply stupid (though yes, even though I've never said or suggested otherwise, legal) pursuit of Martin. The tagging of Martin as a suspect in the first place.
It's not that Martin's background doesn't get a look, it's that they both have, and so far Zimmerman looks-and makes himself look-quite bad. A trial will hopefully sort much of this out, time will tell.
Let me ask you this, Kwea. Suppose you're a hot dog vendor on a street corner, and you see a local kid walk by. He's something of a punk, but aside from some not uncommon teenage dumbassery he doesn't stand condemned in your books. He cuts into an alley as a shortcut home, that people in the area routinely use-you know he has a right to be there. You then see someone unmistakably following him, for some reason, and only one of them comes out alive-and it turns out to be the man with a gun who didn't actually have a good reason to be there, who went in armed on bad reasoning. Would you *really* stand there at your stand and think, "The kid probably attacked the guy and got shot for it,." I'm not asking this because it would prove anything, but only to hear your gut reaction.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rak, I hate to agree with Aris, but if you use "" signs, the quotes need to be exact. Otherwise its cheating.
Aris, when you say that someone who uses marijuana is more likely to be a violent thug than someone who isn't it leaves an implication I would like to clear up.
When some one uses pot are they more likely to be a violent thug or a normal person? The obvious answer is "a normal person". The big question is what percentage of pot users are violent thugs versus what percentage of non-pot users are violent thugs. If its 10% vs 2% we may have a correlation. Still 90% of the people who do pot are now being wrongly accused of being Thug-like. If its 1.5% vs 1% we do not have a correlation and being scared of their violent potential is a waste of energy.
Note: the question isn't "What % of thugs are pot users." If 100% of all thugs were pot users, but still only 0.5% of pot users were thugs, evidence of their drug use is not strong evidence of their guilt.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:"When some one uses pot are they more likely to be a violent thug or a normal person? The obvious answer is "a normal person". The big question is what percentage of pot users are violent thugs versus what percentage of non-pot users are violent thugs. "
Yes, the relationship between P(C|E) and P(C|~E) where E (Evidence) is use of pot, and C (Conclusion) is the violent thuggery.
quote:Note: the question isn't "What % of thugs are pot users."
Indeed, that would be the P(E|C) and it's not the important question.
quote:and being scared of their violent potential is a waste of energy.
As opposed to being scared of the murder in the 2nd degree/manslaughter potential of people who make undue 911 calls, which has repeatedly been treated as evidence towards the same against Zimmerman in this thread? Oh, to be more precise it has been treated as evidence towards *bad decisionmaking*, which is in turn evidence towards him initiating violence towards Treyvon then shooting him while he was shouting for help -- and yet somehow drug use isn't allowed to be treated as evidence towards bad decisionmaking by Treyvon and in turn be treated as evidence that *he* initiated violence, and that *he* kept exerting violence on a man who was shouting for help.
I'm not the one who keeps emphasizing the drug use. When I mentioned the drug use at the beginning of this specific argument, I mentioned it in a list of other such minor evidence about Treyvon Martin's character: "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."
"Drug use" is like two words out of thirty five in the above quote. I'm not the one focusing on the drug use. I treat it as the *minor* logical evidence that it is. If I knew that e.g. Trayvon Martin was foul-mouthed, I'd have also mentioned his foul-mouthedness as well for such minor evidence -- and why not? other people keep mentioning that Zimmerman tagged Trayvon as an 'asshole' on the phone, so each person's usage of language is obviously treated as allowable evidence towards their character.
That Rakeesh and others jump on my mention of drug use, is pretty much the definition of a strawman: they think they'll attack a weak point, and so they magnify its relative significance in my argument far beyond what I myself make it.
quote:Still 90% of the people who do pot are now being wrongly accused of being Thug-like
Not by me. They might not like being assigned a greater statistical likelihood of being thug-like, but that's not the same as being "accused" of being thug-like.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rak, I hate to agree with Aris, but if you use "" signs, the quotes need to be exact. Otherwise its cheating.
When I mean to directly quote someone-to say that this is exactly what they were saying, and reply-I use the quote box instead of quotation marks. In this particular case I think it was pretty clear I wasn't saying, "Aris, you said exactly these words," but rather restating them into a very similar meaning to point something out-something that's far from uncommon, and that no one who has been discussing this at length is innocent of in this thread anyway. 'Innocent of', not as though it were a big deal.
Anyway, if Aris really did think I was accusing him of using those exact words, then I apologize. I would be surprised, but tone is tough online. If, on the other hand, he merely objected to some very close and obvious associations with his words, that's a different story.
----------
quote:The causation goes the other way around. The lawbreakers are more likely to be violent *and* more likely to do marijuana.
I would be fine with a statement that said 'lawbreakers are more likely to be violent than those who follow the law', if it was only being used with that exact meaning-more likely, that is all-and nothing else. But you're not using that increased likelihood in that fashion. Speeding is breaking the law, for example. People who speed or don't buckle up are thus lawbreakers. They are therefore more likely to break other laws than someone who scrupulously abides by every law as best they can.
Well, that's all well and good and perfectly true as far as it goes. It even goes, to an extremely limited extent, to the notion of violence. Someone who speeds, who disregards authority and the law to speed, is probably more likely to be violent than someone who doesn't. Because there are of course lots of laws against violence, which would thus stop someone who abides all laws diligently from being violent.
The question is, how much more likely are they to be violent? Likewise with marijuana. For argument's sake, let's just say that the figure you quoted is the absolute, complete truth of the matter and that there is nothing further to be said. Teens who use marijuana are twice as likely to be violent as those who don't. Well, alright-suppose that original non-smoking likelihood is only, say, 0.05% (For fun's sake, though, I should note that juvenile crime is roughly 5% lower as of 2011 than it was in 2006 http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/offenders/qa03202.asp?qaDate=19990930 , and this decline has been going on for about a generation but is matched by an upswing in marijuana use. Anyway, let's say it's 0.05% chance that a random juvenile will commit a violent crime. Smoking marijuana, if by chance this random juvenile didn't smoke already, will indeed double that to a staggering likelihood of less than half of a percent chance.
I have no doubt you see the problem here. It is not, as you say, evidence for Martin being a violent thug that night. You're simply not using that word properly-it is reason to look and see if we can find evidence, but that is all. It's a reason to prefer Martin if there were another juvenile involved who didn't smoke pot, and also had no other warning signs. But without some idea how great or small the initial, unmultiplied likelihood is of him having been a violent thug that night, his smoking pot is somewhere well north of him being a habitual speeder, but potentially not very far.
Things are a bit different for Zimmerman. He took several distinct steps that actually make him worth looking twice at, and these steps were at times or in places where they cannot be questioned. He deemed Martin a suspect without having a reason to, and was angry that he might 'get away'-signs of looking for a confrontation. He exited his truck and actually followed this supposedly suspicious person at night-actually a very compelling sign of looking for a confrontation.
If someone said to you, "Man, that asshole, he always gets away," and then followed him out of your sight, and then a fight broke out, you wouldn't be able to say with certainty who started the fight, but who would you think probably started that fight?
He assures you earnestly he didn't. Alright, he hasn't given you reason to believe he'd lie before now-and we can't ask the other guy. So you believe him. Not long after it turns out he shows a willingness to lie on a very important matter when there are steep penalties involved. Suddenly his word starts to carry less weight. Much of what Zimmerman did that makes him look bad is quite legal, of course. That's not the point. The difference between the two is that the things that make Martin look bad do so in different directions or maybe-similar directions to the way events would've needed to go for him to be guilty. With Zimmerman, we don't simply have factors that increase his likelihood to be dishonest or use bad judgment, we have actual straightforward examples of bad judgment and dishonesty! Of course, if it actually turns out Martin did swing on a bus driver, that will be pretty strong stuff. If it turns out he was an actual thief, that's not as strong but definitely noteworthy.
Of course we have to take a very careful at the physical evidence, but much of it is quite a lot less damning or exonerating than you claim. The injuries-well, quite a lot of different types of violence from self- to Martin-inflicted could've caused them, so far as we on the sidelines can tell so far. The shouting for help-Zimmerman's father says it was his voice (but seriously, what else would he say? If it were my son, I might very well say that in a heartbeat if I thought it would help. Don't know. Never been tested like that), but others say it couldn't have been his voice. So on and so forth.
Anyway, I look forward to the trial, to have many of these questions actually resolved.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Drug use" is like two words out of thirty five in the above quote. I'm not the one focusing on the drug use. I treat it as the *minor* logical evidence that it is. If I knew that e.g. Trayvon Martin was foul-mouthed, I'd have also mentioned his foul-mouthedness as well for such minor evidence -- and why not? other people keep mentioning that Zimmerman tagged Trayvon as an 'asshole' on the phone, so each person's usage of language is obviously treated as allowable evidence towards their character.
That Rakeesh and others jump on my mention of drug use, is pretty much the definition of a strawman: they think they'll attack a weak point, and so they magnify its relative significance in my argument far beyond what I myself make it.
Or, you know, you're communicating badly. Couldn't be that, though, master of the written word, prediction, statistics, etc. etc.
quote:Not by me. They might not like being assigned a greater statistical likelihood of being thug-like, but that's not the same as being "accused" of being thug-like.
When you go on to claim it is clear Martin was a thug that night, and that's part of your reasoning, it's at least a kissing cousin's worth of similarity.
quote:"Drug use" is like two words out of thirty five in the above quote. I'm not the one focusing on the drug use. I treat it as the *minor* logical evidence that it is. If I knew that e.g. Trayvon Martin was foul-mouthed, I'd have also mentioned his foul-mouthedness as well for such minor evidence -- and why not? other people keep mentioning that Zimmerman tagged Trayvon as an 'asshole' on the phone, so each person's usage of language is obviously treated as allowable evidence towards their character.
Dude, it's not the language that serves to point a finger at Zimmerman there. Please don't tell me you actually believed 'Zimmerman used profanity!' is what anyone was saying. It was that he labeled Martin a suspect, someone who would 'get away', with at best the flimsiest of pretexts. At best.
quote: As opposed to being scared of the murder in the 2nd degree/manslaughter potential of people who make undue 911 calls, which has repeatedly been treated as evidence towards the same against Zimmerman in this thread? Oh, to be more precise it has been treated as evidence towards *bad decisionmaking*, which is in turn evidence towards him initiating violence towards Treyvon then shooting him while he was shouting for help -- and yet somehow drug use isn't allowed to be treated as evidence towards bad decisionmaking by Treyvon and in turn be treated as evidence that *he* initiated violence, and that *he* kept exerting violence on a man who was shouting for help.
It is evidence of bad decisionmaking. No need for scare quotes, or in this case scare-asterisks. Of course, that's not the only evidence of bad judgment. It's one of a group of things, and the others were done minutes before the shooting. The 911 calls are, by themselves, not worth much-I would be surprised if you could find someone say they were damning or even well on their way to such. Except unlike the pot smoking (as opposed to 'drug use', a more serious sounding term) that points to bad decision making in an area directly related to the events that were happening that night.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rak, I hate to agree with Aris, but if you use "" signs, the quotes need to be exact. Otherwise its cheating.
When I mean to directly quote someone-to say that this is exactly what they were saying, and reply-I use the quote box instead of quotation marks. In this particular case I think it was pretty clear I wasn't saying, "Aris, you said exactly these words," but rather restating them into a very similar meaning to point something out-something that's far from uncommon, and that no one who has been discussing this at length is innocent of in this thread anyway. 'Innocent of', not as though it were a big deal.
Anyway, if Aris really did think I was accusing him of using those exact words, then I apologize. I would be surprised, but tone is tough online. If, on the other hand, he merely objected to some very close and obvious associations with his words, that's a different story.
Good point about the quote-blocking. I spend enough times in discussion formats without quoteblocks that this distinction didn't occur to me.
I agree with you that in this case it wasn't an egregious screwup or anything. It was pretty clear from context that you thought he had said effectively that.
It's just one of those best practices. Quotes should be reserved for actual quoting, whenever possible. I criticize because I care. Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Hmm? Not speaking to that. Not allowed to. This is a line which I have frequently encountered, however; the THC report has been quite frantically used as proof that Zimmerman wasn't profiling, Trayvon was high and acting high and Zimmerman's analysis from the car was correct.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Anyway, if Aris really did think I was accusing him of using those exact words, then I apologize"
What I really did think was that you were likely to be deliberately attempting to mislead other readers here (any readers who don't have the time to individually check all my posts) into thinking that I had used those exact words, and I most certainly thought that you weren't paying enough appropriate attention into NOT misleading them about what I had said -- which is required common courtesy to make conversation possible.
And if I hadn't bothered to dispute them as I did, most certainly *some* people would have been so mislead. Because not everyone has the time to read every single post in a thread, and they'd have treated my non-disputing them as acceptance.
That even after I asked you not to do this thing, you kept claiming "Yeah, you said it. If it's troubling to hear, perhaps you should choose your words more carefully in the future." put insult on top of injury: Because you had just *shown* that it doesn't matter to you what words I'll actually choose, you'll be choosing some *different* words on my behalf and present them as if I had said them.
I thank Dan Frank and Darth Mauve for backing me up with my objection to such bad practice. They've shown themselves to be honest people.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Man, if I have insulted you with a personal attack, it's been quite some time. You've done so about half a dozen times in the past half week. Would you mind cutting it out, or is that simply too much of a stretch? Since, you know, others aren't allowed to address you directly on lower ranks of violation.
quote:What I really did think was that you were likely to be deliberately attempting to mislead other readers here (any readers who don't have the time to individually check all my posts) into thinking that I had used those exact words, and I most certainly thought that you weren't paying enough appropriate attention into NOT misleading them about what I had said -- which is required common courtesy to make conversation possible.
Is this more of your clever analytical ability? That I wasn't engaging in a not uncommon way of replying to people on message boards, addressing tone and associations as well as the exact literal meaning, but rather that it was part of a clever scheme to turn other people in this thread against you? Do I need to shoot a kid to turn off that kind of bizarre mistrust, or what? Because...wow.
Now in the unlikely event anyone was actually turned against your words by reading what I've said about them, even though we've been going tit for tat, to my legions of followers! Aris's words are posted here. Read them, and choose for yourself.
Whew! I had forgotten how much control I've got over other people here. My mistake.
quote:That even after I asked you not to do this thing, you kept claiming "Yeah, you said it. If it's troubling to hear, perhaps you should choose your words more carefully in the future." put insult on top of injury: Because you had just *shown* that it doesn't matter to you what words I'll actually choose, you'll be choosing some *different* words on my behalf and present them as if I had said them.
That's one way to view things, with yourself as the blameless victim. I can see why that would be appealing. But perhaps I you didn't have to be pinned down on why your claims that we should believe Martin was a violent thug were likely to be literally true as you said them but nonetheless stupid because of huge uncertainties and the likelihood that the kinds of increases you were talking about would be tiny...yeah. If it didn't have to be dragged out of you that the pot smoking is only likely a tiny increase, for example, perhaps the conversation would've gone differently.
But when you hide behind your words being literally accurate and use them to insist people accept an absurd conclusion, yeah, I'll respond to what you're actually saying. When I said 'near psychotic', for example, you complained that you didn't use those exact words, and that I was thus a liar for saying so-never mind that I didn't intend to, I understand why you would've thought so, but not the bizarre crowd control feared intent you attributed to me. Anyway, when I explained that the way you were describing what Martin's behavior 'obviously' was that night, on almost entirely laughable correlations, that that behavior would be considered nearly psychotic...
A nice blanket of silence. Reiterations that you didn't say that. Well, you'll have to pardon me for being aware that people can say something in a roundabout, indirect way without ever using the direct literal words. And if you feel inclined to object, that no, you don't do that, you're straightforward-well, you did just accuse me of engaging in an elaborate attempt at group think.
quote:I thank Dan Frank and Darth Mauve for backing me up with my objection to such bad practice. They've shown themselves to be honest people.
Holy crap, you didn't read what Dan said at all, did you?
------
Speaking of which, thanks Dan, from you I appreciate the criticism, even if sometimes I'm too irritated (this time i just forgot to reply) at the moment to remember it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Speaking of which, thanks Dan, from you I appreciate the criticism, even if sometimes I'm too irritated (this time i just forgot to reply) at the moment to remember it.
No worries. Glad to hear it, though. Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Man, if I have insulted you with a personal attack, it's been quite some time
Cute, but just a couple posts ago you accused me of "weaselling" because I refused to accept you AGAIN putting a false claim in my mouth.
And that's not even counting all the various indirect insults you lay pretty much every comment you make (like accusing me of feeling that Martin will get away with it, accusing me of lying, accusing me of diverting/distracting, accusing me of hypocrisy, etc, etc).
But all that frankly pales before your constant lying about me.
quote:And if you feel inclined to object, that no, you don't do that, you're straightforward-well, you did just accuse me of engaging in an elaborate attempt at group think.
Yes, I did plainly accuse you of straightforwards deception and lying, because you've repeatedly lied about me and everything I've said, pretty much constantly. This practice of yours now is so consistent for several weeks now that I can no longer believe it mere carelessness. It must be deliberate and quite conscious.
Most recently you keep lying about what whether I complained about mentions of the domestic violence in junction for example. And it's quite blatant lying again -- anyone can see it if they read the posts in question. You can see it too, I don't believe your reading comprehension can honestly be that bad.
You became so shameless about the lying that you actually attempted to put it into quotes -- though you were forced to back down from that practice when even other people objected to such *blatant* untruth that it could no longer even theoretically be considered a mere misinterpretation of my words.
You kept lying about things I supposedly attributed to you, or that I supposedly put in your mouth -- so very ironic, when you blatantly and shamelessly misquoted me.
You kept lying about claims I supposedly made. The claims you ask me to defend are always something different than what I actually say.
Then you accused *me* of lying. You accused me of lying a week ago, then when I asked you to quote where the lie was, you failed to find evidence of such.
You're a liar, and a deceiver, deliberately and blatantly so. I'll stand by my belief in this accusation, even if it gets me permanently banned from the thread or even the forum.
quote:Holy crap, you didn't read what Dan said at all, did you?
Yes, he said "Rakeesh, in fairness, I would say that the only way one ought to attribute something to someone else using quotes is if they are, in fact, using the verbatim text. "
See, I can quote properly. And I repeat my thanks to Dan Frank as an honest and honorable individual.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Btw, apologies about all of the above to JanitorBlade -- I really thought I'd be able to ignore Rakeesh. But in the last two pages of comments he keeps trying to just push buttons with insults and accusations and mockery:
"Nice weaseling" "Now, do you want to continue throwing around the word 'lying', or shall I just burn in hell again?" "Now you can either continue to accuse me of lying, and have it demonstrated to be nonsense a post or two later, " "But when you hide behind your words"
Rakeesh is a man who has repeatedly lied about what I said, then has repeatedly accused *me* of lying about what *he* said, and then has failed to substantiate any of his claims about how I lied, while I keep substantiating my own claims about his lies.
JanitorBlade, it's obvious that this can't keep going.
Please check the thread. If I'm lying about what Rakeesh is doing, then ban me. If he's lying about what I do, then ban him.
Or if you don't want to go to the trouble to check it, then just ban me. Even that's vastly preferable to me from letting both of us continuing in a thread, where he just keeps lying about me.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aris, if you think that you being banned is preferable to continuing a conversation, I think that's a really strong indicator that you are no longer getting anything valuable from that conversation.
If that's the case, then that is a strong indicator that you should end your involvement in the conversation till you think you'll get some value out of it.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Aris, if you think that you being banned is preferable to continuing a conversation, I think that's a really strong indicator that you are no longer getting anything valuable from that conversation.
If that's the case, then that is a strong indicator that you should end your involvement in the conversation till you think you'll get some value out of it.
Yes, of course. But frankly doing the utilitarian calculation "will I gain something from further involvement" works badly as a barrier, because some sleepier or angrier or otherwise stupider future-version-of-me will eventually make a bad benefit-cost calculation and reenter to his (my) detriment.
That's how I reentered *this* time after all. Stupidly thought I would be able to ignore Rakeesh's tactics. In retrospect I would have been better off if I had been banned outright a week or two ago.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Cute, but just a couple posts ago you accused me of "weaselling" because I refused to accept you AGAIN putting a false claim in my mouth.
I accused you of weaseling after you refused to address a claim that having THC in his blood means Martin was more likely to have been a violent thug, only to have you a short while later substantiate (attempt to, anyway) a claim that Martin's smoking pot means he was statistically more likely to have been a violent thug.
Pretty straightforward. Scornfully stated, yes, but also probably accurate.
quote:And that's not even counting all the various indirect insults you lay pretty much every comment you make (like accusing me of feeling that Martin will get away with it, accusing me of lying, accusing me of diverting/distracting, accusing me of hypocrisy, etc, etc).
Wait a second, I thought we were only supposed to deal with what was exactly and precisely said, remember? So, just to illustrate what you've been doing and why it's so exasperating: you can't take issue with things I've said 'indirectly'. If I didn't use open plain language, I cannot be attacked for having said it.
quote:Most recently you keep lying about what whether I complained about mentions of the domestic violence in junction for example. And it's quite blatant lying again -- anyone can see it if they read the posts in question. You can see it too, I don't believe your reading comprehension can honestly be that bad.
You didn't say, "This is my complaint about Zimmerman's link to domestic violence being mentioned..." that's true. What you did do, however, was brush it off by saying it was a long time ago and that she had reason to be hostile.
Sounds like a 'complaint' to me. Even without saying, quote, "complaint."
quote:You became so shameless about the lying that you actually attempted to put it into quotes -- though you were forced to back down from that practice when even other people objected to such *blatant* untruth that it could no longer even theoretically be considered a mere misinterpretation of my words.
You reallu need to read what Dan has said on the subject again, if that is what your interpretation of what 'other people' (there being two of them, may as well use their names) have said. He even said he *agreed* with my interpretation. Is he also a shameless liar?
quote:You're a liar, and a deceiver, deliberately and blatantly so. I'll stand by my belief in this accusation, even if it gets me permanently banned from the thread or even the forum.
Goodness, a liar AND a deceiver. Also, I'd like to note for fun how strange it is that you call it a personal attack when I referenced burning in hell.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I accused you of weaseling after you refused to address a claim that having THC in his blood means Martin was more likely to have been a violent thug, only to have you a short while later substantiate (attempt to, anyway) a claim that Martin's smoking pot means he was statistically more likely to have been a violent thug.
If Martin had more marijuana present in his stream he might actually be more sedated and calm, and that would well be evidence *against* his being violent at that particular time.
That's the difference between an assertion of a correlation between being a "drug user" and being violent, and an assertion of correlation between having pot in your blood steam at the precise moment and being violent.
It's a rather crucial difference, and different statistics are needed to back up each.
That's why precision in what claim is made is crucial.
quote:Also, I'd like to note for fun how strange it is that you call it a personal attack when I referenced burning in hell.
Really? Where exactly did I call it that? Oh wait, I didn't. Another lie.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:He even said he *agreed* with my interpretation.
People are allowed to agree or disagree with interpretations as much as they like. What they're not allowed to do is claim "You said 'X'" or "You claimed 'X'", when they know I didn't say 'X' and I didn't claim 'X'.
And you knew full well I didn't, because after all this wasn't your first lie against me in the thread, nor was it the second -- and it wasn't even the last. You're probably in the double digits by now. Nobody makes *that* many "misinterpretations" by accident.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What you did do, however, was brush it off by saying it was a long time ago and that she had reason to be hostile.
One more of your lies, this one a repeated one. What I (so-called) "brushed off" wasn't the domestic violence injuction, I (so called) "brushed off" the later allegations of racism by that same person against Zimmerman. And I gave my precise reasoning for that.
That was quite unambiguously clear in everything I wrote about this issue -- no room for misintepretation whatsover.
Therefore it's quite certainly yet another one of your deliberate lies against me, this time a quite often repeated one.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Really? Where exactly did I call it that? Oh wait, I didn't. Another lie.
Another inaccurate but literal truth. You called that an insult, accusation, or mockery. I don't know why I would think of those things as being synonymous with a personal attack in this context. Big ups for your ability to hide behind, "I didn't say that." And just in case it's not obvious (though it is), I'm not suggesting you used these exact words with that particular emphasis.
quote:That's the difference between an assertion of a correlation between being a "drug user" and being violent, and an assertion of correlation between having pot in your blood steam at the precise moment and being violent.
I understand the difference, and man did it take a lot to drag it out of you. But it's something of a wash anyway, since after all we know he was a drug user at the time of the shooting because of the THC, so...
quote:People are allowed to agree or disagree with interpretations as much as they like. What they're not allowed to do is claim "You said 'X'" or "You claimed 'X'", when they know I didn't say 'X' and I didn't claim 'X'.
I don't know if you missed it or ignored it where he recognized that wasn't actually what was going on. But you don't actually have to do things like take full account what he said about this, because I'm so mean. Or something.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, so just to be clear: is there even a slight hope that if I agree not to speak to you or your arguments, you'll be able to restrain yourself to the same without moderator involvement? Or is someone being so mean and dishonest enough to strip away all self control for you?
I ask with my tongue only slightly in cheek, since Samprimary is (apparently?)still restrained from speaking to you for violations in a thread where you aren't.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
If you understand the difference, and if you understood it from the beginning, then you just admitted that you lied when you pretended that the claims were effectively the same -- that you lied again when you pretended "I was weaselling" when I did NOT treat them as effectively the same -- that you lied a third time when you claimed I was "hiding behind words" afterwards.
If you didn't understood it from the beginning, but you understand it *now*, then you still just admitted that your accusations of "weaselling" and "hiding behind words" were unjustified and unwarranted insults, and I require an apology.
quote:and man did it take a lot to drag it out of you.
It doesn't take "a lot". If you think that two claims are the same, and I say they're different, all you need to do is ask "In what way do you consider them different?" instead of accusing me of 'weaselling' 'hiding behind words' or doing any of these other things.
Better yet, only ask me to defend the claims I actually make in the first place, rather than your interpretive dance version of them.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:One more of your lies, this one a repeated one. What I (so-called) "brushed off" wasn't the domestic violence injuction, I (so called) "brushed off" the later allegations of racism by that same person against Zimmerman. And I gave my precise reasoning for that.
Oh-this is accurate, you didn't brush it off in that fashion. I went back and re-read, and I was mistaken in my memory about that. Sorry for that.
That said, you *have* brushed off the domestic violence injunction. Not directly. You've never made a brushing gesture on your shoulder when the topic was mentioned. But when you say we should think Martin was violent for reasons that include smoking pot, refereeing a fight club, and his cousin's twitter posting and *don't* ever mention how much more highly an actual domestic violence injunction would weigh than those...that is a brush off. An indirect one.
Nevertheless, the paragraph you quoted above was rooted in a mistake of mine. I should've gone back and reread. The rest, though, the litany of supposedly proven lies and the idea that I'm orchestrating a PR campaign, is bizarre, paranoid nonsense.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ok, so just to be clear: is there even a slight hope that if I agree not to speak to you or your arguments, you'll be able to restrain yourself to the same without moderator involvement?
Only if you also honestly and non-sarcastically apologize without condition for saying I was "weaselling" and "hiding behind words", and retract your continued false claim that I was supposedly "brushing off" the domestic violence injuction (when I was in reality brushing off the racism allegations)
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you didn't understood it from the beginning, but you understand it *now*, then you still just admitted that your accusations of "weaselling" and "hiding behind words" were unjustified and unwarranted insults, and I require an apology.
Or what? Pistols at dawn? Setting aside the careful way, again, you hide behind literal meanings while your words convey a different message, you told me to, and here I will do it, "Burn in hell." That's just the most striking example. Don't recall hearing an apology from you. Neither of us is in any position to 'require' apologies from the other.
But anyway, I was serious about my question re: moderator involvement.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you for retracting the false claim about the domestic violence injuction. Now please also retract that I was "weaselling" and "hiding behind words".
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can either demand and require, or say please. Can't really do both.
Am I correct in assuming you won't apologize or retract your 'burn in hell' and your claim that I was orchestrating an elaborate attempt at propaganda?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: Btw, apologies about all of the above to JanitorBlade -- I really thought I'd be able to ignore Rakeesh. But in the last two pages of comments he keeps trying to just push buttons with insults and accusations and mockery:
"Nice weaseling" "Now, do you want to continue throwing around the word 'lying', or shall I just burn in hell again?" "Now you can either continue to accuse me of lying, and have it demonstrated to be nonsense a post or two later, " "But when you hide behind your words"
Rakeesh is a man who has repeatedly lied about what I said, then has repeatedly accused *me* of lying about what *he* said, and then has failed to substantiate any of his claims about how I lied, while I keep substantiating my own claims about his lies.
JanitorBlade, it's obvious that this can't keep going.
Please check the thread. If I'm lying about what Rakeesh is doing, then ban me. If he's lying about what I do, then ban him.
Or if you don't want to go to the trouble to check it, then just ban me. Even that's vastly preferable to me from letting both of us continuing in a thread, where he just keeps lying about me.
Aris: It's obvious to even you you can't handle participating in this thread. There's just way too much personal fighting, and as you said, you can't be expected to stay away. I'm asking you to leave the thread alone for now. Do not continue to post in the thread. I hope that is the only thing I'll need to do on this matter today.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
For what it's worth, I won't speak to or address anything you've said, or even that I've said in reply, Aris, while you're prohibited from replying.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh. At first, when reading the headline, I was frankly baffled. Both the prosecution and even the judge made it clear they thought Zimmerman was just about to skip town, so why on Earth permit even a much higher bail a second time? But as it turns out, apparently that is the law (which is just weird to me, if your 'flauning the system' indicates you're prepping to skip bail, disallowing further bail seems straightforward), and the judge followed it in spite of his own concerns, as is proper. Seems a bit similar to the hearing about publicity in that respect. Sometimes he can't just say no, even when it's clearly the more prudent course of action.
Legal commentator take on things (in this case, the NPR report from yesterday, or was it the day before) suggests that Zimmerman's deception may prove a lot more harmful than just much higher bail. Given Florida law and how physical evidence so far seems inconclusive overall, Zimmerman may well have to testify at his SYG hearing, and he's dinged up his credibility-and in this case, much of that hearing may hinge on it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The judge overseeing George Zimmerman’s murder trial wrote a stern eight-page order Thursday that set bail at $1 million and said the former neighborhood watch volunteer thumbed his nose at the judicial system as he plotted a life on the run.
Seminole County Circuit Judge Kenneth R. Lester ordered Zimmerman to remain in Seminole County, doing away with the special perk that had allowed Zimmerman to await trial in hiding out of state before his initial bail was revoked. Lester said nothing in the defense team’s presentation in a three-hour hearing last week explained why someone would stash a second passport and $135,000 if it wasn’t to jump bail.
“Notably, together with the passport, the money only had to be hidden for a short time for him to leave the country if the defendant made a quick decision to flee,” Lester wrote. “It is entirely reasonable for this court to find that, but for the requirement that he be placed on electronic monitoring, the defendant and his wife would have fled the United States with at least $130,000 of other people’s money.”
He rejected the defense argument that Zimmerman, 28, was young and confused when he instructed his wife, in jailhouse phone conversations, to transfer all the funds he raised online out of his name and allowed her to lie about it under oath at his initial bond hearing.
“Trayvon Martin is the only male whose youth is relevant to this case,” Lester wrote.
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: Nobody makes *that* many "misinterpretations" by accident.
Yes they do.
Communication is hard. Clear communication is even harder. Misunderstandings and miscommunication to some degree or another is the norm. There are a few things you can do to try and help communication go more smoothly:
- Try to be as clear and precise as possible. Try not to assume that other people will always understand what you mean or share your background knowledge. Sometimes this is unavoidable: for example, I'm assuming you'll understand all the words I write in this post. But be reasonable and try to minimize these assumptions.
- When you're not sure of something, don't be afraid to ask clarifying questions. It helps if these questions aren't hostile; the person you're talking to wasn't being confusing on purpose. It made sense to them.
- When someone else misunderstands you, don't get mad. Just clarify what you meant so that they understand and can respond to what you were trying to say.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan: Aris is not currently permitted to participate in the thread. I'd rather you PM Aris than respond to his posts.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
