Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

[kiki5711]

Coito: It's enough to see someone behaving oddly, and "looking around at the houses

And you know for sure martin was doing that? I take walks in my baggy pants and hooded jacket and look at the houses all the time, sometimes I see what people are doing in there and it's interesting and I look.

In your definition of suspicious behavior, I fit that profile.
In other words IT'S ALL IN YOUR HEAD.!!!!!

[kiki5711]

kiki, have you ever heard of logical fallacies? If so, would you define for me your understanding of what they are and why some people consider them to be important?

yes, it is in coitos every post.

[FBM]

kiki, have you ever heard of logical fallacies? If so, would you define for me your understanding of what they are and why some people consider them to be important?

yes, it is in coitos every post.

That's not really answering my question. What is your understanding of what logical fallacies are? What is their use and their importance?

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito: It's enough to see someone behaving oddly, and "looking around at the houses

And you know for sure martin was doing that?

No, but I don't no for sure that whatever anyone calls the police about was actually happening. If me knowing for sure was required, then nobody would ever be able to call the police.

I take walks in my baggy pants and hooded jacket and look at the houses all the time, sometimes I see what people are doing in there and it's interesting and I look.

Good for you. Do you look like you're on drugs, and hang out sort of wandering in the rain, just oddly staring, while in a gated community in which you don't live?

In your definition of suspicious behavior, I fit that profile.
In other words IT'S ALL IN YOUR HEAD.!!!!!

No, it's fact dependent. That's different.

[Tero]

Continuing on the stuff question.

If blowing up a thing saves a persons life and puts 100 people out of home and job, we still do it. Then provide for the 100.

There is nothing in my house I would save if saving results in a major injury to anyone. Im insured.

Wife? Kids? Pets? Your favourite yoghurt?

OK, the arsonist is with a lit match and nobody in the house: I break his knees, call 911. People in the house and he has a match: I break his neck with baseball bat. Brains make a mess.

[Coito ergo sum]

If Zimerman had had any inkling of the forum thread he would inspire, he probably wouldn't have fired.

The only thing that keeps me interested at this point is my sick fascination wondering how long the participants, namely CES and Kiki will last. Kiki, just give in, haven't you learned anything around here?

You're right mai. FBM is still hashing around something about some natzis and racism and how Coito is the only one that knows it all.

Don't confuse the fact that I recognize your profound ignorance, your assumption of guilt irrespective of and often despite the facts, and your willingness to accept unquestioningly any assertion that is leveled against the defendant, with a claim by me to "knowing it all." I don't. Nor have I adopted a position that requires perfect knowledge. My position is, at bottom, that of uncertainty. Yours is a position that requires certainty.

If you're uncertain about whether Zimmerman killed Martin in self defense, then please say so. Then we can both agree that there is reasonable doubt as to his guilty, pending further evidence, and we'll have discovered that we've agreed all along.

I was just trying to show the inconsistencies of coito/seth/and fbm/posts.

You've not identified a single inconsistency. To be an inconsistency, one must hold or espouse two or more views which contradict each other. While I may agree and disagree with Seth and FBM, I most certainly have not contradicted myself, and you've not even stated what I've said that is contradictory with something else I've said. But, it wouldn't surprise me if you're using the word "contradictory" in some special meaning that only you use, such that, as is common with you, your words actually mean something different than you intend.

One day they say one thing, next day, they say another thing, all the while implying that all I can see is the racist card, which is sooo far from it, it ain't even funny.

You have claimed that Zimmerman is a racist. However, I've hardly ever mentioned that in my posts about you. Moreover, I've not said one thing one day and another thing the next day. Please, by all means, just link to a couple of my posts where I've done this, if you've spotted me doing it. If I have, in fact, done this, I will want to address it, for it would not have been intended.

that's why you see a few of my post singing "here we go round the mulberry bush, mulberry bush, so early in the morning"

I think the reality is that you married yourself to the "Zimmerman is a racist, psycho, gun-nut, paranoid, kill-me-a-nigger cowboy who clearly hunted Martin down in cold blood" position early on and deeply. It's something you have a hard time allowing even the slightest chink in your certainty. You claim uncertainty on the one hand, and then on the other you say you know Zimmerman is paranoid and psycho.

You at one time said he was directed to stay in his car, when he wasn't. You quoted NBC's transcript that was doctored to make him sound racist. You state that he attacked Martin, and don't allow even for the possibility that Martin did the attacking. And, then, it doesn't even matter to you, in some of your posts, who attacked whom. Zimmerman stepping out of his car is enough to attribute guilt, as far as you're concerned.

I've not asked you to accept my analysis of the events as "true." I've only asked you to consider it, and perhaps to accept that it is a reasonable possibility. And, if it's a reasonable possibility, perhaps at this time, pending further evidence, you may have reasonable doubt.

[kiki5711]

kiki, have you ever heard of logical fallacies? If so, would you define for me your understanding of what they are and why some people consider them to be important?

yes, it is in coitos every post.

That's not really answering my question. What is your understanding of what logical fallacies are? What is their use and their importance?

it means the person is playing merry go round with words, twisting them, manipulating them to make it sound like their line of reasoning is the right one , eventually totally straying off to one bit of the subject to another that in the end it cannot be discussed any more.

PERFECT example coitos response right above this one.

[maiforpeace]

Profound ignorance? That sounds like a personal attack to me.

Come on CES, you can do better than that.

[Coito ergo sum]

PERFECT example coitos response right above this one.

You see a logical fallacy there?

By all means, kiki, apply your towering intellect, and let's hear what you think is/are the logical fallacy(ies) rife therein.

My guess is it'll be something like, "the whole thing -- it's all fallacies." LOL.

Where you go wrong, kiki, is mistaking logic and reason for fallacies. You seem to be used to the following format of a logical argument: (a) arbitrary and prejudiced assumptions + (b) emotional predisposition = (c) immutable conclusion gripped like a dog to a bone. When faced with actual if/then logic, and syllogisms, your circuits seem to go haywire.

[Coito ergo sum]

Profound ignorance? That sounds like a personal attack to me.

Come on CES, you can do better than that.

I was going to bash her as "creepy" or "giving me the willies." Would that be better?

[Coito ergo sum]

Shit...most people are starting to think it was self-defense? http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... was_murder

I wonder if there is a racial divide like in the OJ trial...

[kiki5711]

Where you go wrong, kiki, is mistaking logic and reason for fallacies. You seem to be used to the following format of a logical argument: (a) arbitrary and prejudiced assumptions + (b) emotional predisposition = (c) immutable conclusion gripped like a dog to a bone. When faced with actual if/then logic, and syllogisms, your circuits seem to go haywi

how strange,but that's exactly how I see you.

Perception.

Same thing zimmerman had of martin on that night. "PERCEPTION" was he right, or was he wrong? did his "perception of martin lead him to a good outcome or bad outcome?

zimmerman was on mood altering medication which could have something to do how he perceived martin that night bordering paranoia..

why didn't he just shout out "hey man, how ya doing, everything allright", then, based on martin's reaction, could make a better judgment as to what to do next, after all he had a gun..

I also wonder how martin ended up face down with zimm straddling him, when he was shot in the chest? most people would fall back.

[kiki5711]

By all means, kiki, apply your towering intellect, and let's hear what you think is/are the logical fallacy(ies) rife therein

This right here shows that you have a certain perception of me. and the tone of it sounds very cynical

[Coito ergo sum]

Where you go wrong, kiki, is mistaking logic and reason for fallacies. You seem to be used to the following format of a logical argument: (a) arbitrary and prejudiced assumptions + (b) emotional predisposition = (c) immutable conclusion gripped like a dog to a bone. When faced with actual if/then logic, and syllogisms, your circuits seem to go haywi

how strange,but that's exactly how I see you.

Only one of us is right.

Perception.

Same thing zimmerman had of martin on that night. "PERCEPTION" was he right, or was he wrong? did his "perception of martin lead him to a good outcome or bad outcome?

You see, here is where you go awry -- well, here is another example of where you go awry. This doesn't relate to the claim of self-defense. Even if his perception was wrong, isn't there still reasonable doubt as to his guilt, at this time? He got out of his car while talking to 911. Martin ran off. Zimmerman walked around. Somehow, we don't know exactly how, they wound up together where the incident occurred. We don't know who started the fight. What we do know through a witness and Zimmerman's wounds is that Martin was punching Zimmerman in the face and Zimmerman was injured with cuts to his head and black eyes and a broken nose. Martin was not injured except for his knuckles.

Even if Martin wasn't doing anything other than walking on the sidewalk holding skittles, and Zimmerman had no reason to call 911, isn't there still the same reasonable doubt as to self-defense?

zimmerman was on mood altering medication which could have something to do how he perceived martin that night bordering paranoia..

By your "logic" if someone misperceives someone else as suspicious and goes out and asks what they are doing in the neighborhood, then if a fight ensues, there can be no self-defense because of the original misperception. If you think that makes logical sense, then, well, you're just flat wrong. That's not a question of "perception." It's you not thinking logically.

why didn't he just shout out "hey man, how ya doing, everything allright", then, based on martin's reaction, could make a better judgment as to what to do next, after all he had a gun..

Perhaps a better course of action. But, by calling 911, he tried to get the police involved instead. When did Zimmerman lose his right to self-defense?

I also wonder how martin ended up face down with zimm straddling him, when he was shot in the chest? most people would fall back.

The forensics will tell for sure, but he could get shot in the chest and fall forward and Zimmerman would have to roll out from under him, changing Martin's position. And, it would be hard to fall back when you're on your knees leaning over the person you're punching. Unless Martin was standing, I think it would be difficult for him to fall back. He probably wound up on his face when Zimmerman had to shove him to get him off of him, rolling him over. That's just my guess based on the positions they would be in if the witness who says Martin was pummelling Zimmerman is right. If Martin was standing, then the fall would be different.

[Coito ergo sum]

By all means, kiki, apply your towering intellect, and let's hear what you think is/are the logical fallacy(ies) rife therein

This right here shows that you have a certain perception of me. and the tone of it sounds very cynical

I'll wait for you to identify the logical fallacies.

My perception of you is based on your posts.