• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

George Zimmerman in custody

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thunder said:
you appear to have great difficulty understanding other's logic.
Click to expand...

you have repeatedly stated that if martin felt frightened by zimmerman following him, that proves zimmerman was being provocative and intimidating. zimmerman's action are therefore irrelevant, all that matters is how martin "felt" about them.

therefore, if I notice some guy walking behind me on the sidewalk and it makes me feel frightened, then he is provoking me regardless of what his intentions are.
 
Thunder said:
um, how is accusing someone of idiocy, an example of honest debate?

such hypocrisy is astounding.
Click to expand...

how is constantly accsuing someone of lying simply because you believe they are lying an example of honest debate?
 
OscarB63 said:
you have repeatedly stated that if martin felt frightened by zimmerman following him, that proves zimmerman was being provocative and intimidating.....
Click to expand...

that is a lie.

I have never stated such a thing.

Zimmerman's actions were intimidating & provocative REGARDLESS of how Martin interpreted them.
 
Thunder said:
and that is due to folks claiming that Zimmerman was justified in being suspicious of Martin, due to the fact that there had been numerous burglaries in Sanford by young black men.

I didn't set the context, I'm only following it.
Click to expand...


irrelevant, your reason for doing so doesn't matter. you clearly claimed you don't and now you admitted you do. both cannot be true, so one of your statements must be a lie.
 
OscarB63 said:
irrelevant, your reason for doing so doesn't matter....
Click to expand...

bull****.

if the context of a conversation evolves, my comments can evolve with them.

and they will continue to do so.

if you bring this conversation to another level, I am justified in responding in kind.
 
muciti said:
Answer a simple question for me. Are you capable of having an honest debate on the subject? Looking for a yes or no answer here.
Click to expand...

yes. Very much so.

but maybe this a question YOU should be answering, rather than making constant personal attacks.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
how is lying about someone's accusations of lying, an example of honest debate?
Click to expand...

to quote....well....YOU..."If I believe something is a lie, I shall call it a lie" reality isn't relevant...only what I believe
 
Thunder said:
bull****.

if the context of a conversation evolves, my comments can evolve with them.

and they will continue to do so.

if you bring this conversation to another level, I am justified in responding in kind.
Click to expand...

the context of the conversation hasn't changed. I accused you of thinking zimmerman only followed martin because he was black. you emphatically stated that you don't think that. now you have stated that zimmerman's suspicion of martin was because martin was black.

what exactly has changed?
 
OscarB63 said:
to quote....well....YOU..."If I believe something is a lie, I shall call it a lie" reality isn't relevant...only what I believe
Click to expand...

yeah, if I believe you are lying...I shall say you are lying. And I will say why.

unlike some other folks, who just dish out accusations of lying like candy.
 
OscarB63 said:
the context of the conversation hasn't changed. I accused you of thinking zimmerman only followed martin because he was black. you emphatically stated that you don't think that. now you have stated that zimmerman's suspicion of martin was because martin was black.

what exactly has changed?
Click to expand...

the context has changed.

you guys are arguing that Zimmerman was justified in being suspicous and following Martin, because he was a young black man.

so, I have responded in kind.

don't change the context if you don't want others to follow suit.
 
muciti said:
Then do it. Stick to the topic.
Click to expand...

I am sticking to the topic. You are the one who keeps asking me about supposed lies I have made, without any evidence they are lies.

Practise what you preach, lead by example, and we will be ok...you and I.
 
OscarB63 said:
so, since he abandoned the training, we can assume he never completed the training and therefore was not an official member of neighborhood watch and as such...was not bound by their regulations?
Click to expand...
No, you can't assume he never completed his training. But he was trained to "observe from a safe distance." And again, he is not legally bound by neighborhood watch protocols. Afterall, they are nothing more than guidelines to protect everyone's safety. But when you violate them, you are being negligent and that can have repercussions.

OscarB63 said:
you may then call him a "vigilante" if you want, but you cannot blast him for not following protocols he was under no obligation to follow
Click to expand...
Vigilante, huh?

Poor choice of words on your part ... that was exactly the training he received ...

Police volunteer program coordinator Wendy Dorival said she met Zimmerman in September at a community neighborhood watch presentation.

“I said, ‘If it’s someone you don’t recognize, call us. We’ll figure it out,’ ” Dorival said. “‘Observe from a safe location.’ There’s even a slide about not being vigilante police. I don’t know how many more times I can repeat it.”
 
Thunder said:
I am sticking to the topic. You are the one who keeps asking me about supposed lies I have made, without any evidence they are lies.

Practise what you preach, lead by example, and we will be ok...you and I.
Click to expand...

First off I have shown you evidence of your lying by citing your own text and explaining it. But i dont want to get in to your constant denials and inability to accept being wrong again. Stick to the topic, i shall and move along.

So then explain to me why Zimmerman was wrong for suspecting Martin.
 
muciti said:
First off I have shown you evidence of your lying by citing your own text and explaining it. But i dont want to get in to your constant denials and inability to accept being wrong again.....
Click to expand...

You don't get to demand someone else stick to the topic, and then insist on once again discussing their supposed lies, supposed denials, and supposed inability to accept being wrong.

You don't get to have your cake and eat it to. This is one of the reasons why I call you a hypocrite.

Practise what you preach, and lead by example.
 
Thunder said:
yeah, if I believe you are lying...I shall say you are lying. And I will say why.

unlike some other folks, who just dish out accusations of lying like candy.
Click to expand...

I have yet to see you offer any explanation of why you think someone is lying. other than to just state "you are wrong" or "you're lying"
 
Thunder said:
You don't get to demand someone else stick to the topic, and then insist on once again discussing their supposed lies, supposed denials, and supposed inability to accept being wrong.

You don't get to have your cake and eat it to. This is one of the reasons why I call you a hypocrite.

Practise what you preach, and lead by example.
Click to expand...

So you are not going to discuss the Martin case. Guess i am going back to ignoring you.
 
Thunder said:
You don't get to demand someone else stick to the topic, and then insist on once again discussing their supposed lies, supposed denials, and supposed inability to accept being wrong.

You don't get to have your cake and eat it to. This is one of the reasons why I call you a hypocrite.

Practise what you preach, and lead by example.
Click to expand...

for the love of mike, take your own advice for once in your life
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
No, you can't assume he never completed his training. But he was trained to "observe from a safe distance." And again, he is not legally bound by neighborhood watch protocols. Afterall, they are nothing more than guidelines to protect everyone's safety. But when you violate them, you are being negligent and that can have repercussions.


Vigilante, huh?

Poor choice of words on your part ... that was exactly the training he received ...

Police volunteer program coordinator Wendy Dorival said she met Zimmerman in September at a community neighborhood watch presentation.

“I said, ‘If it’s someone you don’t recognize, call us. We’ll figure it out,’ ” Dorival said. “‘Observe from a safe location.’ There’s even a slide about not being vigilante police. I don’t know how many more times I can repeat it.”
Click to expand...

I only used "vigilante" because I have seen it used often in these threads. if zimmerman was not acting as a member of NW....then he could reasonably be considered a vigilante by some.

don't try to read more into the choice of wording than was intended
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom