• 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!

Tax Dollars to pay for Trayvon Martin Hoodie

Zimmerman: innocent until proven guilty.

Martin: guilty until proven innocent.

Had he lived, Martin would have been presumed innocent until a jury of his peers had convicted him. He would deserve no less justice than was afforded to Zimmerman. This animosity you have toward him is unfounded, given that only he and Zimmerman know what happened that night. That gives me pause to wonder what the basis behind your animosity really is.

Let's be serious now.... People's opinions don't follow the rules of a court of law. GZ was guilty in the eyes of a lot of people before he was even arrested.
 
Smithsonian Eyes Trayvon Martin Hoodie for Museum Exhibit - ABC News

I find this sickening and outrageous. This thug's clothing is to be put on display at our national museum
and our tax dollars going to pay for this criminals "hoodie" is pathetic. I hope someone tosses green paint
all over this one.

Well, I think it depends on how they intend to display it. It did become a huge public issue. As long as they present it is that manner, and not with bias, I'm OK with it.
 
He's stating that because GZ's wasn't convicted, then TM assaulted him. Its not completely backed up by evidence since TM isn't alive to stand trial for such an accusation, but it certainly is a plausible explanation. Its difficult to quantify exactly what deserves a "thug" label, but if TM indeed did assault GZ unprovoked I certainly wouldn't consider those the actions of an angel. Just because you don't buy the argument doesn't mean you get to call him prejudiced. You don't know that he came to that conclusion due to prejudiced thinking or rational thinking, that's just your conjecture. That was all, I just get irritated when I see people throw around terms like "bigot" "prejudiced" or "racist" on a constant basis. Attack the argument, not the person behind it.


I am not saying it isn't a possibility. The very point I continue to make is that we don't know. The problem here is when anyone, regardless of the position they take, makes an assumption and then runs with it. Building one assumption on top of another until you basically have fiction and then you judge people based on that fiction. ( I didn't call him prejudice I said his post was rife with prejudice. )
 
I am not saying it isn't a possibility. The very point I continue to make is that we don't know. The problem here is when anyone, regardless of the position they take, makes an assumption and then runs with it. Building one assumption on top of another until you basically have fiction and then you judge people based on that fiction. ( I didn't call him prejudice I said his post was rife with prejudice. )

I believe your exact words were something along the lines of "you don't understand the prejudice that permeates your thinking"
 
I believe your exact words were something along the lines of "you don't understand the prejudice that permeates your thinking"

Okay then if so, and I won't challenge you, I did not make the distinction clearly enough. I really try, and admittedly fail miserably often, to point out the quality being exhibited in a specific statement and not label the individual.
 
Maybe they will come to call it the "Shroud of Trayvon."
 
Back
Top Bottom