Trayvon's avengers

[rosey]

Since the young Trayvon Martin was shot by George Zimmerman, African Americans have been getting revenge for his death... on Caucasians. Why are they beating up white people? Zimmerman is Hispanic.
They beat up this guy,

http://www2.wkrg.com/news/2012/apr/23/2 ... r-3659891/

A couple days ago some boys beat up a 19 year old white kid, "For Trayon."

And some more African American boys beat up real bad a 80 year old white man.

WHY?

[WinePusher]

Im still waiting on those links felix.

And you can keep on waiting until Felix chooses to post at his leisure. You probably wouldn't know this, but people on this forum have lives. I would simply suggest that Felix post whenever he wants to, not whenever you want him to. If his time frame doesn't match yours you're just going to have to deal with it or 'find another forum' where time limits are enforced. And it generally doesn't reflect to well on yourself to derail threads with meaningless posts like this where you're complaining about how long it's taking another poster to respond, try pming him next time.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 16:

JoeyKnothead, If I told you to avoid contact with fire because "a flame is 2000 degrees, or some wildly hot temperature", it would be insipid for you to ask for a link documenting the temperature of a flame. If you don't know fire's hot or if you think the precise temperature is relevant, then you're not competent to challenge me on it. Just the same as you objecting that I didn't provide a link for crime statistics.

But that ain't what you said. Fire does not equal race, best I can tell.

The fact that black crime is disproportionate, especially when it comes to interracial crime, is widely known and easily verifiable. However, anyone the wrong end of debate is going to look for any excuse to sidetrack the debate.

That's rich, considering your comments above.

I seek to determine how we may rely on your subjective determination that such a condition is "wildly disproportionate".

When you decide to be sincere...

When all else fails, accuse the challenger of insincerity.

How might'n one's sincerity allow us to confirm the validity of your argument?

let me know.

Given that you use an ad hom attack to question my sincerity, I can reasonably and logically conclude that if I do "let you know", you may well refuse to accept me telling ya I am.

Liberalism is an inherently disingenuous philosophy.

And ad hom attacks are so much more "inherently genuous"

Let me help you get your research started:
http://www.google.com/search?sugexp=chr ... acial+rape

I 'pologize if my request for you to support your contentions has caused you such distress.

Please explain to us how a link to a google search supports your contentions.

About that 'pologizin' I just did? I wasn't "sincere"

[MyReality]

Im still waiting on those links felix.

And you can keep on waiting until Felix chooses to post at his leisure. You probably wouldn't know this, but people on this forum have lives. I would simply suggest that Felix post whenever he wants to, not whenever you want him to. If his time frame doesn't match yours you're just going to have to deal with it or 'find another forum' where time limits are enforced. And it generally doesn't reflect to well on yourself to derail threads with meaningless posts like this where you're complaining about how long it's taking another poster to respond, try pming him next time.

If you make a claim, than support it. He made a claim that i have no knowledge of happening. I honestly want to know if what he said was true. Why in the world is that wrong?

I'm sure you realized he originally responded to a post that I made?

Shouldn't you follow your own advice since your comment is a personal problem and has nothing to do with the topic of the thread?

[Felix]

And you can keep on waiting until Felix chooses to post at his leisure.

I won't be providing any links.

If he's familiar with the issue, he should already know most of what I've summed up. Anything he doesn't know, he can easily confirm on his own. If there was something specific he wanted a link for, I'd provide it, provided he demonstrated that it would make a difference. It would be foolish of me to cave to a dishonest demand and provide him with the "proof" for something he should already know, just for him to then declare that proof to be irrelevant.

Here's how it would go: <link> "Martin was under suspension for marijuana possession at school, at the time of his encounter with Zimmerman." Reply, "It's irrelevant", explained witlessly as, "The bag only had marijuana residue when it was found."

If he wants to attempt to refute any of these facts which should already be considered in evidence, he can do that. That would not only strengthen his case, but it would harm my credibility.

If wants to present evidence for Martin's good character, he can also do that. I'd like to see him try.

You're right, I do have a life. And, I regret it doesn't give me more time to polish my posts. With my limited time, I have to make decisions on where to spend that time.

You're also right in seeing the demand for links as an effort to derail the debate. It's a dishonest tactic of someone who doesn't have a winning position.

[Felix]

But that ain't what you said. Fire does not equal race, best I can tell.

I see you don't understand the concept of an analogy.

I seek to determine how we may rely on your subjective determination that such a condition is "wildly disproportionate".

I gave an objective number along with that that subjective (yet completely reasonable) term, so that you wouldn't have to "rely on the subjective determination." You're also free to counter with your own objective, even subjective, determination. But, you chose the path of naked disingenuity.

When all else fails, accuse the challenger of insincerity.

I was being kind.

Nothing in your post addresses the subject. So much for any pretense of sincerity on your part. We're off-topic.

[East of Eden]

And you can keep on waiting until Felix chooses to post at his leisure.

I won't be providing any links.

If he's familiar with the issue, he should already know most of what I've summed up. Anything he doesn't know, he can easily confirm on his own. If there was something specific he wanted a link for, I'd provide it, provided he demonstrated that it would make a difference. It would be foolish of me to cave to a dishonest demand and provide him with the "proof" for something he should already know, just for him to then declare that proof to be irrelevant.

Here's how it would go: <link> "Martin was under suspension for marijuana possession at school, at the time of his encounter with Zimmerman." Reply, "It's irrelevant", explained witlessly as, "The bag only had marijuana residue when it was found."

If he wants to attempt to refute any of these facts which should already be considered in evidence, he can do that. That would not only strengthen his case, but it would harm my credibility.

If wants to present evidence for Martin's good character, he can also do that. I'd like to see him try.

You're right, I do have a life. And, I regret it doesn't give me more time to polish my posts. With my limited time, I have to make decisions on where to spend that time.

You're also right in seeing the demand for links as an effort to derail the debate. It's a dishonest tactic of someone who doesn't have a winning position.

You know the drill here.

[otseng]

And you can keep on waiting until Felix chooses to post at his leisure.

I won't be providing any links.

Moderator Comment

It is perfectly legitimate to ask someone to support any claims made in a topic. And providing a search query is not supporting a claim.

This is a debating forum, not a place where we all just have a casual discussion about various topics. Though we do all live busy lives, we also need to be careful of what we say on the forum. If anyone makes a claim here, he better be able to back up that claim. It doesn't necessarily needs to be provided "immediately", but it should be presented as soon as one can.

Further, saying that someone who requests such evidence is not a "dishonest tactic", but is part and parcel of debating here.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

[Felix]

We know that many people have been crying for blood, and that controversy has and could contribute to causing countless crimes. What's the difference between this woman crying for blood vs. her supporters crying for blood? Isn't she providing the pretense of moral outrage, especially by hooking up with a professional race hustler, to fuel those cries for blood? And, have you heard her criticize anyone for calling for blood, or of any Martin supporters drawing blood?

You might as well express your respect and admiration for Hitler. He didn't himself kill millions of people and you never heard him say that the Jews should be exterminated. Do you really think this woman bears no guilt for the crimes already committed by her supporters and for the riots that will follow the verdict, and for the heavy damage this case has done to racial relations?

A good parent probably wouldn't have raised a bad character like Martin. A good person would have accepted that her bad son was shot because he attacked someone. Even a half-decent person wouldn't have hooked up with Al Sharpton, for any reason. And, when Zimmerman is found not guilty, she'll denounce the verdict and call for federal prosecution.

Before i respond to this, can you please link a few sites that quote the mother screaming for vigilante justice or something to that extent?

Another reason to not provide links is that I'm not going to provide links to claims I haven't made.

I'm sorry sound reason is wasted on MyReality. Pointing out that the mother contributes to others "screaming for vigilante justice" (not my phrase) is not at all saying she's doing to herself. The issue here is one of moral culpability. By asking for such a link, he shows that he didn't understand anything in the whole post that he was replying to.

To the moderator, it's completely reasonable in debate to have an opponent stipulate relevancy of an alleged fact, before heeding a request to support that fact.

[MyReality]

I have only read her with being patient with the court system and have yet to hear her make any outcries for blood.

We know that many people have been crying for blood, and that controversy has and could contribute to causing countless crimes. What's the difference between this woman crying for blood vs. her supporters crying for blood? Isn't she providing the pretense of moral outrage, especially by hooking up with a professional race hustler, to fuel those cries for blood? And, have you heard her criticize anyone for calling for blood, or of any Martin supporters drawing blood?

You might as well express your respect and admiration for Hitler. He didn't himself kill millions of people and you never heard him say that the Jews should be exterminated. Do you really think this woman bears no guilt for the crimes already committed by her supporters and for the riots that will follow the verdict, and for the heavy damage this case has done to racial relations?

A good parent probably wouldn't have raised a bad character like Martin. A good person would have accepted that her bad son was shot because he attacked someone. Even a half-decent person wouldn't have hooked up with Al Sharpton, for any reason. And, when Zimmerman is found not guilty, she'll denounce the verdict and call for federal prosecution.

These are claims that you made. Outrageous claims that i ask be backed up with supporting evidence. So provide your evidence for these claims or retract these statements. Also your Hitler comparison is so faulty its sickening.

[Angel]

That is because the media wants a 'man-bites-dog' story, not a 'dog-bites-man' story. I'm not being racist. Stats show African Americans attack, kill, and rape Caucasians 7 times more than the other way around. So when a non black kills an African American, it's big news.

I think you're right. Black-on-white violent crime is 40 times that of white-on-black (or some such wildly disproportionate number). The Liberal media has an agenda "reverse discrimination" to achieve "equality". The Liberal media doesn't want blacks to be thought of as disproportional guilty of interracial crimes. To that end, crimes by blacks against whites are ignored, while crimes (often just alleged) crimes by whites against blacks are hyped.

The Liberal media is dishonest, and I don't think dishonesty is justified even with good intentions. And, I think these intentions make things worse. I think of all the blacks that go out and commit crimes, or otherwise sabotage their own lives, out of hatred against whites taught to them by the Liberal media. And, I think of the whites are moved to hate blacks by disproportionate destructive black behavior and the unfair response by the media.

Zimmerman has an admirable history in the area of race relations and of fighting crime. Martin has a history that the Liberal media prefers you not to know about. And, Martin, that fateful night, attacked Zimmerman.... the Liberal media knows this, that's why when you're not hearing that Zimmerman attacked Martin, you're hearing that Martin's attack on Zimmerman was justified, rather than hearing that attacking someone for looking at you is a good way to get yourself shot.

I believe that both Zimmerman and Trayvon were involved in a fight but there's no evidence to show who attacked who first. I'd want to know the condition of Trayvon's body and if he has any bruises, etc. Also, we know that George Zimmerman wasn't merely just looking, he was also following Trayvon. Eventually, Zimmerman actually confronted and questioned Trayvon according to the one witness (Trayvon's girlfriend) who actually heard part of the encounter right before the fight started. What else happened? Was Zimmerman so overjealous that he actually try to detain the kid like those wanna-be-cops or did Trayvon try to play play though and not back down and even take a swing at Zimmerman? Only MORE evidence can determine this. So far Felix you've given none to establish it either way.

Part of Trayvon girlfriend's statement:
""Trayvon said, 'What are you following me for,' and the man said, 'What are you doing here.' Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again, and he didn't answer the phone."

Source for the quote: http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin ... d=15959017