Zimmerman TrialFollow

Just for clarification, that was in reference to admission of ignorance. I apologize for maturing earlier in life prior to this forum where change wasn't necessary.



You do realize that I'm arguing that I admit to being ignorant and or possibly WRONG in discussions right? Even though you only have a few posts, I assume that you're not new to the Internet; however, your statement says otherwise. My advice to you is to sit down and drink a small glass of STFU.

Edited, Jul 25th 2013 10:20pm by Almalieque

Alma, I stopped arguing with you for two reasons:

1. I've been very busy at work and haven't had much time to post.

2. After the 4th or 5th time of telling someone "I'm arguing X and not Y", only to have him demand that you prove Y, there's not much point in continuing.


Oh. Elinda? The reason your use of the word "child" is pandering is because there are several age based terms that can be applied to Martin: Minor, child, and teen spring immediately to mind. You chose the one that is the least accurate and the most likely to draw an emotional reaction. The word child suggests a person who is relatively unable to take care of themselves and therefore must be looked out after by someone else. If someone says "Help! My child has wandered off and I can't find him!", you would likely assume the child referred to is young enough that wandering out of sight of the parent is actually a problem. If it later turned out that the child was actually 17 years old, you'd also think that the parent intentionally mislead you with their word choice.

Martin was 17 years old. Hardly helpless. Hardly incapable of walking down the street without holding his parents hand. Calling him a child in this case is a clear attempt to draw upon the reaction to the word in a situation where it really doesn't apply.


Oh (don't even remember who said this). Martin wasn't simply trying to get home when he was shot. He was actively committing felony assault when he was shot. Can we at least get that much straight? Everyone seems to want to focus on the walking home part, but he wasn't shot because he was walking home, or because of what sorts of candy or beverages he was carrying, or what sort of clothes he was wearing. He was shot because he was straddling someone, pinning them to the ground, and punching them in the face. That's a pretty important fact to continually "forget" about.

Go on...

Um... Because in that context, the word "child" doesn't refer to age. Minor does. Meaning a "child under the age of 18" rather than a "child over the age of 18". You do understand that "child" can also simply mean that one person is the offspring of another, right?

"My child", or "his/her/their child" refers to relation, not age. "A child" tends to suggest both youth and helplessness. Which is why using it to describe Martin is less about accuracy than it is about pandering to an emotional response to the shooting. Why do you suppose the Martin family lawyer had them use photos from when he was like 12 to put out in the media initially? Same thing. To make people think Trayvon Martin was helpless against Zimmerman and thus could not possibly have been an aggressor and could not have done anything to justify being shot and killed.

I'll take that as a sudden realization that if "child" and "minor" were actually complete synonyms, there would be no reason to use a phrase like "minor child" in a legal document.

That's garbage. You said that Martin could have been doing anything. I asked for clarification that since Martin could have been doing "anything", then that means that there is no evidence, proof or facts that supports that he was doing a crime. That's literally what you said. That's not asking for proof.

Furthermore, you can't allude that someone was about to commit a crime in an argument, then expect not to defend your statement.

You: "After killing Nelson, Kendra perhaps stole the jewels"
Me: "What makes you think Kendra stole the jewels?"
You: "That's not the point!!! I'm arguing that Kendra killed Nelson!!
Me: "So why did you say that Kendra stole the jewels?"
You: "I said "perhaps", Kendra could have been doing anything!"
Me: "So, Kendra could have been doing anything and you have no facts to support her stealing the jewels?"
You: "Stop making me substantiate my claims!"

Break off, break off!


Dayum, too late.

Edited, Jul 26th 2013 12:59pm by lolgaxe

So, as I just said. You are saying that there is no evidence, facts or proof to support the notion that Martin was about to commit a crime?

Well you know, that's the best time to rob someone, when everyone is inside their house.