Watermelon Juice and Skittles Used To Make Intoxicant For Aggressive Behavior?

Proof by verbosity much?

In a democratic society, our lawmakers tend to be elected officials - whom we elect (presumably) on the basis of their alignment to our own values and morals, as subjective as they may be.
As such, these "principles and regulations" are indirectly established by the general public on the basis of their cumulative subjective opinion.
The idea that you do not understand this basic correlation is somewhat unlikely, given that you do appear reasonably articulate and educated. I suspect you choose not to acknowledge it simply because admitting error is not conducive to an overinflated ego.

 

I said I was bowing out, but given this post of yours, I'm retracting that and will continue, overlooking any personal attacks here in this thread by you or myself and attempting to get this back into a semi-neutral tone of discussion.

Your argument is pointing out that a democratic society (not technically a pure democracy, actually more of a constitutional republic), subjective morality is legislated via elected officials. So by that logic, subjective morality has been legislated with regard to the laws surrounding this case and subjective morality led to the establishment of the court system, which coincidentally all led to Zimmerman being found "not guilty." So to support your position prior, which discussed subjective principles of "justice" and "innocence," it seems that your argument here supported the subjective nature of how morality ends up being legislated in a representative democracy or constitutional republic, yet another of your previous arguments insisted that justice had not been served, despite that the system worked exactly the way it was intended to based on the way it was constructed by officials elected by the citizens--and you have now recently just defended the very notion of the system being the result of individuals electing officials who mostly align with their own personal views.

I'm curious then, considering that we have established that "justice" is a subjective principle and one man's justice is another man's injustice, yet the justice system in terms of criminal court was established by officials elected by citizens (a notion your argument seemed to be in favor of), how then can you think "justice" was not served in the "not guilty" verdict for Zimmerman? Is it only because you personally disagree with the verdict? Considering that the officials elected constructed the system to work how it did, the citizen jurors deliberated and came to the verdict based on the evidence presented, what other possible logical reason could there be for the claim that "justice" has not been done--that the justice system did not function properly? Do recall as I pointed out, there is no "colloquial" definition for the term "justice" in the dictionary, and that led to you bolstering the concept that such subjective terms are still a part of the system as they are legislated and the system constructed and tweaked by officials elected by people who share similar values.

 

So you believe that everything designed by man always functions as it should?

 

So your counter to my direct question is to avoid answering the question entirely and then ask a question of your own without even so much as acknowledging the question I asked? I asked a question which remains thus far unanswered. Answer my question and then I will return the favor.

 

Your long-winded question, as I understand it, is effectively this:
"If lawmakers are elected on the basis of how aligned they are to our collective subjective morals, then why are not all laws and legal outcomes aligned to those collective subjective morals?"

The answer is very simple... because human beings are not capable of building anything that will work perfectly 100% of the time.
A clock designed to keep time, may lose or gain time. A car designed for transport may occasionally break down. A schooling system designed to educate the youth may occasionally allow individual students to "fall through the cracks"...

In other words, my answer to your unnecessarily verbose question is well presented by pointing out - in question form or any other - that not everything designed by man functions exactly as it was designed to at all times.

You are intelligent enough to have gotten the point, I don't understand why your need to control the format of the conversation is so great that you feel the need to be intellectually dishonest in presenting my response as an evasion.

 

I guess my attempt to keep things at least relatively neutral failed, as you are completely opposed to showing the slightest bit of decorum and refraining from resorting to personal attacks and rudeness. So be it. I'm done with you, I was willing to overlook past rudeness and continue for the sake of debate, but it's clear that you are not willing to attempt to maintain any kind of neutral atmosphere and will continue to resort to petty jabs and absurdity, which renders any continued participation of mine in this back and forth entirely counter-productive.

Zimmerman was found "not guilty" by a jury of his peers, the evidence was presented by both the prosecution and the defense, no amount of arguing you do here or anywhere will change that. And just a question you might want to ask yourself. You're so convinced that justice wasn't served and you're so convinced your argument is accurate and correct regarding the claim that justice wasn't served, but if your argument is supposedly so clearly accurate, then why did the prosecution not utilize any of the points you made? Why did the professional legal team not bring up any of the allegedly valid points you have here and what's more, why were they unsuccessful in demonstrating Zimmerman's guilt of second degree murder or manslaughter. Oh that's right, because claims without evidence don't actually work in a court of law. Enjoy yourself.

 

As you've taken such great joy in pointing out, there is a difference between colloquial innocence and lack of guilt in relation to the exact wording of the law. The hands of a jury are bound by the wording of the law. My point is that Zimmerman is not "innocent" in the colloquial sense used on these forums, and that the law was not fit-to-purpose in this case.
You know my point, and choose to evade it because you've invested too much ego in "being right" over the course of this conversation. My pointing that out is not "personal attack and rudeness" any more than your constant use of "duly noted" and other such terms are in place to illicit a reaction (hence making them flame-bait)...

 

Legally they are bound by the law, yes, though I would be surprised if anyone actually thought that every single jury ever appointed to a case followed the instructions and interpretation of the law as given to them by the judge in every single court case in history.

Your assertion that everyone on this forum who has countered the argument that Zimmerman is "innocent" was using the colloquial sense of the word is amusing, as it seems to be implying that you are somehow clairvoyant and know what other people are thinking and the specific way they intended to use a term. Also, you have yet to explain how the law was not "fit-to-purpose" in this case. How was the law in this case any different from any other criminal trial? The prosecution presented their evidence and failed to meet the "beyond reasonable doubt" criteria. The defense presented their evidence and went far above and beyond meeting the preponderance of evidence criteria for establishing reasonable doubt. You have not yet explained how the law wasn't "fit-to-purpose" in this case. Your posts have utilized a lot of emotional subjective hyperbole in support of such a theory, but nothing concrete, no facts, no logical explanation.

I don't invest ego in conversations on the internet, your assertion regarding that is asinine and again, it would appear you are claiming a supernatural ability to read into the minds, thoughts and intentions of others. How whimsically jocose. Your act of "pointing out" your own utterly incorrect assertions regarding what you inaccurately perceive to be characteristics, traits or intentions of mine is in violation of the forum rules, actually, yes--especially when accusations of an over-inflated ego and being intellectually dishonest are applied directly to my person rather than my stance, position, argument or post. It violates the "no personal attacks" and "discuss the post, not the poster" rule and the reason for that is that it is nothing more than a wordy grade-school playground jab. Me simply stating that something has been "duly noted" is nothing more than an exclamation that I have noted something, it is not "in place to illicit a reaction," you are welcome to continue incorrectly perceiving it that way and getting bent out of shape about such comments, but it is not a noted form of "flamebait," it is simply a statement of action on my part. I realize it is likely that you would really love for the forum rules to bend and twist for you and be rigid and come down on anyone you are debating against, but sometimes--actually often--it just doesn't work that way, sorry to disappoint.

 

So, now you're saying we should expect the legal system to not work? Doesn't this contradict your earlier position that we should expect the legal system to perform as designed?

The assertion that people generally communicate colloquially is so self-evident as to be redundant, given the definition of 'colloquial'.

I believe I have explained my position that the legal system is in place to promote justice, which is based on collective morality. I have also explained why I do not believe that Zimmerman is "innocent" in the colloquial - morality based - sense of the term. What is it you're not understanding?

Let me get this straight... If I state belief that you're intelligent enough to understand my point, and are only missing it because you are intentionally being argumentative, I'm insulting you?
While we're at it, when I indicated that any statements from me that you are being intentionally argumentative (rather than inherently obtuse) is no more an insult than your catch phrases (eg: "duly noted", "thanks in advance", etc) which appear to serve no purpose beyond flame baiting - I'm "bending the rules"?

I disagree with the conclusions you've reached with your "supernatural ability to read into the minds, thoughts and intentions of others."

 

Your stance just can't help but use the strawman format in response to an argument, can it? You just must not be able to avoid making strawman implications of what someone is "saying" regardless of whether that has actually been said or not. Pretty much every single one of your arguments thus far has thrown this logically fallacious argument format out on the table, it denotes a lack of intellectual honesty in your position and posts. Don't take anything from my point other than what has explicitly been said, doing that is the straw man, a form of the ad hominem logical fallacy.

Given how many people on this forum have also specifically debated legal wording and given that it is a political forum, it is still absurd to generalize regarding what use of a word people are using--legal versus colloquial--especially when there were so many who were clearly debating back and forth specifically about the legal definition of the term.

The justice system is not colloquial. A criminal case is not colloquial. It is legal. Therefore your personal belief that Zimmerman is not "innocent" in the colloquial sense of the term is just as subjective as any other individual's perspective about this or any other case. What is it you're not understanding about mixing and matching and how it doesn't work to mix a colloquial usage of a term with a legal verdict?

First of all:
1. This is a debate forum, the idea of debate is to argue, but having some class is typically something that can be expected of those who wish to do so with any shred of decency and decorum. Therefore implying that being argumentative intentionally is a bad thing on a political forum, a venue to passionately debate and discuss opposing and similar views alike, is utterly absurd.

2. The original words of yours being questioned were not so innocent as "intentionally argumentative," they were terms like "overly-inflated ego" and "intellectually dishonest," and they referred to me as a person, rather than my words, position or post. Like I have already pointed out and by the forum rules, this goes against the forum rules. Whether or not it insults me is irrelevant. It really doesn't, but considering your position was the first to flaunt the forum rules, I just figured I might as well note some inconsistencies and varying degrees of hypocrisy related to your position calling out forum rules "being broken" while quite clearly breaking rules at the same time.

See above response

Please note the line of forum rules text which you quoted a while back which says "just because something appears to serve a negative purpose, it doesn't inherently mean what is said was negative." Terms like "duly noted" and "thanks in advance" are meant to do exactly what they say they're doing, "duly noted" indicates something has been noted--generally mentally. "Thanks in advance" is exactly that, an advance "thank you" for fulfilling a request--often a request for the opposition to support one's argument. It's usually what comes before these terms that could be considered insulting, the terms by themselves hold no inherent insulting value. If someone were to say, "please stop being an idiot, thanks in advance," then obviously it would be insulting. But requests for someone to support their argument are not inherently insulting, you are giving them the only "insulting" value they have to you.

In otherwords, calling out another poster for "having an over-inflated ego" and "being intellectually dishonest" is a violation of the forum rules and can clearly be seen as such because the rules emphasize the importance of not discussing the poster's character or characteristics, but instead the post's character or characteristics. Terms like "thanks in advance" and "duly noted" have no inherent value, but for whatever reason they seem to set you off, despite that my use of them is not intended to do so.

Please quote any portion of my post in which I made an assertion regarding something which a normal person would not know inherently as fact (such as the thoughts or intentions of others without those others having first made those things clear). Portions which relate to things which have been concluded based upon evidence do not meet this classification of your post's poor attempted deflection of alleged clairvoyance.

 

How can a question seeking clarification of your position be a strawman?
While we're at it, how can you simultaneously complain about ad hominem fallcies and/or discussion of the individual rather than the topic while saying such things as "You just must not be able to make...Pretty much every single one of your arguments thus far has....a lack of intellectual honesty in your position and posts..."? Isn't that intellectual dishonesty in the form of hypocrisy?

When someone acknowledges that Zimmerman was found "not guilty" and indicates they do not believe this means he is innocent, they are not debating the legal definition of the term.

As we have discussed, laws are written to establish justice, based on societal norms related to morality. Discussions of morality, and whether the law is able to accomplish it's purpose, is not unreasonable.

Actually, I believe this is a political forum in which people exchange ideas - often resulting in debate. If someone actually makes a valid point, continuing to debate to the contrary is not a trait to be admired.

Aren't some of these the same terms you have thrown back in this very post?
Wouldn't this be a fine example of a tu quoque fallacy?

See above response.

Ok, here you go: "I realize it is likely that you would really love for the forum rules to bend and twist for you and be rigid and come down on anyone you are debating against"

 

Because your question actually has an answer formed as the question, implying that the answer within the question is the correct answer. You're not asking for clarification, that is a clear straw man tactic. If you wish to avoid straw man implications when asking for "clarification," simply pose the question in a manner that requests clarification, not a manner which implies that you already know what the clarification is.

Not really. The only reason I even brought up the forum rules is because your post a ways back was the first to bring them up incorrectly accusing me of breaking them. I just thought it would be amusing to point out the many instances in your posts in which the rules are broken, since it seemed as though your position was one of convenient unawareness of your own guilt in what your posts were inaccurately accusing others of doing. If you hadn't incorrectly called foul in the first place referencing the forum rules, none of this "forum rules" business would have even been on my mind.

When someone acknowledges that Zimmerman was found "not guilty" but states clearly as fact that he is "not innocent," they are either discussing the relatively objective legal definition or they are simply absurdly blanketing their own subjective moral principle over a legal issue and doing exactly what your arguments have been lately--attempting to mix and match a legal verdict with a colloquial term.

No, but the law is as it is in the here and now, it is objective in terms of legality. Its purpose is fulfilled in court cases like the Zimmerman case when there is a fair trial, the prosecution presents their case, the defense presents their case, the judge instructs the jury as to the law surrounding the case, the jury deliberates and a verdict is reached. That is the purpose of the law, that is fulfilling justice as defined by the system--constructed and maintained by elected officials based on societal norms related to their views of morality. Individuals may choose to disagree with that purpose, but their disagreement is subjective and/or misguided with respect to the system currently in place.

What is and what is not a "valid" point is subjective. What you see as a "valid point" others may not. What I see as a "valid point," you may not. This much has already been made clear as I've made several points I would consider to be valid, yet I receive notifications of a response and indeed find that your stance has continued to debate to the contrary.

I accused your position of reflecting intellectual dishonesty, that argument specifically avoids calling you as a person out for intellectual dishonesty. It separates you from your position, arguments and posts and makes things a little less personal.

No, I haven't accused your arguments of inconsistency and claimed that they are to be discredited due to inconsistency. If I've accused your arguments of inconsistency, I've never made it a point to say they are not valid arguments due to their inconsistency.

Something being "likely" to happen is an observation of opinion. See the definitions for the term "likely," especially definitions two and three, they all relate to something "seeming like truth," etc. For a statement to "seem likely" indicates an opinion rather than that statement as if it is fact or will definitely happen.

 

By proposing an answer in the form of a question, I am asking for your view on whether that answer is valid... which is not an uncommon means of communicating when one seeks clarification and/or believes something is being overlooked.
I'm afraid you have no authority to dictate how I phrase my communications, so I will continue to communicate in a manner consistant with normal conversation.

Whether you thought it would be amusing to undertake tu quoque fallacies is irrelevant.

Or, they are asserting a belief regarding societal norms relating to morality - and pointing out their belief that the legal findings were not in line with the collective morality (ie: justice) the laws are designed to provide.
Given that this is a public forum designed to discuss Justice as well as Law, your subjective view that this is "absurdly blanketing their own moral principle" has no bearing on their right to do so.

1) I disagree with the notion that the law is objective in terms of itself, as this is a contradiction of terms.
2) I also never claimed that the court process was undertaken inappropriately, although a case of jury tampering could be made... (http://thenewstalkers.com/forum/topics/new-accusations-against-zimmerman-jurors-as-sheriffs-office)
3) "fulfilling justice as defined by the system--constructed and maintained by elected officials based on societal norms related to their views of morality" is exactly what we're debating... Were Zimmerman's actions - from the time he chose to follow Trayvon until the time he killed him - in accordance with societal norms related to morality?

You now seem to have accepted that "legality" is tied to notions you previously dismissed as "subjective morality" - as per your above description of how the legal system is created through societal norms related to views of morality - yet continue (as above) to dismiss any discussion of morality as irrelevant to legal outcomes...
I do not understand how this could be construed as anything other than a contradiction, or intellectual dishonesty.

I see. You perspective seems to be that saying a persons views exhibit intellectual dishonesty is completely different from referring to that person as intellectually dishonest. That's a fine example of 'trivial exception' (splitting hairs).

I see, so it's an expression of your subjective view... Given your regular attacks on anything you perceive to be a subjective view, couldn't this be construed as hypocrisy?

 

That is your right and it is my right to continue to call out ad hominem fallacies when and where they occur. Moving on then...

False charge of fallacy, I already explained to you why that charge of fallacy is not accurate. If you would like, I could link you to a description a definition of the fallacy and explain in greater detail why the fallacy doesn't apply, I will be happy to do that. I was simply giving your position the benefit of the doubt in assuming that you were aware of the applicable use of a term used in an argument of yours.

But by your own argument, collective morality has established the legal system, collective morality has set the laws in place--the same laws which were instructed to the jury, the laws based on which the jury deliberated and reached their verdict. Your argument is therefore contradictory in nature.

And the fact that they have the right to make absurd blanket statements applying their subjective morality to the rest of the nation regardless of any kind of notion of accuracy is irrelevant and has no bearing on my right to call such posts out for being absurd.

Even if it based on "collective morality," which is subjective, it is still in place based on that collective morality, therefore claiming that people are disagreeing with a verdict reached based on laws that have been put in place via collective morality based on collective morality and "societal norms," the same values you claim are responsible for electing officials, constructing the system, and enacting legislation--the laws upon which the verdict was based, is contradictory.

Considering that he was found "not guilty" of any criminal action by a jury analyzing the case based on the laws which you said are the result of collective morality, then unless your position is a massive contradiction of itself, the answer is "yes."

My arguments have shifted based on your description of the legal system, I'm demonstrating the contradictions in your own stance regarding values such as "collective morality," etc.

The exact same notion applies to claiming that justice was not served in regard to "collective morality" and "societal norms" when the case was decided based on laws which you explained yourself are the very result of that same collective morality and societal norms.

That's not my perspective, that's what the forum rules encourage and it is their justification for why they encourage that.

I don't attack things for being subjective, I attack things when they are subjective and people are trying to pass them off as objective or "collective fact" or "societal norms" without being able to objectively quantify or support such notions.

 

Choosing to complain about someone else's actions, and then undertake those same actions in a "good for the goose, good for the gander" scenario is a fair example of tu quoque, whether you choose to accept it or not.

So, if I understand correctly, we're once again down to "If lawmakers are elected on the basis of how aligned they are to our collective subjective morals, then why are not all laws and legal outcomes aligned to those collective subjective morals?"

As already addressed in post 380, the answer is very simple... because human beings are not capable of building anything that will work perfectly 100% of the time.
A clock designed to keep time, may lose or gain time. A car designed for transport may occasionally break down. A schooling system designed to educate the youth may occasionally allow individual students to "fall through the cracks"...

 

No it's not, that is just hypocrisy. The fallacy you're referencing would be you pointing out hypocrisy or inconsistency of mine or you pointing out hypocrisy or inconsistency of mine and deciding based on that alone that my/your arguments are invalid. That would be the fallacy. If you're going to make charges of fallacy, I would suggest familiarizing yourself with them.

Here's a link for your reading pleasure: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Please note the form and the examples as used in debates/arguments and notice how they are different from the content of mine you are classifying as such.

Please evidence the concept you are suggesting--that the Zimmerman verdict did not allign with collective subjective morals. In otherwords, please poll all of the American voting populace and then produce the results here regarding what their idea of collective morality is. Then your argument may hold water.

 

Perhaps you're not familiar with all forms of tu quoque... Allow me to resiprocate by providing a link "for your reading pleasure":
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right

I choose not to comply with your request on the basis that I feel no need to substanciate that the majority of Americans feel it "wrong" for someone to follow teenagers around at night without cause, and then refuse to identify themselves or explain their actions.

If you don't believe this is what happened, please feel free to provide evidence of the specific factors that justified a teenager being harassed in the first place.

 

When did I ever suggest that wrongs by someone "excuse" wrongs by someone else? A quote would help.

Then your argument is unsupported and invalid. If you're going to make an assertion as if it is fact, the only way to validate your assertion is to provide supporting evidence for this, appeal to "common knowledge" is a logical fallacy. Appealing to majority is also a logical fallacy, and this argument of yours appeals to what your position has asserted as a majority without support for it even being a majority, so even if your argument is correct--despite that it cannot be supported--it is still a logical fallacy. Even if a majority of people agree with something, it in no way inherently indicates that the argument which they are in favor of is correct.

Neither the legal nor "colloquial" definitions of the term "harass" apply to the situation. Zimmerman followed Martin from a distance for a short period, then lost sight of him and then Martin confronted him. Had Martin not confronted Zimmerman, Zimmerman--by the police audio itself--wouldn't have continued to check for him, he had lost sight of him. Following someone from a distance is not equal to harassment and this is just more leftist emotional hyperbole. Following someone from a distance is not an illegal act, does not inherently classify and justification for such an act can include but are not limited to being a concerned/vigilant member of the community, and being neighborhood watch.

 

I seem to remember someone complaining about me pointing out their violations of forum rules, then going on to point out what they perceived to be rule violations by me...
That's one example, which is enough to substanciate my claim.

Asking for a straw poll of every American's point of view in order to validate that the majority of people feel that following teenagers around at night without cause is wrong is preposterous and stinks of desperation. Argumentum ex silentio anyone?

Appealing to majority is not a fallacy when the point of contention is whether something is a matter of commonality...
For example, when arguing that something is "wrong" in the context of societal norms, one cannot say that the opinions of the majority are irrelevent since they are integral to the topic of debate. It's like asking someone to accurately describe the appearance of an object without making reference to the object...

According to Zimmerman's recreation (which I've already provided the link for) he continued to look for Trayvon after he had lost sight of him...
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...ute&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.048.html
784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.—
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.


By the way, it has been noted that you've chosen on several occasions to avoid responding to my illustration of the legal system not fulfilling it's intended purpose to 100% effectiveness... Is there a reason why not?

 

No it's not, you flaunted forum rules which I hadn't broken and I demonstrated that, then went on to point out rules that your posts were in fact in violation of the rules. Never did I make the argument that because someone else violated the rules, it would then be okay for me or anyone else to do so, that would be an example of a situation in which the fallacy you were misusing could be properly charged.

Saying that a majority of people believe what you believe without being able to support that fact and acting as if the majority of people believing one thing makes it correct is a significantly more desperate tactic. You should really do a bit more reading on the fallacies that you are falsely charging here, since I didn't make an affirmative claim based on the lack of evidence or the fact that a poll hasn't been done, it's not a fallacy. You made the affirmative claim based on what you claimed as a fact is a belief accepted by the majority (which is a fallacious line of reasoning for claiming something is correct anyway), it is not a fallacy for me to request evidence for any affirmative claim when evidence has not been presented to support said affirmative claim. That is actually the way a debate works.

Appeal to common practice fallacy, similar to the appeal to common sense and the appeal to majority: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-common-practice.html

I didn't avoid responding to your opinion that the legal system doesn't fulfill its intended purpose, I pointed out that it is nothing more than your opinion that it doesn't fulfill its purpose. I then asked specifically--in relation to this case--how you feel that this situation was different from any other criminal case, considering that all the procedures of a criminal trial were followed and the jury deliberated based on the law which you argued is the result of "common morality." I have yet to see a logical answer to that question, other than the same old nonsense evasion line that "a system designed by humans is not perfect," without specifying what about this particular case did not work the way it was supposed to.

 

[MENTION=9929]Locke9-05[/MENTION], thank you for your post. This is my first post here myself.

You said, "I choose not to comply with your request on the basis that I feel no need to substantiate that the majority of Americans feel it "wrong" for someone to follow teenagers around at night without cause, and then refuse to identify themselves or explain their actions. If you don't believe this is what happened, please feel free to provide evidence of the specific factors that justified a teenager being harassed in the first place. "

Your characterization of the events are either inaccurate or indigenous.

Zimmerman did in fact have cause to follow Martin. Martin was a stranger to Zimmerman and was walking behind homes in the dark, in the rain and not on sidewalks when GZ seen Martin. Martin was walking slowly given that it was raining and Martin appeared to have no purposeful destination. Martins features were also obscured by a hood. It isn't required for someone to actively be committing a visible crime in order to be suspicious. If these actions by Martin aren't suspicious exactly what WOULD be suspicious?
Zimmerman had a duty as a watchman and citizen to observe Martin and his whereabouts until PD arrived.
There is no evidence or testimony that Zimmerman refused to identify himself, this is just hyperbole. Zimmerman watched Martin at a distance from his car and at no time was he in a position that warranted identification that is demonstrable. This was a dynamic event, yet people see it as linear series of compartmentalized choices by both parties.
There is no evidence or testimony that Zimmerman harassed Martin. Martin feeling harassed doesn't translate to him actually being harassed.
Lastly, it is duplicitous for you to provide no proof in your claim that Martin was being harassed while demanding proofs that warranted Zimmerman harassing him.

Respectfully, thanks again.

 

I suppose it would then be equally fallacious to claim that most people prefer pleasure to pain, prefer affluence to poverty, or any other point for which an actual poll has not been undertaken... This seems an appeal to ignorance.

When the topic is very specifically whether something is common practice or belief, citing common practice fallacy is foolish.

I believe I've been very clear about why stalking a teenager at night is not in line with the common morality you've agreed laws are based on.

 

No one has made any such affirmative claim based on lack of evidence, yet again you are falsely charging fallacy where there is none. The appeal to ignorance is an affirmative claim based on the lack of contradicting evidence, it is not a request for an affirmative claim to be supported with evidence. In a debate, the party making the affirmative claim has the burden of proof, refusing to offer support for a claim on the alleged ground that it is "common knowledge" is an affirmative claim that something is common knowledge and therefore valid, hence why it is fallacious.

The topic at hand started when you claimed to know for a fact that the person disputing Zimmerman's innocence was doing so using the colloquial definition of the term rather than the legal one--without that person having specified. This whole tangent is based on a major unbacked assertion of yours.

He was not stalking, that is emotional and unsupported hyperbole. You claim what Zimmerman did is not in line with "common morality" that "the laws are based upon," yet for his actions he was formally charged, tried and found not guilty based on the evidence and instruction of that very law to the jury as given by the judge. How amusing. It seems that the "system is flawed" is a way to explain when decisions are made that don't align with your personal agenda, yet your arguments still contend that common morality is what the laws are based on.

 

Yes, it has been noted that you carefully avoid making any affirmative claim and focus solely on attacking any claim with which you disagree; but in doing so you are making the clear implication that another position is more valid - without providing any evidence or even defining it. Poor form.

There are two possibilities:
a) that person was speaking colloquially, or
b) that person was speaking in relation to legal definitions
As you believe that they were not speaking colloquially, you are implying belief in the alternative without providing any evidence of your assertion - and then attacking me for acting similarly. Poor form.

Your perspective has largely seemed to be that neither acted illegally, and yet someone died. Tell me again how there is nothing wrong with the laws that enable this.

 

That's the way a debate works, and you're calling "poor form?" Why? Is it because in this specific case when I have requested that you provide evidence for an affirmative claim you are unable to do so or simply refuse to based on some other unknown factor? There is no implication in requesting that an affirmative claim be supported other than that the burden of proof by the position making the affirmative claim has not been satisfied. That's it. Very simple stuff, really. Here, for your reading enjoyment:

Burden of Proof

So in essentially what this article is explaining is that when a position makes an affirmative claim, refuses to support it--as per the burden of proof--and attempts to shift the responsibility of its own failure to support the assertion made onto the opposition, the appeal to ignorance fallacy is committed. So ironically your false charge of fallacy--the appeal to ignorance--against my position simply for requesting that your position fulfill its burden of proof is actually your position committing the appeal to ignorance fallacy, not the other way around. How droll.

I never said I "believed" one way or another, my response to that person's post simply specified that legally, Zimmerman is innocent. It was at that point that your argument burst into the discussion assuming that they were using the colloquial form of the definition without even allowing for the possibility--at that point in time--that they could have in fact been referring to the legal definition. You'll notice my arguments are consistent in specifying prefixes for terms such as "legally innocent." That's what this whole tangent resulted from, your attack of my position that he is "legally innocent" with the declaration that people here in the forums are using the term "innocent" in the colloquial nature without those people having actually specified. Poor form.

This has been explained ad nauseum. Neither acted illegally until the physical confrontation started, then the lines become blurry--because no one knows exactly who started the physical portion of the confrontation. There is much more evidence present to suggest Martin did, but not enough to prove it as a fact. However, the lines become very clear again when the witness testimony combined with Zimmerman's injuries and story demonstrate that Martin was on top of Zimmerman raining "ground and pound" "MMA style" blows upon his face when Zimmerman was in fact crying for help. So even if one is to consider the theoretical that Martin was within his right to meet a perceived threat with force in self defense or stand your ground, that right ended the moment Zimmerman was incapacitated, crying for help and Martin continued to batter him.

The self-defense statutes are very clear about where the protection of the use of force in "self-defense" ends and it does in fact end the moment one party has made a clear indication of intent to withdraw from the confrontation. Based on witness testimony, Zimmerman's injuries and his own story, Martin did not respect this and continued to batter him, which is why Zimmerman felt he had no choice but to then use his right to meet life-threatening force with deadly force of his own. Zimmerman didn't commit a crime here, he was charged and was found "not guilty" on all counts due to all these things I have repeatedly mentioned. Martin's battery of Zimmerman after he had him pinned to the ground and Zimmerman was crying for help while being beaten exceeded any protection of the use of force as set forth in the Constitution of Florida, and--I'm willing to wager--any other state in the United States.