The Skeptics Forum - home of the conformist

This board is open for all subject matters. Post information and discussion materials about open-debate and censorship on other boards (including this one) here. Memory Hole 2 is a RODOH subforum for alternate perspectives.
User avatar
Mark Caine
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 9:13 am
Contact:

Re: The Skeptics Forum - home of the conformist

Post by Mark Caine » Tue Jul 31, 2018 11:15 am

Africans are the most violent and primitive of all the human subspecies. This is yet another example of their inability to live by even the simplest of our traffic laws (parking in designated areas).

rollo the ganger
Posts: 5687
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 7:34 pm
Contact:

Re: The Skeptics Forum - home of the conformist

Post by rollo the ganger » Tue Jul 31, 2018 1:12 pm

Nessie wrote:You obviously do not understand what of immigrant stock means.
Just so we are on the same page Nessie, please provide a link to the definition of:

"Immigrant Stock"

That's spelled: "I-M-M-I-G-R-A-N-T _____ S-T-O-C-K"

Be a good lad and do that for me please... be a dear. Thank you.
Nessie wrote:I understand the law fine, it means you get to claim your life was at risk and you were justified shooting even if you are pushed to the ground.
Quote the law Nessie. Either that or provide a link to that particular Florida law.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 24711
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 12:00 pm
Contact:

Re: The Skeptics Forum - home of the conformist

Post by Nessie » Tue Jul 31, 2018 11:33 pm

rollo the ganger wrote:
Tue Jul 31, 2018 1:12 pm
Nessie wrote:You obviously do not understand what of immigrant stock means.
Just so we are on the same page Nessie, please provide a link to the definition of:

"Immigrant Stock"

That's spelled: "I-M-M-I-G-R-A-N-T _____ S-T-O-C-K"

Be a good lad and do that for me please... be a dear. Thank you.
Why the attitude?

Both persons are from families who originally immigrated to the USA (though McGlockton may be originally from slaves brought to the USA).
Nessie wrote:I understand the law fine, it means you get to claim your life was at risk and you were justified shooting even if you are pushed to the ground.
Quote the law Nessie. Either that or provide a link to that particular Florida law.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/ind ... 6.013.html

The law does not detail examples of what is deadly and non deadly force. Apparently the Florida police get to decide the law.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

rollo the ganger
Posts: 5687
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 7:34 pm
Contact:

Re: The Skeptics Forum - home of the conformist

Post by rollo the ganger » Wed Aug 01, 2018 3:38 am

Nessie wrote:Why the attitude?

Both persons are from families who originally immigrated to the USA (though McGlockton may be originally from slaves brought to the USA).
Oh no you don't Nessie. You insulted and belittled me for not knowing the definition of "immigrant stock" was:
Nessie wrote:You obviously do not understand what of immigrant stock means.
The reason you didn't post a link to a definition to "immigrant stock" is because:

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "IMMIGRANT STOCK"!!!
Nessie wrote:I understand the law fine...
Nessie wrote:The law does not detail examples of what is deadly and non deadly force. Apparently the Florida police get to decide the law.
"Apparently"? That in itself says you do not understand the law or the process.
You also posted the wrong statute. This is regarding home protection. DUH!!!!

Here is the correct one:
776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27; s. 3, ch. 2014-195.
You are full of bullshit Nessie.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 24711
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 12:00 pm
Contact:

Re: The Skeptics Forum - home of the conformist

Post by Nessie » Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:21 am

rollo the ganger wrote:
Wed Aug 01, 2018 3:38 am
Nessie wrote:Why the attitude?

Both persons are from families who originally immigrated to the USA (though McGlockton may be originally from slaves brought to the USA).
Oh no you don't Nessie. You insulted and belittled me for not knowing the definition of "immigrant stock" was:
Nessie wrote:You obviously do not understand what of immigrant stock means.
The reason you didn't post a link to a definition to "immigrant stock" is because:

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "IMMIGRANT STOCK"!!!
Considering the way you speak to me, you need to expect rudeness back. You accused me of not knowing what an immigrant was. Definition of immigrant;

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/immigrant

Definition of stock (go to part 4);

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/stock

Put the two together. You have just learned a new phrase.
Nessie wrote:I understand the law fine...
Nessie wrote:The law does not detail examples of what is deadly and non deadly force. Apparently the Florida police get to decide the law.
"Apparently"? That in itself says you do not understand the law or the process.
The police do not normally get to define what the law actual means. That is the job of the legislature and courts. It is obvious you know little of how the law works.
You also posted the wrong statute. This is regarding home protection. DUH!!!!

Here is the correct one:
776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27; s. 3, ch. 2014-195.
You are full of bullshit Nessie.
OK, so stand your ground in home defence and outside the home is slightly different laws, where the wording and intent is the same. This article may help you to understand who should define the law

https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/30/auth ... -ground-la
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

rollo the ganger
Posts: 5687
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 7:34 pm
Contact:

Re: The Skeptics Forum - home of the conformist

Post by rollo the ganger » Wed Aug 01, 2018 1:24 pm

Nessie wrote:Put the two together. You have just learned a new phrase.
Like I said, I can't debate with someone who makes up their own definitions.
Nessie wrote:The police do not normally get to define what the law actual means. That is the job of the legislature and courts. It is obvious you know little of how the law works.
I'm the one correcting you on the law and procedures Nessie.
Nessie wrote:OK, so stand your ground in home defence and outside the home is slightly different laws, where the wording and intent is the same. This article may help you to understand who should define the law

https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/30/auth ... -ground-la
That's your problem Nessie. Using blogs to try and understand the law. Try reading the law itself. It's called "Best Evidence".

User avatar
Huntinger
Posts: 1817
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2018 11:56 pm
Location: Mönchweiler
Contact:

Re: The Skeptics Forum - home of the conformist

Post by Huntinger » Wed Aug 22, 2018 7:01 am

Jeffk1970 wrote:
Mon Jul 30, 2018 4:36 pm


You are low priority. But it is fun to pop in and see how the other half is.
Why does this person come here when he writes the following elsewhere
And need a shower after visiting.... :D
I don’t know, I refuse to go there. I get the feeling I’d need to take my phone for a flea and tick dip if I went there.
𝕾𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖊𝖗𝖍𝖊𝖎𝖙𝖘𝖉𝖎𝖊𝖓𝖘𝖙 𝖉𝖊𝖘 𝕽𝖊𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖘𝖋𝖚̈𝖍𝖗𝖊𝖗𝖘-𝕾𝕾

rollo the ganger
Posts: 5687
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 7:34 pm
Contact:

Re: The Skeptics Forum - home of the conformist

Post by rollo the ganger » Thu Aug 23, 2018 9:06 am

Jeff wrote:And need a shower after visiting.... :D
I don’t know, I refuse to go there. I get the feeling I’d need to take my phone for a flea and tick dip if I went there.
Huntinger, I believe Jeff, in this statement, was referring to Berg's Blog called "Nazigassings". Still, Jeff is like a rodent who pops in and out of holes leaving turds wherever he goes.

User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 2038
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 9:43 pm
Location: USA, West of the Pecos
Contact:

Re: The Skeptics Forum - home of the conformist

Post by Scott » Thu Aug 23, 2018 9:26 am

Looks like with the Negroes whining for muh justice in the McGlockton shooting, the prosecution is going to charge Drejka after all, and they have set an exorbitant bond. This has already fallen off the news radar and the references in the media are that McGlockton was shot for "shoving" Drejka, as if he bumped into him in the grocery aisle. Wait until the Drejka acquittal for the full chimpout.

[EDIT:] I think they will be applying extreme pressure on Drejka to plea bargain so that they can technically say they have a win and avoid a chimpout, hence the ridiculous bail for starters. He was a concealed-carry holder not some gang banger--hardly a flight risk. The media has been trying to sell the narrative that he is a hothead of some kind, however. Evidently the Goblina was not too scared of Drejka when she exited her vehicle to fight with him just before McGlockton showed up to defend his woman with the surprise tackle. [/edit]

In other news, they have already made a TV series about Trayvon Martin called "Rest in Power" (a play on the words Peace and Black Power, I guess) about how the Skittles Thug was supposedly stalked and murdered by George Zimmerman. Fake news at its finest. I don't understand how such stupidity can even exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rest_in_P ... rtin_Story

I'm convinced that the people pushing these narratives really are subversive Commies or something like that. Well, rope is cheap.

;)

“Now we have forced Hitler to war so he no longer can peacefully annihilate one piece of the Treaty of Versailles after the other.”
~ Major General J.F.C. Fuller,
historian – England

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 7786
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:59 am
Contact:

Re: The Skeptics Forum - home of the conformist

Post by been-there » Thu Aug 23, 2018 9:01 pm

Scott wrote:
Thu Aug 23, 2018 9:26 am

In other news, they have already made a TV series about Trayvon Martin called "Rest in Power" (a play on the words Peace and Black Power, I guess) about how the Skittles Thug was supposedly stalked and murdered by George Zimmerman. Fake news at its finest. I don't understand how such stupidity can even exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rest_in_P ... rtin_Story

I'm convinced that the people pushing these narratives really are subversive Commies or something like that. Well, rope is cheap.

;)
Erm... do you think that I am a subversive Communist or something similar???

I also hold the view that the verdict exonerating Zimmerman was a travesty of justice. I fully sympathised with the outrage of african americans. There was no need for Zimmerman to chase after Trayvon, and he was told not to by the police that he called. So the 'stand your ground' law application of this killing of an innocent youth who was trying to get away from an unknown person following him was deeply, deeply bogus.

Trayvon's account of what happened immediately prior to his killing obviously has never been heard.
Whereas Zimmerman's version is self-serving and is contradicted by the forensic AND eye-witness testimony. I.e. he lied. He lied about his knowledge of SYG law, his injuries were "insignificant" despite his claims, and there is no evidence Trayvon tried to take his gun as Zimmerman claimed.

So do we believe the one who has clearly been less than honest about what happened to him, or do we give benefit of the doubt to the one who has been silenced?

I don't know if readers here can see the similarity and the irony, but it appears people here are again inadvertently defending a liar and their lies. :ugeek:

We have to look at all the evidnce and not ignore anything that goes against a preconcieved viewpoint.
Zimmerman lied about a great many things, e.g. whether Trayvon at one point ran away. His first testimony was that Trayvon did. He later recanted. This is a crucial detail regarding his "self-defence" plea. He pursued Trayvon. The girlfriend on the phone with Martin at the time related how she heard Zimmerman run up breathing hard and asking Trayvon what he was doing.
Zimmerman also lied when he said in his court "apology" that he thought Trayvon was his own age. In the conversation before the shooting he told the operator he thought he was "about late teens". Etc., etc.
There were other lies, also.
This is not opinion. Do your own unbiased research. Zimmerman lied.

The main point is about an unethical application of an antiquated English law to allow people with guns to shoot people dead even when the killer is the one who provoked the physical confrontation.
PLUS the youth had been negatively racially profiled.
How did Zimmerman know Martin was on drugs, or up to no good, or that he didn't live in the area?
He didn't know! Zimmerman assumed all that because Trayvon wore a hoodie and was black.
That's racism.


been-there wrote:
Sat Jul 20, 2013 5:54 am
As for denial of the clear evidence of Zimmerman's falsehoods, here are a few more of Zimmerman's...

The lie: Zimmerman told his friend Mark Osterman that he was in a desperate struggle with Trayvon for Zimmerman's gun. Zimmerman never said this to police. But Osterman wrote in a book, and it was entered into evidence, that Zimmerman said, “somehow I broke his grip on the gun where the guy grabbed it between the rear site and the hammer. I got the gun in my hand, raised it towards the guy’s chest, and pulled the trigger.”
The truth: DNA evidence ruled out any real possibility that Trayvon ever touched Zimmerman's gun. The only DNA evidence on the gun's grip was that of George Zimmerman. None was Trayvon's. Zimmerman also claimed that Trayvon went for Zimmerman's holster. Anthony Gorgone, a DNA lab analyst for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, testified as an expert witness that “Zimmerman's holster tested positive for only Zimmerman's DNA as well.”

The lie: Zimmerman claimed that Trayvon “bashed,” “slammed,” and “wailed” his head into the sidewalk. One of Zimmerman's lawyers claimed that the sidewalk was Trayvon's “deadly weapon.” Pictures of Zimmerman's alleged injuries have been shown repeatedly on tv.
The truth: Zimmerman's exaggeration was demonstrated by Dr. Valerie Rao, a medical examiner in Florida, who testified that Zimmerman's injuries were “insignificant,” “so minor” that all they required was an ordinary band-aid.

The lie: Zimmerman told police investigators that Trayvon was 'circling' his car, looking in at him, while Zimmerman was on the phone with the police dispatcher.
The truth: Zimmerman never mentioned this very crucial bit of information to the dispatcher while they were actually talking.

The lie: Zimmerman claimed that Trayvon “jumped out of bushes” and hit him, knocking him to the ground.
The truth: There are no bushes to jump out of where Zimmerman claims he was assaulted. This is clearly evident on the video where Zimmerman walked through his version of what happened with some Sanford police.

And the one coherent thing about these different, self-contradictory lies is that they all serve to justify the murder of Trayvon Martin as “self-defense.”

The lie: Zimmerman claimed in the interview with Sean Hannity that he had never heard of Florida’s infamous “stand your ground” law, and portrayed himself as unschooled in legal defenses for killing someone.
The truth: repeated testimony and school records show Zimmerman was well-versed in Florida's “self-defense” law.

The lie: Zimmerman claims that Trayvon was straddling Zimmerman's chest, punching him, banging his head into the sidewalk, pinching Zimmerman's nose so he couldn't breathe, and reaching for Zimmerman's gun.
The truth: Zimmerman's description of the fight scene is particularly incredible, partly because of the idea that Martin, while straddling Zimmerman, would be able to see a gun that was presumably behind him, and the idea that Zimmerman would feel Martin’s hand snake across his body, pinch that hand underneath his arm and then reach for and retrieve the gun himself. If Zimmerman’s hand was free enough for such a maneuver, were his hands not also free enough to try to push Martin off, or force Martin to release his head and not bang it against the concrete, or to hit Martin back (which he never says he does during the entire encounter)? Did Zimmerman’s mixed martial arts training provide him no defensive options whatsoever? Something about this just doesn’t sound right. And, by the way, how was Zimmerman able to get around Martin’s leg, retrieve the gun and aim it at Martin’s chest so easily?
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest