With so many playing the victim in this thread it's easy to forget who the real victim in this tragedy is.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Another Shooting
- Thread starter Dr. Cheese
- Start date
- Status
Fortunately for me, I really don't care what the masses think. Just because their opinion has numbers doesn't make it right. On the flip side, it doesn't make them wrong, either.
The last election showed me how much influence the media has by merely reporting opinions and little factual info. It had always been like that, but that is when I opened my eyes and saw it. This isn't meant to be political content, but the observation of media bias. Due to the obvious bias, I pay attention to local news, a little national news, a little global news, and that's about it. I'll take no information over misinformation.
Regardless, Casey Anthony....who?
Mark Latimour said:
That is so very. This thread is about a kid who it appears was killed for no good reason. Hurt Internet feelings are temporary, death is forever.
I was just watching it in the barber shop. The anchor lady brought up some very saddening historical statistics. Nevertheless, if this is true, wow....
D
Your perception of my posts as "playing the victim" is quite shallow.
My posts, from my perception (but who am I, only the person from whom they originated) are intended to point out that this very bad situation can be made a whole lot worse, but no one wants to step back and examine what we know and what we don't know. Rhetoric is ratcheting ever upwards, to the point where the President of the United States is weighing in on it. Ya think that will be a card that Zimmerman's defense will play? And I'm sure everyone here will celebrate the fact that he did weigh in, in spite of it being detrimental to there cause of making Zimmerman pay. And that's not a political statement, there is everything from lack of requirement of evidence to death threats in this thread that could be cited as well.
When people continue to escalate a situation in spite of the escalation causing the erosion of their own position, you have to question their reasoning.
Note: Edited to correct grammar.
Why would you assume I'm talking about you. The again I saw Pacman post this the other day and perhaps it's appropriate here: if you throw a rock into a pack of dogs the one that yelps is the one you hit. Food for thought.
I think you'd be wrong about that.
I don't get the sense that everyone in this thread is in agreement on everything, not in the least.
D
If you are saying it was not aimed at me when it directly followed 3 consecutive posts by me I will have to say I believe you are lying.... if you are saying it was not aimed at me, that is.
Anyone else believe Mr. Latimour just happened to have this idea at this time and it has nothing to do with my posts?
It's pretty gutless to post something that pretty obviously aimed at me (or anyone) and then take a "so you assumed I was talking about you?" position. Man up, look me in the eye, and say it. At least at that point I'll have some respect for you for being honest. Or don't say it at all.
I hope that wasn't ambiguous in any way.
Oh don't think for a second that you weren't one of the people had in mind when I posted that, but I found it interesting that you immediately assumed it was a reference to you. it indicates that you related to what I was saying. As for the posting after you, you'll note I am reasonably au fait with the quote function: if I wanted to quote your posts I would do so. Now I do think it's pretty appalling all the people who are playing victim given that the real victim here is dead. To be clear I'm including you in that.
D
Good, glad we got that cleared up.
Now... I find it interesting that you do not address any of my points, or attempt to refute my contention that I am not playing the victim and the explanation that I offer in support of it. Not only that, you refuse to address any of the points I outlined previously which served to illustrate that if one doesn't follow the herd and accept all their assumptions and diametrically opposing, yet still firmly held "truths", one is explicitly or implicitly demonized. Instead, you play a little logical (in the sense of logical argument) sleight-of-hand by raising this victim charade.
I refuse to accept the contention that we must suspend observations and analysis of any arguments or discussion because of the degree of tragedy of the event.
If you perceive me as playing a victim, I can only say I'm sorry for you that your vision is so distorted. I'm nobody's victim, ever, because I refuse to let myself be a victim. When my observations are used to construct attitudes and beliefs in my head which are SIMPLY WRONG, it is not possible to address them without pointing them out.
+1. and smokin' toaster, your latest red herring about Z able to get a fair trial is another manufactured speculation that you throw out to decry...the speculation that Z is guilty.
If you look at any of the comment sections in the public news reporting of Trayvon Martin, there are PLENTY of people who openly side with Z or take your position (your position is not wrong). So, throwing out "can Z have a fair trial?" is...what? What are you trying to say? It seems like you're saying that "Z can't get a fair trial" or "large angry crowd" => "We may never know the truth". That is a completely orthogonal discussion to WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
As far as the TB majority opinion in this thread are concerned to what actually happened? They are just opinions. *BUT* they are opinions formulated with the *reasonable* assumption that multiple reportings of the same evidence in the media are assumed to be true. We also assume to be true, actual quotes from people (police, witnesses, etc) involved in the case. Furthermore, it's quite easy for a reasonable person to distinguish between editorial opinion and reporting on the "facts" of the case.
It is quite true that any of this evidence might turn out to be false. But the media has an ethical obligation to report what they think is reasonably true, so it's not unreasonable to treat it as vetted...not to the same level as in a court of law, but vetted nonetheless. E.g., do you have any doubts as to the veracity of the 911 tapes? True, what's actually said on the tapes may be difficult to hear, but do you believe them to be fabricated? A court of law will have to go through the formalities to enter it into evidence, but we can *reasonably* assume, prior to the trial, that they aren't fabricated. And we can *reasonably* assume that public statements by witnesses aren't outright lies. No, TB off-topic isn't a court of law, and the majority opinion is not binding.
What is unreasonable are your non-sequiters and red herrings to WHAT HAPPENED THAT NIGHT. In a court of law...or in a "mock court", your claims would be objected to on a number of points and forced to be withdrawn. Yet you keep on keepin' on....
edit: if any of us in the TB "majority" were actually picked for jury duty, I'm quite positive that any of us could completely erase the "connect the dots" that we've formulated in our heads and re-evaluate the evidence as it was formally introduced into trial. At the point where I would have to exercise my responsibility to serve on the jury, it would *behoove* me to disregard any and all news reporting of the case to date.
- Apr 1, 2000
- 17,398
- 9,830
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: Roscoe Guitars, DR Strings, Aguilar Amplification
- Status
