This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Mordo
Pages: 1 ... 116117118 119120 ... 243
3511
« on: September 29, 2015, 01:58:37 PM »
Why do people keep using the term "unarmed" as if that automatically renders someone harmless? It's such a disgustingly pathetic appeal to emotion term.
Jeffrey Dahmer was also largely "unarmed" when he murdered his victims. The prerequisite for committing a crime does not require you to carry a gun.
Because someone benign armed with a firearm shooting someone completely unarmed makes a very big difference in a court of law. There's no emotion about it, it's the legality of it.
If I shoot the OP in self defense because he was pulling a pistol on me, it's not likely I'd be sent to prison for murder or manslaughter. If I shoot the OP in self defense while he was just running at me unarmed, things start getting a lot trickier and I'm much more likely to be charged with some degree of murder for not exhausting any other options.
Things that don't fall in line with your narrative aren't all appeals to emotion, I'm afraid.
Except he wasn't really just 'running at him' was he? Multiple eyewitness testimonies, the grass stains on Zimmerman's jacket and his injuries (as well as Trayvon's lack thereof) corroborate with the fact that Trayvon was practically pounding his head into the concrete.
So yes, I agree, 'unarmed' is a term that needs to be discussed in a case like this, but it's the way people utilize it to suit their agenda that I take umbrage with. It's essentially a meaningless term without the proper context.
I wasn't talking about the Zimmerman case or any case in particular.
Well can you at least not agree that using 'unarmed' in such an emotionally manipulative way doesn't aid the legal justification of any of the parties involved?
Just because someone is 'unarmed' does not give them any more of a legal grounding than the opposition does.
It does make it so you shouldn't go looking for trouble when armed with a handgun. That alone should have gotten Zimmerman some sort of charge.
You don't pursue people, get into a scuffle and then shoot your attacker (that you followed) and say it was all in self defense. The situation would have never occurred had he stayed in the car.
I agree that following a suspicious character in the night isn't exactly the most rational thing to do, as do most people. But that's not really the crux of the argument. The moment Trayvon subdued him and instigated a felony battery is the moment that he lost any legal legitimacy to him being followed, and whatever other kind of tenuous 'self defence' argument people keep bringing up.
3512
« on: September 29, 2015, 01:31:45 PM »
Why do people keep using the term "unarmed" as if that automatically renders someone harmless? It's such a disgustingly pathetic appeal to emotion term.
Jeffrey Dahmer was also largely "unarmed" when he murdered his victims. The prerequisite for committing a crime does not require you to carry a gun.
Because someone benign armed with a firearm shooting someone completely unarmed makes a very big difference in a court of law. There's no emotion about it, it's the legality of it.
If I shoot the OP in self defense because he was pulling a pistol on me, it's not likely I'd be sent to prison for murder or manslaughter. If I shoot the OP in self defense while he was just running at me unarmed, things start getting a lot trickier and I'm much more likely to be charged with some degree of murder for not exhausting any other options.
Things that don't fall in line with your narrative aren't all appeals to emotion, I'm afraid.
Except he wasn't really just 'running at him' was he? Multiple eyewitness testimonies, the grass stains on Zimmerman's jacket and his injuries (as well as Trayvon's lack thereof) corroborate with the fact that Trayvon was practically pounding his head into the concrete.
So yes, I agree, 'unarmed' is a term that needs to be discussed in a case like this, but it's the way people utilize it to suit their agenda that I take umbrage with. It's essentially a meaningless term without the proper context.
I wasn't talking about the Zimmerman case or any case in particular.
Well can you at least not agree that using 'unarmed' in such an emotionally manipulative way doesn't aid the legal justification of any of the parties involved? Just because someone is 'unarmed' does not give them any more of a legal grounding than the opposition does.
3513
« on: September 29, 2015, 01:18:04 PM »
Why do people keep using the term "unarmed" as if that automatically renders someone harmless? It's such a disgustingly pathetic appeal to emotion term.
Jeffrey Dahmer was also largely "unarmed" when he murdered his victims. The prerequisite for committing a crime does not require you to carry a gun.
Because someone benign armed with a firearm shooting someone completely unarmed makes a very big difference in a court of law. There's no emotion about it, it's the legality of it.
If I shoot the OP in self defense because he was pulling a pistol on me, it's not likely I'd be sent to prison for murder or manslaughter. If I shoot the OP in self defense while he was just running at me unarmed, things start getting a lot trickier and I'm much more likely to be charged with some degree of murder for not exhausting any other options.
Things that don't fall in line with your narrative aren't all appeals to emotion, I'm afraid.
Except he wasn't really just 'running at him' was he? Multiple eyewitness testimonies, the grass stains on Zimmerman's jacket and his injuries (as well as Trayvon's lack thereof) corroborate with the fact that Trayvon was practically pounding his head into the concrete. So yes, I agree, 'unarmed' is a term that needs to be discussed in a case like this, but it's the way people utilize it to suit their agenda that I take umbrage with. It's essentially a meaningless term without the proper context.
3514
« on: September 29, 2015, 02:16:59 AM »
If Trayvon was indeed beating the shit out of Zimmerman it's not hard to see why.
Fact is he was alone, unarmed and he had someone following him. It's not unimaginable that he was scared for his life and fight or flight instincts kicked in.
Why do people keep using the term "unarmed" as if that automatically renders someone harmless? It's such a disgustingly pathetic appeal to emotion term. Jeffrey Dahmer was also largely "unarmed" when he murdered his victims. The prerequisite for committing a crime does not require you to carry a gun.
3515
« on: September 29, 2015, 02:13:34 AM »
We can sit around here and contemplate the "what ifs" until the cows come home. The fact of the matter is Trayvon started something that ended up getting himself killed. No two ways about it.
Zimmerman started something that ended up with a dead teenager, due to the fact that he had to play hero and disobey orders from someone who knows better than he. The guy is a moron, and likely crazy.
All I'm going to say on the matter. Continue to debate if you wish.
The fact that Zimmerman decided to leave his car is not a direct causality of this. If we're going by that logic then Trayvon's suspension from his previous school that caused him to move to Florida also played a role in his death. Continue to contort around weird logical hoops and place the blame on Zimmerman, however.
3516
« on: September 28, 2015, 08:39:12 PM »
 where my /b/ros at rite XDDDDD ebig trolling for the win
3517
« on: September 28, 2015, 08:07:03 PM »
ew, rice beer
3518
« on: September 28, 2015, 07:52:59 PM »
3519
« on: September 28, 2015, 07:38:29 PM »
Oh, you were followed, on a dark rainy night, when you were 17? Or 18? Please, continue to share. I've had suspicions about mysterious figures at night. I've never been approached though, and I wouldn't start laying uppercuts into someone that I thought might've (key word there) been stalking me. If I genuinely think my life is in danger I run, or call the police, just like any sane person would. All I'm doing is illustrating that just because you have a slight inkling that someone may or may not be following you does not automatically give you the right to assault them. That's not 'self defence' like you keep trying to paint it out as. Like at all. And you can drop the condescending tone too, thanks. You know full well that hitting someone for supposedly 'following' you is not an appropriate response. It's not something either of us would think of doing. Again, the kid was being followed. What's he going to do, keep walking home without knowing who is following him and lead him to where he lives? Confronting and then subsequently attacking him isn't something that's going to aid a dangerous situation that he allegedly thought he was in either. Again, you call the police, or you flee. Was Zimmerman going to stop there and assume that Martin wasn't breaking in? I don't know what was going through either person's head at the time, and I don't think anybody will ever get to know. That still isn't a viable justification for what Trayvon did. The only reason Zimmerman got acquitted was being of a prosecution trumping up the charges (Manslaughter would have been fine), and Zimmerman being the only living soul who witnessed the entire night and lived to actually give his account. Do not fake that to act like he was innocent - if he had sat in his car like he was told to, a teenager wouldn't be dead, this moron would not have his five seconds of fame, and we could move on with our lives without giving a shit. He was discharged because there was a significant lack of evidence that he ever initiated the fight, actually. In fact, all evidence points to Trayvon. We can sit around here and contemplate the "what ifs" until the cows come home. The fact of the matter is Trayvon started something that ended up getting himself killed. No two ways about it.
3520
« on: September 28, 2015, 07:14:53 PM »
Can you at least concede that Trayvon going to pound town on Zimmerman was not in the slightest bit warranted, regardless of whether he thought he was being followed or not?
If I "think" (he wasn't even 100% sure Zimmerman actually was following him by the way) I'm being followed, my first reaction isn't to go berserk and start swinging swift right hooks at my alleged stalker, and I don't think that would be most people's initial reaction either.
You also aren't a 17 year old kid. I would be freaked out if I was being stalked, and I don't question him trying to defend himself.
But I was a 17 year old kid, and I didn't go physically apeshit on people the moment I had the slightest indication they were following me. That's not a normal reaction. No rational person does that. Even most adolescents. What self defense are you talking about? No injuries were found on his body with the exception of the the gunshot wound and his knuckle contusions that demonstrate he initiated the assault. Unless you're now telling me that Zimmerman followed him just to physically attack his, hands?
3521
« on: September 28, 2015, 07:08:28 PM »
I don't care who started the altercation "I don't care who actually broke the law here" lmao okay. I've already conceded that Zimmerman could've avoided the entire situation. That doesn't put him in the wrong though, legally speaking. Can you at least concede that Trayvon going to pound town on Zimmerman was not in the slightest bit warranted, regardless of whether he thought he was being followed or not? If I "think" (he wasn't even 100% sure Zimmerman actually was following him by the way) I'm being followed, my first reaction isn't to go berserk and start swinging swift right hooks at my alleged stalker, and I don't think that would be most people's initial reaction either.
3522
« on: September 28, 2015, 06:52:53 PM »
The more I read into this case the more I realise how nuanced it is.
Yes, Zimmerman clearly isn't someone who I would categorize as mentally stable, nor an "outstanding citizen" (which I've never really heard him been called outside of stormfag circlejerks and /pol/ tbh, everyone else pretty much universally denigrates him, especially the mainstream media outlets).
And yes, he was also a retard that could've avoided this entire altercation by simply listening to the operator. He's an asshole. Plain and simple, and his history of domestic violence can attest to that.
However, people really need to stop clamouring to these two facets as if it discredits what actually occurred. Following someone is not illegal, nor is the advice of a phone operator legally binding whatsoever. They're not law enforcement. It isn't their job to do that.
It's very apparent from the autopsies that yes, Trayvon did indeed, initiate the altercation (knuckle contusions corroborate with the injuries Zimmerman sustained) and it's also very apparent that Zimmerman did not engage in the severity of violence that Trayvon was participating in (again, the only injuries exempting the gunshot that were discovered on his body were that of abrasions on the hand that indicate he was severely assaulting Zimmerman.)
So yeah, he's a spesh, everyone knows this, but that doesn't discredit empirical evidence of one specific confrontation like everyone seems to think it does.
3523
« on: September 28, 2015, 03:53:33 PM »
Is it a good story or is like one of those autistic animes with cringe inducing dialogue seeing as how it's Japanese?
It's a really good story with cringe worthy anime moments and fanbase characters.
So my suspicions are confirmed then.
3524
« on: September 28, 2015, 03:50:22 PM »
Seeing as how I just finished Witcher 3 and love stealth games, Phantom Pain has recently piqued my interests.
Trouble is, I've never played a Metal Gear game before, so I'll have no clue what's going on if I pick it up.
Is it a good story or is like one of those autistic animes with cringe inducing dialogue seeing as how it's Japanese?
3525
« on: September 28, 2015, 02:13:58 PM »
Season 1 of TWD is pretty overrated. The TWD community has a boner for Frank Darabont. Of course they do. The guy directed Shawshank Redemption and The Mist. He clearly understands how people react to the breakdown of society/the world around them as opposed to "hurr let's go find booze because I just got separated from my family, I'm obviously mentally traumatized right now lol." The first episode succinctly captures the feeling of hopelessness and the end of civilization. The hospital was genuinely creepy and the dismembered torso girl had me feeling unsettled for several weeks. Morgan's internal conflict with his zombified wife was heartbreaking. It hit all the right notes that a zombie TV show should be doing. Of course, that's not to say it's without its hiccups. S1 isn't a perfect season, but it came as closest the show ever did in capturing the atmosphere of the comics. AllMightyCunts are clearly greedy Jews and value saving a few bucks over maintaining consistency between the seasons. S1 and the rest of the show are like two completely different TV series.
3526
« on: September 28, 2015, 01:19:33 PM »
should have been Tom Hardy
What's with this Tom Hardy should play everything meme? Wolverine, Bond, Bane again etc.
He's a pretty mediocre actor at best. His Australian accent in Fury Road was horrendous.
>mediocre
no just stop, the dude is one of the biggest actors of our generation
fixed that for you
3527
« on: September 28, 2015, 01:15:32 PM »
should have been Tom Hardy
What's with this Tom Hardy should play everything meme? Wolverine, Bond, Bane again etc. He's a pretty mediocre actor at best. His Australian accent in Fury Road was horrendous.
3529
« on: September 28, 2015, 11:38:33 AM »
Can we science the shit out of it?
that one line has turned me off to a movie that otherwise looked decent
It sounds completely retarded coming from a character who's supposed to be a goddamn astronaut.
Bazinga/10 humor, only high school dropouts and community college graduates need apply.
94% on RT mang
can't pot the scott
yeah and big bang theory is one of the most popular shows on television
everyone in this country is retarded except for me
BBT is primarily watched by ledditcucks and barnyard sandler dick riders though. Not really an apt comparison to the guy who directed brade runna.
3530
« on: September 28, 2015, 11:33:56 AM »
Can we science the shit out of it?
that one line has turned me off to a movie that otherwise looked decent
It sounds completely retarded coming from a character who's supposed to be a goddamn astronaut.
Bazinga/10 humor, only high school dropouts and community college graduates need apply.
94% on RT mang can't pot the scott
3531
« on: September 28, 2015, 11:26:03 AM »
So I guess they gutted out Skills then.
3532
« on: September 28, 2015, 11:11:59 AM »
Can we science the shit out of it?
3533
« on: September 27, 2015, 08:56:54 PM »
 *scopes for big black cock* SO WHAT YOURE SAYING IS *votes democrat* YOU'RE SERIOUSLY TELLING ME *feels guilty about his race* IN 2015 *protests for equality* THERE ARE PEOPLE *browses reddit* WHO ARE WHITE??? *preps the bull* I MEAN COME ON AMERICA *donates shekels to israel* ITS LIKE YOU DONT WANT PROGRESS *is raped by muslims* I MEAN REALLY *accuses you of entitlement* ITS TIME TO GROW UP AMERICA *checks twitter* BECAUSE YOUR TIME IS UP *agrees with a feminist* IT'S 2015
3534
« on: September 27, 2015, 03:40:29 PM »
Like I said. It's around 600 euros a month. Not sure what the fuck you're trying to say here. It helps if you read the article. Minimum wage is at an all time high in Spain. Just take a look at the pretty graph if you're finding it difficult to read. I'm sure at least you know how to understand graphs. LOL
I just said they can't afford to hire people in Spain. Literally every small business there is run by its owners. And if they do hire people, they around 500 euros and you're lucky if you get paid. What the fuck is this even supposed to refute? Please explain in detail. I already have, but I'll water it down for you even further if it's that difficult for you: I sell lemonade for $2 a cup. I also have a friend who I pay 20% of the earnings to from each cup I sell. I run the administration, the setting up of the business, and the marketing of my lemonade. My friend simply squeezes the lemons. That's why he only earns 20% A government official comes down and tells me that I need to pay my friend 50% because 'equality' and employee rights. I also need a license to sell lemonade which will cost me another $50 in expenses. I need to figure out a way to compensate this, so I start charging $10 a cup just to make ends meet. Customers stop coming to my lemonade stand due to the high prices. I have to let my friend go. He ends up losing employment altogether, and nobody can buy the lemonade because of its high price. It's a lose lose situation for everybody simply because the employer was deemed worthy of a wage higher than his market value. That is the fundamentals of the minimum wage for you. Like I said, these large corporations can afford to pay higher wages. If they lose some profit, I'm not losing any sleep over it. Employees being paid fairly is more important to me than the type of yacht the higher ups can buy. Muh corporation meme. Bully corporations into paying out unnecessary expenses all you want. It will not change a thing. LMAO
WHO DOESNT WANT TO BE RICH
ARE YOU RETARDED "I don't have an argument so I'm going to scream buzzwords in capital letters" muh jargon Lol. Are the big bad words too much for you? What's inflated here is school is more affordable so the skilled labor sector has been flooded with people. Speak in normal English, jargon doesn't make you look smart. Okay. Too many people in college = degrees being worthless. What's the point if everyone has one? The whole crux of a degree was to stand you out from the crowd. Now everyone has one. It does, though. Because people are desperate to get any type of degree and this in turn is devaluing skilled workers. So...reconciling my point about how overinflated tertiary education is. Minimum wage should be a livable wage. It pretty much is, that is if you don't make irresponsible choices by trying to raise a family whilst working at McDonalds.
3535
« on: September 27, 2015, 03:13:58 PM »
Split that over twelve months, and you're looking at between $2,100 - $6,091 per month. Is this referencing the highest paid, or the lowest paid? I'm going to assume you pick the latter because it conveniently aids your argument.
I'm on mobile now, so I'm going to address every piece of your argument until I'm home. I will say this:
That references the absolute baseline annual salary (25k), and the most (75k, I believe it was), divided over 12 months. The median salary would lie at about 4k.
But you kind of pigeonholed your argument by pertaining the cost of living to a city that is universally known as an expensive city to live in. Just because New York is expensive to live in does not mean we should impetuously raise the minimum wage for everyone else.
3536
« on: September 27, 2015, 03:06:36 PM »
Split that over twelve months, and you're looking at between $2,100 - $6,091 per month. Is this referencing the highest paid, or the lowest paid? I'm going to assume you pick the latter because it conveniently aids your argument. Now, factor out any rent (For New York city, you're going to look at between 500-1000 a month, even with a roommate - median rent of a 2 bedroom apartment is $1,600), food, which in New York City will cost between 28% and 39% more than the national average How convenient you nitpicked a city with a monumental cost of living to suit the argument. What data is this representing? Average income households or high income households? You can't just cherrypick a statistic and then use it to encompass the entirety of a city, let alone, the entire country. estimating around $200 a month. Of course, you're going to need transportation - expect to shell out a good couple hundred on parking (And don't recommend public transportation - as a carpenter, you're going to need to drive with supplies). Again, you need to clarify if you are referring to the high paid end of the spectrum of carpentry. So yeah, you're making 2,000 without a degree as a bottom of the line, base salary. You're also going to be scraping the barrel to cover your expenses, at least in a urban atmosphere. So basically your argument is we need to raise the minimum wage because New York, is like super expensive?
3537
« on: September 27, 2015, 02:46:45 PM »
Carpentry, Masonry, vocational careers. You do realize these are careers that not everyone without a degree (or with one) can do well, correct? Yes. You also don't need a degree to do them either. Please stop if you're about to say we need to abolish the minimum wage. A large majority of the Scandivanian countries have no minimum wage laws and instead rely on the market to fix wage rates. Their cost of living is exemplary. I'm not positing the notion that we should abolish minimum wage. It would help if you stop misinterpreting my arguments. I'm saying that raising the minimum wage has extremely negative implications for the labour market.
3538
« on: September 27, 2015, 02:43:07 PM »
Exactly. Not because they have a high minimum wage. In fact, they have a really low minimum wage. Categorically wrong.A small business in Spain is something that makes around 2,000€ profit. They can't afford to hire people. No doubt through astronomically high minimum wage. What exactly is your solution? To not have colossal minimum wage laws for one. If we don't increase wages, or somehow miraculously decrease the cost of living, how are people supposed to live? Increasing minimum wage and increasing the cost of living are inextricably linked. If you're selling a loaf of bread at $2 and then the government comes along and arbitrarily tells you to start paying your employers at a rate above market value, you're obviously going to increase the price of that loaf of bread to compensate expense. It's simple economics, if not common sense. The idea that minimum wage jobs are a temporary little thing for some extra money on the side is bullshit. Never posited that. They're foot in the door positions for people looking to gain experience and for those who don't want to live a particularly affluent lifestyle. There are people with degrees stuck working minimum wage. Partly because the tertiary education sector is so massively fucking inflated. Sure, there are a lot of people who just can't cut it, but the real problem here is the job market has been flooded. Cheap and affordable higher learning has created a very big problem, and now companies are simply bring in an Indian guy who's more or less qualified on work visas to do the same job for half the pay. This is what's going on just in Silicon Valley. None of this refutes why we shouldn't increase the minimum wage.
3539
« on: September 27, 2015, 02:36:55 PM »
Question to those against raising the minimum wage (Or even those who are for it): What are the other options?
As Challenger pointed out, the job market in most countries, especially industrialized Western nations, are becoming overcrowded with people earning degrees and searching for higher employment. Those who are working at a place like Wal-Mart, McDonalds, or other retail environments are growingly finding themselves stuck there - they may get lucky and get some management position, but nothing with a stable enough income to actually contribute more to the overall economy.
First of all, over inflating tertiary education is never a good thing. If everyone and their grandma has a bachelor degree, what's the point in getting one? How are employers able to discern who is best for the job?
This statement makes it sound like there is always going to be a section of workers that is going to be down on the luck in terms of wages and employment.
No, it means that not everyone should be getting college degrees because it renders them useless.
So, a chunk of people who aren't going to get degrees from a university are going to work their lives at some retail establishment of some kind - for low wages that they cannot live on.
Tell me again how that fixes the problem?
You've started the presupposition that anyone who can't get a college degree is automatically deemed worthless. There are plenty of economically viable career paths that don't necessarily require some kind of degree, which would be less rigid if it weren't for the arbitrary minimum wage laws.
3540
« on: September 27, 2015, 02:24:50 PM »
Question to those against raising the minimum wage (Or even those who are for it): What are the other options?
As Challenger pointed out, the job market in most countries, especially industrialized Western nations, are becoming overcrowded with people earning degrees and searching for higher employment. Those who are working at a place like Wal-Mart, McDonalds, or other retail environments are growingly finding themselves stuck there - they may get lucky and get some management position, but nothing with a stable enough income to actually contribute more to the overall economy.
First of all, over inflating tertiary education is never a good thing. If everyone and their grandma has a bachelor degree, what's the point in getting one? How are employers able to discern who is best for the job?
This statement makes it sound like there is always going to be a section of workers that is going to be down on the luck in terms of wages and employment.
No, it means that not everyone should be getting college degrees because it renders them useless.
Pages: 1 ... 116117118 119120 ... 243
|
Show Posts