FantasySharks.com

There are two types of Fantasy Football Owners: Sharks and Chum, which are you?
It is currently Thu 07.31.2014, 14:36

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 182 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 13  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue 03.27.2012, 15:01 
Offline
Supreme Megalodon
Supreme Megalodon
User avatar

Joined: Wed 09.10.2003, 14:20
Posts: 31859
Sand$: 12608
Donate
buf.gif
elven wrote:
my jaw aches if i eat too many skittles.


it destroys the roof of my mouth....maybe black people have some evolutionary guard against this.

_________________
currently consulting my FF appraiser/advisor


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 03.27.2012, 15:10 
Offline
Moderatorbaiter
User avatar

Joined: Sun 07.10.2005, 07:33
Posts: 23599
Sand$: 9762
Donate
Location: Aggieland
dal.gif
HurricaneNamedDitka wrote:
elven wrote:
my jaw aches if i eat too many skittles.


it destroys the roof of my mouth....maybe black people have some evolutionary guard against this.


Destroys my tongue and I can't taste anything for a week. It also makes my teeth hurt and makes them extremely sensitive to cold.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 03.27.2012, 15:30 
Online
Supreme Megalodon
Supreme Megalodon
User avatar

Joined: Sun 09.11.2005, 10:42
Posts: 37127
Sand$: 33044
Donate
Location: Rock Hill, SC
car.gif
Stankweasels 3000 wrote:
Anyone who's saying that a kid wearing a hoodie to keep warm on a brisk February evening is begging to get murdered is a moron. What the hell is wrong with you dopes?


My reading comprehension must really suck, who at all said that?

_________________
34-17/ 29-7 / 34-13 / 27-17 / 31-17

2010 & 2011 Baseball National Champs

I was the smartest person I knew, certainly I had wherewithal to unravel the mysteries that lay at the heart of a moron.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 03.27.2012, 15:59 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue 10.21.2003, 10:56
Posts: 27121
Sand$: 3347
Donate
Location: Austin, TX
hou.gif
pwbowen wrote:
Stankweasels 3000 wrote:
Anyone who's saying that a kid wearing a hoodie to keep warm on a brisk February evening is begging to get murdered is a moron. What the hell is wrong with you dopes?


My reading comprehension must really suck, who at all said that?


anyone saying that a hoodie has anything to do with it.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 03.27.2012, 17:43 
Offline
Supreme Megalodon
Supreme Megalodon
User avatar

Joined: Sat 05.16.2009, 09:57
Posts: 26878
Sand$: 31773
Donate
Location: Arkansas
mia.gif
beerbarian wrote:
Elmagister wrote:
beerbarian wrote:
Elmagister wrote:
So the kid is to blame for wearing a hoodie. And a woman is to blame for being raped if she wears a skirt.


No they're not. I didn't say they were. I'm saying the same thing as someone else said...perceptions are real. You need to be aware of the perceptions and understand how to mitigate them. Don't wear a "leaglize pot" t-shirt to your job interview. Clean your car before you pick up your date. If you're walking into a convenience store to buy something, lowering your hood and/or removing your sunglasses for 10 min. will lower the cashier's anxiety. You can still run into some crazy a-hole who will just find another reason to focus his attention on you...but if nobody ever acknowledges that the perceptions can lead to real consequences then the risk for a bad outcome increases.

The kid isn't to blame for wearing a hoodie. But wearing a hoodie might have drawn the attention of a dangerous individual. Maybe he would have drawn that attention just because he was black. He's just as dead either way...but if he had been aware of the perceptions, and had mitigated the risk he might be alive today.


Right, and a woman should be aware that a skirt might attract the attention of a rapist.


Do you think there is a reason why police detctives don't wear the uniform that patrol officers wear? Is there a reason why doctors wear labcoats that are white? Any special reason why the people behind the counter at McDonald's wear the same shirt and same color pants?

You seem bent on denying something that has been proven time and again to be a truism of human perception, and you seem to be angry that someone dared to point it out (although to be fair, he did so in a douchey and sensationalist way that basically ruins the message). There's no reason not to be upset that the perceptions are wrong/unfair/whatever. But denying they exist does nothing to combat them.


If you're saying that appearances affect people's perceptions? Sure. I agree with that. If you're saying this has any bearing whatsoever in this case? Yeah, that pisses me off. The kid could have been dressed like a Zulu Warrior, and the guy had no reason to go start a fight with him, then shoot him dead. Had he followed the 911 dispatcher's instructions, and left the kid alone, the murderer can have whatever preconceived notions about him he wants, but the kid goes home alive.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 03.27.2012, 18:43 
Offline
Great White Shark
Great White Shark
User avatar

Joined: Wed 09.04.2002, 16:04
Posts: 7453
Sand$: 7116
Donate
Location: Durham, NC
mia.gif
Elmagister wrote:
beerbarian wrote:
Elmagister wrote:
beerbarian wrote:
Elmagister wrote:
So the kid is to blame for wearing a hoodie. And a woman is to blame for being raped if she wears a skirt.


No they're not. I didn't say they were. I'm saying the same thing as someone else said...perceptions are real. You need to be aware of the perceptions and understand how to mitigate them. Don't wear a "leaglize pot" t-shirt to your job interview. Clean your car before you pick up your date. If you're walking into a convenience store to buy something, lowering your hood and/or removing your sunglasses for 10 min. will lower the cashier's anxiety. You can still run into some crazy a-hole who will just find another reason to focus his attention on you...but if nobody ever acknowledges that the perceptions can lead to real consequences then the risk for a bad outcome increases.

The kid isn't to blame for wearing a hoodie. But wearing a hoodie might have drawn the attention of a dangerous individual. Maybe he would have drawn that attention just because he was black. He's just as dead either way...but if he had been aware of the perceptions, and had mitigated the risk he might be alive today.


Right, and a woman should be aware that a skirt might attract the attention of a rapist.


Do you think there is a reason why police detctives don't wear the uniform that patrol officers wear? Is there a reason why doctors wear labcoats that are white? Any special reason why the people behind the counter at McDonald's wear the same shirt and same color pants?

You seem bent on denying something that has been proven time and again to be a truism of human perception, and you seem to be angry that someone dared to point it out (although to be fair, he did so in a douchey and sensationalist way that basically ruins the message). There's no reason not to be upset that the perceptions are wrong/unfair/whatever. But denying they exist does nothing to combat them.


If you're saying that appearances affect people's perceptions? Sure. I agree with that. If you're saying this has any bearing whatsoever in this case? Yeah, that pisses me off. The kid could have been dressed like a Zulu Warrior, and the guy had no reason to go start a fight with him, then shoot him dead. Had he followed the 911 dispatcher's instructions, and left the kid alone, the murderer can have whatever preconceived notions about him he wants, but the kid goes home alive.


It should piss you off, and it shouldn't matter...but it does. Geraldo in his own douchey way is just saying "If you wear a hoodie, you attract the attention of the cop-wannabee vigilante crowd". Some of them are unstable. If you think there are only one or two of them and your risks are low, don't worry about it. But that's small consolation when the decision can get you killed.

The courts will settle it. They'll decide who did what. Maybe the victim is innocent, maybe not...doesn'treally matter when you're dead.

Hate Geraldo for being a douche, but don't hate him for telling folks how to mitigate the risk.

_________________
Image

Boom goes the dynamite.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 03.27.2012, 18:47 
Offline
Supreme Megalodon
Supreme Megalodon
User avatar

Joined: Sat 05.16.2009, 09:57
Posts: 26878
Sand$: 31773
Donate
Location: Arkansas
mia.gif
beerbarian wrote:
It should piss you off, and it shouldn't matter...but it does. Geraldo in his own douchey way is just saying "If you wear a hoodie, you attract the attention of the cop-wannabee vigilante crowd". Some of them are unstable. If you think there are only one or two of them and your risks are low, don't worry about it. But that's small consolation when the decision can get you killed.

The courts will settle it. They'll decide who did what. Maybe the victim is innocent, maybe not...doesn'treally matter when you're dead.

Hate Geraldo for being a douche, but don't hate him for telling folks how to mitigate the risk.


Sorry...you weren't arguing what I thought you were arguing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 03.27.2012, 18:52 
Online
Great White Shark
Great White Shark
User avatar

Joined: Thu 08.30.2007, 04:35
Posts: 8666
Sand$: 21473
Donate
Location: St Louis
stl.gif
Elmagister wrote:

If you're saying that appearances affect people's perceptions? Sure. I agree with that. If you're saying this has any bearing whatsoever in this case? Yeah, that pisses me off. The kid could have been dressed like a Zulu Warrior, and the guy had no reason to go start a fight with him, then shoot him dead. Had he followed the 911 dispatcher's instructions, and left the kid alone, the murderer can have whatever preconceived notions about him he wants, but the kid goes home alive.



If an eye witness and the police are to be believed, if the 17 year old wouldn't have punched the guy in the face and started to beat his head on the sidewalk he would still be alive today.

I'm not saying the kid deserved it, but we don't know what happened. The whole country is going apechit with one side of the story.

You ever notice that all the pictures of this kid are years old? Funny how they show pictures of the kid when he was 13-14 and not recent pictures. They don't want to show recent pictures of he kid with his grill and tats. They want to portray the poor honor student, not the kid suspended from school for drugs who went by the twitter handle NO_LIMIT_N*** who tweeted about beating up people and got tweets from his friends asking to buy weed.

Now I'm not saying that means he attacked the guy or that he deserved to die. I'm saying that at least part of the story is not as presented and for all we know none of the story is as presented.

_________________
It was purgatory.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 03.27.2012, 18:54 
Offline
Supreme Megalodon
Supreme Megalodon
User avatar

Joined: Sat 05.16.2009, 09:57
Posts: 26878
Sand$: 31773
Donate
Location: Arkansas
mia.gif
tjusmc wrote:
Elmagister wrote:

If you're saying that appearances affect people's perceptions? Sure. I agree with that. If you're saying this has any bearing whatsoever in this case? Yeah, that pisses me off. The kid could have been dressed like a Zulu Warrior, and the guy had no reason to go start a fight with him, then shoot him dead. Had he followed the 911 dispatcher's instructions, and left the kid alone, the murderer can have whatever preconceived notions about him he wants, but the kid goes home alive.



If an eye witness and the police are to be believed, if the 17 year old wouldn't have punched the guy in the face and started to beat his head on the sidewalk he would still be alive today.

I'm not saying the kid deserved it, but we don't know what happened. The whole country is going apechit with one side of the story.

You ever notice that all the pictures of this kid are years old? Funny how they show pictures of the kid when he was 13-14 and not recent pictures. They don't want to show recent pictures of he kid with his grill and tats. They want to portray the poor honor student, not the kid suspended from school for drugs who went by the twitter handle NO_LIMIT_N*** who tweeted about beating up people and got tweets from his friends asking to buy weed.

Now I'm not saying that means he attacked the guy or that he deserved to die. I'm saying that at least part of the story is not as presented and for all we know none of the story is as presented.


Those are all very valid points, but I will ask: What would you do if you were walking home, and someone got in your face?

My overall point is that it's hard to argue self defense when you initiate the contact/fight.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 03.27.2012, 19:00 
Online
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat 08.01.2009, 23:39
Posts: 28613
Sand$: 46943
Donate
Location: SoCal
nyj.gif
Elmagister wrote:
tjusmc wrote:
Elmagister wrote:

If you're saying that appearances affect people's perceptions? Sure. I agree with that. If you're saying this has any bearing whatsoever in this case? Yeah, that pisses me off. The kid could have been dressed like a Zulu Warrior, and the guy had no reason to go start a fight with him, then shoot him dead. Had he followed the 911 dispatcher's instructions, and left the kid alone, the murderer can have whatever preconceived notions about him he wants, but the kid goes home alive.



If an eye witness and the police are to be believed, if the 17 year old wouldn't have punched the guy in the face and started to beat his head on the sidewalk he would still be alive today.

I'm not saying the kid deserved it, but we don't know what happened. The whole country is going apechit with one side of the story.

You ever notice that all the pictures of this kid are years old? Funny how they show pictures of the kid when he was 13-14 and not recent pictures. They don't want to show recent pictures of he kid with his grill and tats. They want to portray the poor honor student, not the kid suspended from school for drugs who went by the twitter handle NO_LIMIT_N*** who tweeted about beating up people and got tweets from his friends asking to buy weed.

Now I'm not saying that means he attacked the guy or that he deserved to die. I'm saying that at least part of the story is not as presented and for all we know none of the story is as presented.


Those are all very valid points, but I will ask: What would you do if you were walking home, and someone got in your face?

My overall point is that it's hard to argue self defense when you initiate the contact/fight.


Everyone can talk in circles all they want, point to racial profiling, an armed overzealous wannabe failed cop, a teenager with marijuana residue in a plastic bag (ZOMG!), etc, etc, etc. You can spin it toward Trayvon, you can spin it toward Zimmerman, but I keep coming back to this
Elmagister wrote:
My overall point is that it's hard to argue self defense when you initiate the contact/fight.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 03.27.2012, 19:04 
Online
Great White Shark
Great White Shark
User avatar

Joined: Thu 08.30.2007, 04:35
Posts: 8666
Sand$: 21473
Donate
Location: St Louis
stl.gif
Elmagister wrote:
tjusmc wrote:
Elmagister wrote:

If you're saying that appearances affect people's perceptions? Sure. I agree with that. If you're saying this has any bearing whatsoever in this case? Yeah, that pisses me off. The kid could have been dressed like a Zulu Warrior, and the guy had no reason to go start a fight with him, then shoot him dead. Had he followed the 911 dispatcher's instructions, and left the kid alone, the murderer can have whatever preconceived notions about him he wants, but the kid goes home alive.



If an eye witness and the police are to be believed, if the 17 year old wouldn't have punched the guy in the face and started to beat his head on the sidewalk he would still be alive today.

I'm not saying the kid deserved it, but we don't know what happened. The whole country is going apechit with one side of the story.

You ever notice that all the pictures of this kid are years old? Funny how they show pictures of the kid when he was 13-14 and not recent pictures. They don't want to show recent pictures of he kid with his grill and tats. They want to portray the poor honor student, not the kid suspended from school for drugs who went by the twitter handle NO_LIMIT_N*** who tweeted about beating up people and got tweets from his friends asking to buy weed.

Now I'm not saying that means he attacked the guy or that he deserved to die. I'm saying that at least part of the story is not as presented and for all we know none of the story is as presented.


Those are all very valid points, but I will ask: What would you do if you were walking home, and someone got in your face?

My overall point is that it's hard to argue self defense when you initiate the contact/fight.


The official story is that he stopped following him as instructed by 911 and was heading back to his car when the kid approached him and hit him. Is that what really happened, I have no idea.

To the broader point though, it is harder to argue self defense when you initiated the contact but it can happen. The key is who escalated it. If someone starts an argument with you (justified or not) and you start to beat their teeth in it is still self defense if they shoot you in my opinion.

_________________
It was purgatory.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 03.27.2012, 19:18 
Offline
Supreme Megalodon
Supreme Megalodon
User avatar

Joined: Sat 05.16.2009, 09:57
Posts: 26878
Sand$: 31773
Donate
Location: Arkansas
mia.gif
tjusmc wrote:
Elmagister wrote:
tjusmc wrote:
Elmagister wrote:

If you're saying that appearances affect people's perceptions? Sure. I agree with that. If you're saying this has any bearing whatsoever in this case? Yeah, that pisses me off. The kid could have been dressed like a Zulu Warrior, and the guy had no reason to go start a fight with him, then shoot him dead. Had he followed the 911 dispatcher's instructions, and left the kid alone, the murderer can have whatever preconceived notions about him he wants, but the kid goes home alive.



If an eye witness and the police are to be believed, if the 17 year old wouldn't have punched the guy in the face and started to beat his head on the sidewalk he would still be alive today.

I'm not saying the kid deserved it, but we don't know what happened. The whole country is going apechit with one side of the story.

You ever notice that all the pictures of this kid are years old? Funny how they show pictures of the kid when he was 13-14 and not recent pictures. They don't want to show recent pictures of he kid with his grill and tats. They want to portray the poor honor student, not the kid suspended from school for drugs who went by the twitter handle NO_LIMIT_N*** who tweeted about beating up people and got tweets from his friends asking to buy weed.

Now I'm not saying that means he attacked the guy or that he deserved to die. I'm saying that at least part of the story is not as presented and for all we know none of the story is as presented.


Those are all very valid points, but I will ask: What would you do if you were walking home, and someone got in your face?

My overall point is that it's hard to argue self defense when you initiate the contact/fight.


The official story is that he stopped following him as instructed by 911 and was heading back to his car when the kid approached him and hit him. Is that what really happened, I have no idea.

To the broader point though, it is harder to argue self defense when you initiated the contact but it can happen. The key is who escalated it. If someone starts an argument with you (justified or not) and you start to beat their teeth in it is still self defense if they shoot you in my opinion.


Actually they instructed him to stop following, but when Trayvonn began running, he ran after him. A witness also said she heard the boy screaming for help, and the policeman (who wasn't there) corrected her and told her she'd heard Zimmerman screaming.

Also, if the law states that I can defend myself with deadly force (Stand Your Ground), and someone approaches and attacks me, and I legally begin to defend myself...does it then become legal for them to shoot me dead because I was defending myself? I don't think so.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 03.27.2012, 19:47 
Online
Great White Shark
Great White Shark
User avatar

Joined: Thu 08.30.2007, 04:35
Posts: 8666
Sand$: 21473
Donate
Location: St Louis
stl.gif
Elmagister wrote:

Actually they instructed him to stop following, but when Trayvonn began running, he ran after him. A witness also said she heard the boy screaming for help, and the policeman (who wasn't there) corrected her and told her she'd heard Zimmerman screaming.

Also, if the law states that I can defend myself with deadly force (Stand Your Ground), and someone approaches and attacks me, and I legally begin to defend myself...does it then become legal for them to shoot me dead because I was defending myself? I don't think so.



Like I said, I don't know what really happened. I wouldn't be surprised by either scenario.


I would say that if someone approaches and attacks you and you defend yourself I wouldn't think they could legitimately claim self defense.

If someone approaches you and says they don't recognize you and asks what are you doing here and you proceed to beat the chit out of them and they shoot you dead, I would say that despite the fact they approached you and initiated the contact it is self defense.

Its not always black and white, in my opinion, the one that escalates the violence beyond what is reasonable loses the right to claim self defense.

_________________
It was purgatory.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 03.27.2012, 19:54 
Offline
Supreme Megalodon
Supreme Megalodon
User avatar

Joined: Sat 05.16.2009, 09:57
Posts: 26878
Sand$: 31773
Donate
Location: Arkansas
mia.gif
tjusmc wrote:
Elmagister wrote:

Actually they instructed him to stop following, but when Trayvonn began running, he ran after him. A witness also said she heard the boy screaming for help, and the policeman (who wasn't there) corrected her and told her she'd heard Zimmerman screaming.

Also, if the law states that I can defend myself with deadly force (Stand Your Ground), and someone approaches and attacks me, and I legally begin to defend myself...does it then become legal for them to shoot me dead because I was defending myself? I don't think so.



Like I said, I don't know what really happened. I wouldn't be surprised by either scenario.


I would say that if someone approaches and attacks you and you defend yourself I wouldn't think they could legitimately claim self defense.

If someone approaches you and says they don't recognize you and asks what are you doing here and you proceed to beat the chit out of them and they shoot you dead, I would say that despite the fact they approached you and initiated the contact it is self defense.

Its not always black and white, in my opinion, the one that escalates the violence beyond what is reasonable loses the right to claim self defense.


So I can go into Little Rock, pick out the thugiest guy I can find, approach question him, and when he pounds me in the face, legalized murder.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 03.27.2012, 20:08 
Online
Great White Shark
Great White Shark
User avatar

Joined: Thu 08.30.2007, 04:35
Posts: 8666
Sand$: 21473
Donate
Location: St Louis
stl.gif
Elmagister wrote:

So I can go into Little Rock, pick out the thugiest guy I can find, approach question him, and when he pounds me in the face, legalized murder.



If that's the way you want to look at it, yes.

Starting a verbal confrontation doesn't mean that the person loses the right to defend themselves if the other person changes it to a physical confrontation if the violence level justifies it. Meaning I can't shoot you because you punched me in the jaw. I can shoot you if you start banging my head on the sidewalk or continue to beat me to the point a reasonable person would fear for their life or fear serious bodily harm.

Isn't this common sense?

_________________
It was purgatory.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 182 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 13  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: badgasman9, birddog, Gill Posse, Griffimo, tjusmc and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group