ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Closed Thread
Old 9th April 2012, 11:35 PM   #1
Natural Born Skeptic
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,456
Travon Martin - Liberals versus Conservatives

It's interesting but not surprising how most folks seem to be divided along political lines on this case. The majority of those convinced that GZ is a murderer and racist seem to be overwhelmingly liberal.

The majority of those calling for restraint and convinced all of the facts should be looked at and that GZ may not be who he is being made out to be seem to be overwhelmingly conservative.

Of course there are various shades of grey between those two opinions, but that's the way it seems to pretty much break down. I don't think the above is merely opinion, I think it could be easily quantified. All you need to do is look at how the various liberal and conservative publications are writing about the issue.

Anyhow, I wonder if the above breakdown is as constant on JREF? I'd be interested in know where people arguing in the big TM thread fall as far as their political affiliations and see how that coincides with their position.

I'll go first and welcome anyone else willing to volunteer. Most of my political positions would be considered strongly liberal and I've never voted for a Republican candidate in my life. Based on the very initial reports from the media I certainly fell into the "let's arrest this murdering racist now" category. But for me the turning point was when I started to see people post on Facebook asking their friends to sign petitions demanding GZ's arrest. At that point my feeling was "wait a minute, I'm willing to rant about this guy on Facebook, but I don't actually know enough to start demanding his arrest, they've hired a new DA now, let her do her work and complete her investigation".

From there I started to read more about the case and the more I read the more concerned I started to become about the narrative that was being spun based on little evidence. Now I don't feel as though I have enough information to know whether he should be charged, or what he should be charged with and am waiting for more evidence to come out.

Anyhow, I'd be interested in know where others fall in terms of their summary position and political affiliation, for those willing to share.

Last edited by Natural Born Skeptic; 10th April 2012 at 12:02 AM.
Natural Born Skeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th April 2012, 11:42 PM   #2
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 9,109
Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic View Post
It's interesting but not surprising how most folks seem to be divided on this case. The majority of those convinced that GZ is nothing less than a cold blooded murderer and racist seem to be overwhelmingly liberal.

The majority of those calling for restraint and convinced all of the facts should be looked at and that GZ may not be who he is being made out to be seem to be overwhelmingly conservative.
What an amazingly fair and accurate portrayal of the only two possible points of view on this case.
__________________
Lost your faith in humanity?

Click here to have it restored.

Or here.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th April 2012, 11:49 PM   #3
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 57,287
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
What an amazingly fair and accurate portrayal of the only two possible points of view on this case.
Sig file time. Add that to a little confirmation bias and self righteousness. Some heady stuff.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

I think I'll reroute my trip
I wonder if they'd think I'd flipped.
If I went to LA, via Omaha.
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th April 2012, 11:55 PM   #4
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 57,287
My opinion? Most people don't have an absolute side. Those on the left think that SYG is questionable law and that GZ acted recklessly and his actions unnecessarily led to the death of TM who was not involved in any crime. I'm willing to bet that at best GZ is having second thoughts about playing cop when he could have stayed in his car.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

I think I'll reroute my trip
I wonder if they'd think I'd flipped.
If I went to LA, via Omaha.

Last edited by RandFan; 9th April 2012 at 11:57 PM.
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2012, 12:04 AM   #5
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 12,173
The OP was phrased poorly and perhaps unfairly. A fairer statement might note that those who have tended to be skeptical of George Zimmerman's account, his defenders and the evidence they have presented are liberal, and those who have tended to be skeptical of George Zimmerman's accusers and the evidence they have presented are conservative. Indeed, it is just this dynamic which has largely resulted in my avoiding the topic for the most part.

As for myself, I feel the case is largely balanced on the knife-edge. Zimmerman may have committed a racist murder and he may have simply defended himself against what he perceived (most likely incorrectly) as a violent criminal.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2012, 12:16 AM   #6
Natural Born Skeptic
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,456
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
The OP was phrased poorly and perhaps unfairly. A fairer statement might note that those who have tended to be skeptical of George Zimmerman's account, his defenders and the evidence they have presented are liberal, and those who have tended to be skeptical of George Zimmerman's accusers and the evidence they have presented are conservative. Indeed, it is just this dynamic which has largely resulted in my avoiding the topic for the most part.
That might be a fairer statement, but I did note there are gray areas between the two extremes I painted. However my post was meant more to characterize where I see a majority of people falling by observing statements by people all over the web, not on JREF where much more intelligent and balanced discussion/views takes place. And on Facebook where I tend to know who is liberal versus conservative, it seems to be pretty consistent. Here is a very typical example and it goes on for hundreds of comments and I'm not cherry picking:

Quote:
Well, he promised "the real George Zimmerman" - he's only publicly owning what we already knew - he's a racist pig that followed a child and murdered him because of the color of his skin. Bam.
Quote:
and you're mob mentallity must come from a poor education. (innocent until PROVEN GUILTY by a JURY of his PEERS)
ARM CHAIR JURIES and people with 'OPINIONS' not 'FACTS' NEED NOT APPLY

Last edited by Natural Born Skeptic; 10th April 2012 at 12:36 AM.
Natural Born Skeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2012, 12:25 AM   #7
Natural Born Skeptic
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,456
BTW, I didn't even bother to look at the political affiliation of either of those posters until just now. The first one is private, but the second one is public (see post and profile below). It's remarkably constant which political side people fall into based on their arguments from what I've seen so far.

Quote:
[and you're mob mentallity must come from a poor education. (innocent until PROVEN GUILTY by a JURY of his PEERS)
ARM CHAIR JURIES and people with 'OPINIONS' not 'FACTS' NEED NOT APPLY
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1798286175

Last edited by Natural Born Skeptic; 10th April 2012 at 12:26 AM.
Natural Born Skeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2012, 12:30 AM   #8
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 9,109
Anecdotal evidence based on reading Facebook comments?

I can't imagine a more persuasive and compelling argument.
__________________
Lost your faith in humanity?

Click here to have it restored.

Or here.

Last edited by johnny karate; 10th April 2012 at 12:32 AM.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2012, 01:04 AM   #9
curi0us
Critical Thinker
 
curi0us's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 445
I use to read the Liberal Dailykos regularly, but stopped when the racial politics there got taken over there by people who think like "Anti-racist" author Tim Wise who has written a number of books on racism and regularly gives educational workshops to teach white people about empathy. His thoughts on the shooting:

Quote:
By now, you probably know the shameful details, but they are worth repeating, in any event.

On the evening of February 26, George Zimmerman, a self-appointed “neighborhood watch captain” in an Orlando suburb, shot and killed 17-year old Trayvon Martin.

Because Martin was black.

And no, don’t even think of rolling your eyes at the suggestion. That is what happened, just as surely as so many might well be loathe to admit it.

Oh sure, he denies such a motivation, as does his family, but the details of the incident, now emerging from that evening leave very little question about it.

This was not, as we too often hear in the wake of such incidents, “a tragedy.”

This was not, as some would have it, “a terrible accident.”

It was murder, plain and simple. And it would be called such by everyone in a nation that had any commitment to honest language, which, sadly, would pretty much rule out the one in which Martin’s life began and ended, and in which Zimmerman continues to operate as a free man, unarrested by the police.
http://www.timwise.org/2012/03/trayv...ss-in-america/

It's sad because Tim Wise would get gushing praise at DKos when writing incredibly bigoted stuff. A little more:

Quote:
As for Zimmerman’s claims of self-defense, that anyone could believe such a demonstrably transparent lie as this is stunning. Or rather it isn’t. It makes perfect sense in a nation where blackness and danger have long been considered synonymous, such that any black male over the age of perhaps 10 can “reasonably” be assumed a predator whose designs on decent people and their property are so concretized as to warrant virtually any measure invoked to monitor, control and incapacitate them. However much has changed in the U.S. since the 1960s, or for that matter the 1860s, make note of it that at least this much has not: black folks are still, in the eyes of far too many whites, a problem to be addressed, a riddle to be solved. And deprived of the old mechanisms of social control to which we were once so wedded — formal segregation, regular lynchings, forced sterilization, even enslavement — we have opted for the development of new forms: racial profiling, gated communities into which we shall police entry, zoning laws that limit who can live among us, and mass incarceration for non-violent drug offenses, among others.
__________________
At the end of the day, it's not that people have honest differences of opinion. It's that some will bend and twist the truth to back their pals, and do the same to trash their enemies, and they do it knowingly. -- Win
curi0us is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2012, 01:12 AM   #10
Natural Born Skeptic
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,456
Yes, that is painful to read. Is he also one of those folks that argues that it's impossible for black people to be racist? I've found that to be a pretty popular opinion among that circle. There argument is that as long as black people are disenfranchised, it's impossible for them to be racist. That only an oppressor can be racist.
Natural Born Skeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2012, 01:14 AM   #11
Natural Born Skeptic
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,456
Wow, he's psychic too!

Quote:
Zimmerman chased Martin down. Zimmerman tackled Martin after Martin demanded to know why Zimmerman was following him. Martin screamed for help. And Zimmerman shot him.
Natural Born Skeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2012, 01:36 AM   #12
curi0us
Critical Thinker
 
curi0us's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 445
Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic View Post
Yes, that is painful to read. Is he also one of those folks that argues that it's impossible for black people to be racist? I've found that to be a pretty popular opinion among that circle. There argument is that as long as black people are disenfranchised, it's impossible for them to be racist. That only an oppressor can be racist.
Yup. I am always surprised when otherwise smart people can't see how obviously wrong that is.
__________________
At the end of the day, it's not that people have honest differences of opinion. It's that some will bend and twist the truth to back their pals, and do the same to trash their enemies, and they do it knowingly. -- Win
curi0us is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2012, 01:44 AM   #13
jj
grumpy old skeptic
 
jj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 21,383
So where do all of these "either/or" types classify someone who doesn't believe anybody's story?

So little makes sense in this event that I have to assume we only know half of everyone's story.
__________________
The Power to Quit
jj is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2012, 01:47 AM   #14
Natural Born Skeptic
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,456
Originally Posted by jj View Post
So where do all of these "either/or" types classify someone who doesn't believe anybody's story?
An independent ?
Natural Born Skeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2012, 02:06 AM   #15
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,865
I think the defining line is more likely between those with some public safety training and/or experience, whether liberal or conservative.

I'm a liberal who has experience in fire fighting and arson investigations, plus some work in private security and a military background (which included my being involved in three BCD Special courts-martial, twice as a complaining witness and once as a defendant. [I won.])
__________________
No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2012, 02:14 AM   #16
Halfcentaur
Philosopher
 
Halfcentaur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,621
I'm a little fed up and disgusted with the way the public get's so involved with legal proceedings since the OJ Trial made something like court TV a reality. This notion that everyone really knows what happened based on their opinions undermines everything I find important about our justice system. I think it's fine to have an opinion, but it goes too far with the certainty you see behind their convictions. The minute by minute minutiae being reported by the 24/7 news networks is corrupting the idea that people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

I've not been following this case beyond the most basic of events so far, but I've yet to see anything compelling enough to suggest a bias. I am disturbed by how starkly black and white this issue is being portrayed by so many people on either side. If the police have abused their power here and undermined the justice system based on racial bias, I hope they are punished accordingly. At this point I've not seen anything beyond circumstantial anecdote.
Halfcentaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2012, 02:16 AM   #17
Roger Ramjets
Graduate Poster
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,245
Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic View Post
The majority of those calling for restraint and convinced all of the facts should be looked at and that GZ may not be who he is being made out to be seem to be overwhelmingly conservative.
The impression I get is that the belief in 'restraint' is non-partisan. Most of us just want to see justice served, and we are willing to accept the facts as they come out. However, in a homicide case like this there absolutely should be a proper investigation, and unless there are very strong reasons to drop all charges, the case should be taken to trial. We can't have people going around shooting unarmed civilians who were doing nothing wrong, and not being taken to task for it. Justice not only has to be done, it has to be seen to be done.

The facts as we know them are that an unarmed person, who was just minding his own business, was hunted down and killed by a vigilante who mistook him for a criminal. Perhaps the shooting itself was in self-defense, but the shooter should not have put himself in that position in the first place. We know that the police were on the way, and he was advised to wait for them and not take the law into his own hands. Unfortunately he ignored that advice. These facts are colorblind.

It would be nice if race wasn't an issue, but racism is so embedded in American society that this is impossible. Would the whole thing not be such a big deal if the shooter and victim were of the same race (or at least not 'black' and 'white')? Perhaps, but the real issue is how can someone be allowed to get away with hunting down and shooting other innocent person of any race.

Quote:
Anyhow, I'd be interested in know where others fall in terms of their summary position and political affiliation, for those willing to share.
Race is not an issue for me. Politically I am a liberal socialist statist (in the US I think that would be considered hard left). But that's just me. If you really do think that 'most folks seem to be divided along political lines' and 'it could be easily quantified' perhaps you should start a poll?
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2012, 02:32 AM   #18
Ryokan
Insert something funny here
 
Ryokan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 9,035
Since everything in the world can so neatly fit into two political boxes, you have to wonder why most of the rest of the world bothers to have more than two political parties..

Ryokan is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2012, 02:42 AM   #19
Natural Born Skeptic
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,456
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
The facts as we know them are that an unarmed person, who was just minding his own business, was hunted down and killed by a vigilante who mistook him for a criminal. Perhaps the shooting itself was in self-defense, but the shooter should not have put himself in that position in the first place. We know that the police were on the way, and he was advised to wait for them and not take the law into his own hands. Unfortunately he ignored that advice. These facts are colorblind.
Another fact that is color blind is that half the people debating in the big thread would say your facts aren't color blind and completely disagree with almost every one of them as you framed them. But those details have been discussed in the other thread endlessly, so I won't do so further here.
Quote:
Politically I am a liberal socialist statist (in the US I think that would be considered hard left). But that's just me. If you really do think that 'most folks seem to be divided along political lines' and 'it could be easily quantified' perhaps you should start a poll?
Thanks for sharing. As far as a poll, I was more interested in just hearing peoples perspectives on the political aspect of it.

Last edited by Natural Born Skeptic; 10th April 2012 at 03:03 AM.
Natural Born Skeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2012, 02:46 AM   #20
Natural Born Skeptic
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,456
Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
I think the defining line is more likely between those with some public safety training and/or experience, whether liberal or conservative.

I'm a liberal who has experience in fire fighting and arson investigations, plus some work in private security and a military background (which included my being involved in three BCD Special courts-martial, twice as a complaining witness and once as a defendant. [I won.])
Thanks lefty. As far as the case itself, even though we have much different views in the other thread, I've enjoyed reading your posts.
Natural Born Skeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2012, 03:59 AM   #21
Roger Ramjets
Graduate Poster
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,245
Originally Posted by Halfcentaur View Post
The minute by minute minutiae being reported by the 24/7 news networks is corrupting the idea that people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
True, however without news coverage this particular case might never have seen the light of day. Prohibiting the news media from reporting on cases is asking for trouble, but they should be encouraged to report in a responsible manner and let the courts do their job.

To avoid 'trial by media' the police should prosecute criminal cases promptly, and not release prejudicial information before the trial. I think there should also be laws to ensure that the news media cannot compromise a suspect's right to a fair trial. The personal details of suspects and witnesses should be suppressed by default. Witnesses should not be interviewed by the press until after the trial. If any news item or editorial is presented in a prejudicial manner then the publisher should be held accountable.

In this particular case there were a number of details that should have been suppressed, including the 911 tape, witness statements, and of course the names and races of the people involved. This is all information that the public does not need to know, and which would be presented in court if relevant to the case. Once the trial is underway and jurors have been impaneled it should be free of media influence, therefore I see nothing wrong with televising the proceedings.

The most disturbing mistake in this case is that the police did not treat the incident as a probable homicide and proceed accordingly. The news media cannot be blamed for reporting the 'minute by minute minutiae' of a case which appeared to have been dropped.

Quote:
Another fact that is color blind is that half the people debating in the big thread would say your facts aren't color blind and completely disagree with almost every one of them as you framed them.
What a peculiar accusation! Where did I mention race? Where did I even imply race? What facts are in dispute?

I find it hard to reconcile your previous statement ''I don't actually know enough to start demanding his arrest, they've hired a new DA now, let her do her work and complete her investigation" with the above. Do you really not believe sufficient facts have been presented to warrant an arrest, or is this just a knee-jerk reaction to some garbage you read on Facebook?

Quote:
As far as a poll, I was more interested in just hearing peoples perspectives on the political aspect of it.
Right. And here I was thinking that 'most folks seem to be divided along political lines on this case', 'I wonder if the above breakdown is as constant on JREF?' and 'it could be easily quantified' meant that you wanted objective data.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2012, 04:20 AM   #22
Mumbles
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,799
Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic View Post
It's interesting but not surprising how most folks seem to be divided along political lines on this case. The majority of those convinced that GZ is a murderer and racist seem to be overwhelmingly liberal.

The majority of those calling for restraint and convinced all of the facts should be looked at and that GZ may not be who he is being made out to be seem to be overwhelmingly conservative.
as a somewhat liberal person, the entire point of a trial is to get the relevant facts out. Once the police decided to yap about how great Zimmerman was, and how he helped solve crimes, and oh he didn't even know what Martina's race was, and Zimmerman had his head viciously bashed into concrete, and then the 911 tape of Zimmerman clearly stated that Martin was black came out, and the video of Zimmerman just walking around like nothing happened, I was done with their opinion.

And that's the simple point. The police have made several misstatements, several witnesses have discussed being pressured, or not interviewed at all. I'm far past convinced that at least part of the PD is simply lying about the plain facts, to the press. I believe nothing that they have to say in this matter - and their history of similar acts says to me that heads should roll.

Who or what Zimmerman is remains to be seen - he's in hiding, and his surrogates are doing a terrible job thus far.
Mumbles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2012, 06:23 AM   #23
crimresearch
Alumbrado
 
crimresearch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,600
Labels like liberal and conservative have been hijacked to the point of being meaningless.

Phil Ochs nailed the pseudo liberals, and John Prine the pseudo conservatives, decades ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u52Oz-54VYw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgRVNjsuycQ
crimresearch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2012, 07:41 AM   #24
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,965
I guess I would be middle of the road.

I am a registered Republican.

However, there are things on the "typical" liberal side that I absolutely agree with.

Then there are things on the "typical" conservative side that I agree with. (For instance, guns and gun laws)

But, I vote for whomever I want, based on what they stand for. I have NEVER voted strictly Republican, and most likely never will.

But, me personally, separating us into separate sides R v D is silly, and only furthers to divide this county. /Rant
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2012, 09:36 AM   #25
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 57,287
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
The OP was phrased poorly and perhaps unfairly. A fairer statement might note that those who have tended to be skeptical of George Zimmerman's account, his defenders and the evidence they have presented are liberal, and those who have tended to be skeptical of George Zimmerman's accusers and the evidence they have presented are conservative.
Agreed.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

I think I'll reroute my trip
I wonder if they'd think I'd flipped.
If I went to LA, via Omaha.
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2012, 09:39 AM   #26
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 57,287
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
I guess I would be middle of the road.

I am a registered Republican.

However, there are things on the "typical" liberal side that I absolutely agree with.

Then there are things on the "typical" conservative side that I agree with. (For instance, guns and gun laws)

But, I vote for whomever I want, based on what they stand for. I have NEVER voted strictly Republican, and most likely never will.

But, me personally, separating us into separate sides R v D is silly, and only furthers to divide this county. /Rant
Good post.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

I think I'll reroute my trip
I wonder if they'd think I'd flipped.
If I went to LA, via Omaha.
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2012, 09:47 AM   #27
Xulld
Master Poster
 
Xulld's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,154
Originally Posted by Halfcentaur View Post
I'm a little fed up and disgusted with the way the public get's so involved with legal proceedings since the OJ Trial made something like court TV a reality. This notion that everyone really knows what happened based on their opinions undermines everything I find important about our justice system. I think it's fine to have an opinion, but it goes too far with the certainty you see behind their convictions. The minute by minute minutiae being reported by the 24/7 news networks is corrupting the idea that people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

I've not been following this case beyond the most basic of events so far, but I've yet to see anything compelling enough to suggest a bias. I am disturbed by how starkly black and white this issue is being portrayed by so many people on either side. If the police have abused their power here and undermined the justice system based on racial bias, I hope they are punished accordingly. At this point I've not seen anything beyond circumstantial anecdote.
Well said, and this matches my opinion. I think anyone with a clear conviction about this case who is not an investigator involved with access to all the facts, is just demonstrating their inability to think critically in situations such as these.

It is one thing to talk about hypotheticals and analyze the various possible outcomes, a whole other to say you KNOW something.
__________________
"Natural justice is a symbol or expression of usefullness, to prevent one person from harming or being harmed by another."-Epicurus

Freedom of Speech is a right recognized in the First Amendment. Freedom from consequence is nowhere to be found. -Bstrong
Xulld is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2012, 09:55 AM   #28
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,336
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
I guess I would be middle of the road.

I am a registered Republican.

However, there are things on the "typical" liberal side that I absolutely agree with.

Then there are things on the "typical" conservative side that I agree with. (For instance, guns and gun laws)
This closely mirrors my own viewpoint. Here's how I reacted to the incident.

At first, I was outraged. The only thing I found more outrageous than GZ's actions was the failure of the authorities to arrest him.

Then, I looked a little more closely at the evidence. While I think GZ acted irresponsibly, I no longer think it's the open-and-shut case I thought it was.

The thing is, I HATE having to take GZ's side on this, because I really WANTED him to be guilty. Not because of any racial issues, but because he struck me as being the type of person I absolutely despise: The power-hungry control-freak bully.

Also, I don't want to be seen as having made a knee-jerk reaction in deciding which side to take. In my mind, I'm just accepting the most likely explanation based on the evidence at hand, which is that there isn't sufficient cause to charge GZ with a crime.
Others may have trouble seeing it that way.
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.
aggle-rithm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2012, 10:02 AM   #29
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 9,109
Originally Posted by Xulld View Post
Well said, and this matches my opinion. I think anyone with a clear conviction about this case who is not an investigator involved with access to all the facts, is just demonstrating their inability to think critically in situations such as these.

It is one thing to talk about hypotheticals and analyze the various possible outcomes, a whole other to say you KNOW something.

Yes, we certainly can't have people asserting things without a proper factual basis:
Originally Posted by Xulld View Post
The lack of details is what makes this a good sell by the media, with more details it becomes pretty typical, dude is attacked cries for help, no one helps, he shoots attacker in struggle for gun. News at 11.

That would be irrational and unseemly.
__________________
Lost your faith in humanity?

Click here to have it restored.

Or here.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2012, 10:20 AM   #30
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 57,287
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Yes, we certainly can't have people asserting things without a proper factual basis:

That would be irrational and unseemly.
Cognitive bias. It's easy to see things in others (real or imagined) and fail to see them in ourselves. Skepticism (and a bit of humility), IMO, would entail that we not think we are above error.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

I think I'll reroute my trip
I wonder if they'd think I'd flipped.
If I went to LA, via Omaha.
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2012, 10:29 AM   #31
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 44,969
I don't think it's fair to say liberals essentially want GZ lynched based on media evidence. The petitions were signed by a lot of people who wanted a jury, not the cops to decide.

I tried a thread asking about people's underlying premises but it turns out the two points of view are too complex for a single question poll. I think some of us see a kid was killed for no good reason and don't really care if GZ thought his life was in danger. He put himself in that position. Others think GZ meant well and made a mistake that led to the situation. I think there are underlying premises there which result in both points of view and those same underlying premises also lead to certain political positions.
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2012, 10:37 AM   #32
Sabretooth
No Ordinary Rabbit
 
Sabretooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,637
My opinion? Race shouldn't even come into play.

You have GZ, exiting his car against recommendation. This one step alone puts the responsibility onto GZ's shoulders.

Race aside, it was GZ's fault it reached the climax it did.


Does that make me a Liberal or Conservative?
__________________
--------------------------------------
Stop asking me about that stupid fruity cereal...that's the OTHER rabbit!

Sabretooth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2012, 10:47 AM   #33
Xulld
Master Poster
 
Xulld's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,154
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Yes, we certainly can't have people asserting things without a proper factual basis:



That would be irrational and unseemly.
Are you trying to refute that the lack of details make this case more interesting to the media? Or that we have all the details? Or that the elements I presented are not factual? Or that I was making some claim of knowledge about the critical events revolving around the actual struggle? My only point was that with missing information this is a juicier story than with all of the information. Make a go of refuting that, it should be interesting.

Quote:
Cognitive bias.
Kettle responding to pot.
__________________
"Natural justice is a symbol or expression of usefullness, to prevent one person from harming or being harmed by another."-Epicurus

Freedom of Speech is a right recognized in the First Amendment. Freedom from consequence is nowhere to be found. -Bstrong

Last edited by Xulld; 10th April 2012 at 10:56 AM.
Xulld is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2012, 10:51 AM   #34
eeyore1954
Illuminator
 
eeyore1954's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,977
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I don't think it's fair to say liberals essentially want GZ lynched based on media evidence. The petitions were signed by a lot of people who wanted a jury, not the cops to decide.

I tried a thread asking about people's underlying premises but it turns out the two points of view are too complex for a single question poll. I think some of us see a kid was killed for no good reason and don't really care if GZ thought his life was in danger. He put himself in that position. Others think GZ meant well and made a mistake that led to the situation. I think there are underlying premises there which result in both points of view and those same underlying premises also lead to certain political positions.
Was that said in this thread?
eeyore1954 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2012, 10:58 AM   #35
korenyx
Muse
 
korenyx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: 19th Century Kansas
Posts: 910
Originally Posted by Sabretooth View Post
My opinion? Race shouldn't even come into play.

You have GZ, exiting his car against recommendation. This one step alone puts the responsibility onto GZ's shoulders.

Race aside, it was GZ's fault it reached the climax it did.


Does that make me a Liberal or Conservative?
Good post. I feel the same way.
korenyx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2012, 11:03 AM   #36
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 29,722
Originally Posted by Mumbles View Post
as a somewhat liberal person, the entire point of a trial is to get the relevant facts out. Once the police decided to yap about how great Zimmerman was, and how he helped solve crimes, and oh he didn't even know what Martina's race was, and Zimmerman had his head viciously bashed into concrete, and then the 911 tape of Zimmerman clearly stated that Martin was black came out, and the video of Zimmerman just walking around like nothing happened, I was done with their opinion.

And that's the simple point. The police have made several misstatements, several witnesses have discussed being pressured, or not interviewed at all. I'm far past convinced that at least part of the PD is simply lying about the plain facts, to the press. I believe nothing that they have to say in this matter - and their history of similar acts says to me that heads should roll.

Who or what Zimmerman is remains to be seen - he's in hiding, and his surrogates are doing a terrible job thus far.
You have a rather warped perspective. The 911 tape where Zimmerman said Martin was black? Deceptively edited to remove the context. Zimmerman was asked a question about Martin's race, probably to help police identify him, and Zimmerman responded. By removing this context, the press (not the police) created an impression that Zimmerman was racially profiling Martin when the actual content of the call indicates nothing of the sort. Even in regards to what Zimmerman knew, the call actually indicates that he did not know Martin's race definitively, but was only guessing it. Or how about that video, the one where you said Zimmerman was walking around like nothing happened. What, exactly, were you expecting from the video? For him to be clutching at his head, stumbling? That's an unrealistic expectation. Or perhaps you were just looking for some visible sign of trauma. Well, once again, the press screwed up. They took an initial copy of the video, used lossy compression which blurred details, and then declared that because no details of any trauma were visible on the very poor quality video they showed, that Zimmerman had no signs of injury. Except that he did. Higher quality copies of the same video later revealed that there are signs of injury on his head.

Now, I've got no idea whether or not Zimmerman is guilty of murder. I'm not sure if a definitive answer will ever be possible. But the one thing that IS definitively known at this point is that the press has screwed up royally in their coverage of the tragic events. And yet, you seem completely unaware of not only how badly the press screwed up, but also how those mistakes have formed your own opinions on this topic. If being lied to offends you so much, why are you seemingly so indifferent to what the press has done?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2012, 11:03 AM   #37
Natural Born Skeptic
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,456
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
The facts as we know them are that an unarmed person, who was just minding his own business, was hunted down and killed by a vigilante who mistook him for a criminal. Perhaps the shooting itself was in self-defense, but the shooter should not have put himself in that position in the first place. We know that the police were on the way, and he was advised to wait for them and not take the law into his own hands. Unfortunately he ignored that advice. These facts are colorblind.
Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic View Post
Another fact that is color blind is that half the people debating in the big thread would say your facts aren't color blind and completely disagree with almost every one of them as you framed them. But those details have been discussed in the other thread endlessly, so I won't do so further here.
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
What a peculiar accusation! Where did I mention race? Where did I even imply race? What facts are in dispute?
I worded my statement very poorly, my apologies. You said "these facts are color blind". When I said that half the people in the thread would say they are not color blind I was trying to be cute, I meant that they would say the facts you presented are "colored", i.e. not the facts as they seem them. Again, poor choice of words on my part and I in no way meant to imply your facts were related to race.

As to which of those facts are in dispute, you included a lot of interpretation that many people disagree with in the other thread. But again, not the purpose of this thread, and I'm not trying to prove you wrong or even saying I disagree, all I'm saying is that many people see those as interpretations not facts.

Quote:
I find it hard to reconcile your previous statement ''I don't actually know enough to start demanding his arrest, they've hired a new DA now, let her do her work and complete her investigation" with the above. Do you really not believe sufficient facts have been presented to warrant an arrest, or is this just a knee-jerk reaction to some garbage you read on Facebook?
I really believe that I don't know if sufficient facts have been presented to warrant an arrest because I don't have all the facts, whereas the prosecutor does. It's also possible that decision would even vary based on the prosecutor as they have a huge amount of power/discretion. For instance we know where the first prosecutor fell on that, now we'll find out where the new prosecutor falls.

Last edited by Natural Born Skeptic; 10th April 2012 at 11:14 AM.
Natural Born Skeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2012, 11:07 AM   #38
crimresearch
Alumbrado
 
crimresearch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,600
Originally Posted by aggle-rithm View Post
This closely mirrors my own viewpoint. Here's how I reacted to the incident.

At first, I was outraged. The only thing I found more outrageous than GZ's actions was the failure of the authorities to arrest him.

Then, I looked a little more closely at the evidence. While I think GZ acted irresponsibly, I no longer think it's the open-and-shut case I thought it was.

The thing is, I HATE having to take GZ's side on this, because I really WANTED him to be guilty. Not because of any racial issues, but because he struck me as being the type of person I absolutely despise: The power-hungry control-freak bully.

Also, I don't want to be seen as having made a knee-jerk reaction in deciding which side to take. In my mind, I'm just accepting the most likely explanation based on the evidence at hand, which is that there isn't sufficient cause to charge GZ with a crime.
Others may have trouble seeing it that way.
Ahh, but don't think for a second that you have to be taking *Zimmerman's* side when you take an objective and evolving view of the whole situation.

That's what some of the mega-posters here are peddling, but it ain't neccessarily so.

It is entirely within the realm of possibility for the shooter to have been a total jerk, who was reckless and ignorant of the possibilities. That makes him the architect of the whole situation.
It doesn't automatically make him guilty of murder, and neither does a petition wanting it that way.

It is entirely within the realm of possibility that said reckless jerk put himself in a position where an innocent person made a split second decision to try to grab a gun, and thereby escalated everything into who could use deadly force first.

And it is entirely possible that the shooter learned to say that's what happened, long before this incident occured, and when he panicked at getting his butt kicked and shot someone who had no intention of killing him, he recited the formula.

None of which alters the objective framework. Our Constitution and legal system is designed to protect the guilty as well as the innocent *at the onset*, and make the government *work* to put people away.


Just out of curiosity, can anyone name another chubby white wanna-be, and another horrible crime where the obviously guilty guy made feeble protestations of innocence that the media tore to shreds?
crimresearch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2012, 11:12 AM   #39
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 57,287
Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
Was that said in this thread?
I think the point of this thread is a discussion about what has been said in other threads and other venues.

FWIW: That's not a comment on SG's point.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

I think I'll reroute my trip
I wonder if they'd think I'd flipped.
If I went to LA, via Omaha.
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2012, 11:16 AM   #40
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 44,969
Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
Was that said in this thread?
I was trying to get to the point more concisely than the OP did.
Originally Posted by OP
Based on the very initial reports from the media I certainly fell into the "let's arrest this murdering racist now" category. But for me the turning point was when I started to see people post on Facebook asking their friends to sign petitions demanding GZ's arrest.
It wasn't literal, it was figurative. "Lynched based on media evidence" is analogous to "this murdering racist".
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 10th April 2012 at 11:18 AM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:12 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.