Zimmerman vs. DMX - Boxing Match?

[comic boy]

I also am annoyed that blacks aren't held to account. They just get to scream racism any time they want and we're not supposed to challenge them.

I'm gonna go ahead and offer you the chance to rephrase that. Perhaps, I would gently suggest, in a way that doesn't suggest you hold an irrational grudge against African-Americans.

There are more blacks in the US than just those who are African-Americans. There are also African-Americans who are not black. And yes, people like Al Sharpton do get to cry racism without any challenge to their irrational grudges against white people.

I actually agree that the likes of Al Sharpton are career racists , they do not help race relations and I despise them. However the idea that he and his ilk are never challenged is not true , in any case even if if were it would not excuse the tone of the VipeOverlord post which is blatantly racist by any standards.

[pimpdave]

Remember when we played hangman with ViperOverLord? What was that word he was thinking of?

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=123007&hilit=hangman

[spurgistan]

"Speculate" =/ "invent a scenario that would fit your worldview when we already possess most of the relevant information."

Zimmerman wasn't supposed to have a gun. The dispatcher Zimmerman spoke with was adamant that he not pursue Trayvon, because he wasn't supposed to do that. Zimmerman sounded angry that "they always get away."

Why wasn't he supposed to have a gun? Every law abiding citizen is allowed to have a gun if they choose to. That's why we have the 2nd Amendment.

He was not allowed to have a gun while operating as a Neighborhood Watch member.

[Night Strike]

"Speculate" =/ "invent a scenario that would fit your worldview when we already possess most of the relevant information."

Zimmerman wasn't supposed to have a gun. The dispatcher Zimmerman spoke with was adamant that he not pursue Trayvon, because he wasn't supposed to do that. Zimmerman sounded angry that "they always get away."

Why wasn't he supposed to have a gun? Every law abiding citizen is allowed to have a gun if they choose to. That's why we have the 2nd Amendment.

He was not allowed to have a gun while operating as a Neighborhood Watch member.

How do you know this?

[Night Strike]

These New Black Panther Members need to be arrested immediately. These are real violent racists pimpdave, and now they are posting bounties on people who they deem to be threats. Talk about a REAL danger for our society!

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2012/03/25/new-black-panther-party-offers-10000-bounty-for-george-zimmerman/

The leader of the New Black Panther Party called for a $10,000 bounty for the man who shot and killed black Florida teen Trayvon Martin, a case that continues spark explosive emotions and strain the country’s racial tensions.

“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” New Black Panther leader Mikhail Muhammad said Saturday when he announced the reward at a protest in Sanford, the Orlando suburb where the killing took place.

Members of the New Black Panther party called for the mobilization of 10,000 black men to capture George Zimmerman, the Orlando Sentinel reports.

Zimmerman has gone into hiding due to death threats and the offer of the $10,000 reward, his legal advisor Craig Sonner said, according to Reuters.

“He should be fearful for his life,” Muhammad said. “You can’t keep killing black children.”

[Symmetry]

NS, it's sad that you'd resort to this kind of stuff. At some point you can admit that certain arguments are racist against, as VOL puts it. "blacks", no? You can accept that racism isn't something that the "blacks" do, right? When you see racism against African Americans, or "blacks", you can come out and say that it's racist, right? Without equivocation?

Dude, call it when you see it, not just when you want to see it. And especially when calling it might mean losing a bit of impetus for your argument,

[Night Strike]

NS, it's sad that you'd resort to this kind of stuff. At some point you can admit that certain arguments are racist against, as VOL puts it. "blacks", no? You can accept that racism isn't something that the "blacks" do, right? When you see racism against African Americans, or "blacks", you can come out and say that it's racist, right? Without equivocation?

Dude, call it when you see it, not just when you want to see it. And especially when calling it might mean losing a bit of impetus for your argument,

The only racism I've seen in this case is the media describing Zimmerman as white instead of Hispanic, and the violent riots encouraged by people like Al Sharpton and the new black panthers. There has been no proof that Zimmerman's actions were racist or came from a root of racism. If proof arises and it can be demonstrated that the killing was not in self defense (or if he instigated a confrontation), then he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. However, he should never be killed for a bounty as the new black panthers want.

[Symmetry]

NS, it's sad that you'd resort to this kind of stuff. At some point you can admit that certain arguments are racist against, as VOL puts it. "blacks", no? You can accept that racism isn't something that the "blacks" do, right? When you see racism against African Americans, or "blacks", you can come out and say that it's racist, right? Without equivocation?

Dude, call it when you see it, not just when you want to see it. And especially when calling it might mean losing a bit of impetus for your argument,

The only racism I've seen in this case is the media describing Zimmerman as white instead of Hispanic, and the violent riots encouraged by people like Al Sharpton and the new black panthers. There has been no proof that Zimmerman's actions were racist or came from a root of racism. If proof arises and it can be demonstrated that the killing was not in self defense (or if he instigated a confrontation), then he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. However, he should never be killed for a bounty as the new black panthers want.

Are you so afraid to call out VOL on his posts that you have to duck and weave like this? Has this become a difficult question for you? Surely you stand to lose nothing, apart from the attention being drawn back to the central argument and away from somehow the black panthers being relevant.

You can admit that you made a mistake, dude, and got this wrong. I don't think anyone would blame you if you said it.

[Night Strike]

NS, it's sad that you'd resort to this kind of stuff. At some point you can admit that certain arguments are racist against, as VOL puts it. "blacks", no? You can accept that racism isn't something that the "blacks" do, right? When you see racism against African Americans, or "blacks", you can come out and say that it's racist, right? Without equivocation?

Dude, call it when you see it, not just when you want to see it. And especially when calling it might mean losing a bit of impetus for your argument,

The only racism I've seen in this case is the media describing Zimmerman as white instead of Hispanic, and the violent riots encouraged by people like Al Sharpton and the new black panthers. There has been no proof that Zimmerman's actions were racist or came from a root of racism. If proof arises and it can be demonstrated that the killing was not in self defense (or if he instigated a confrontation), then he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. However, he should never be killed for a bounty as the new black panthers want.

Are you so afraid to call out VOL on his posts that you have to duck and weave like this? Has this become a difficult question for you? Surely you stand to lose nothing, apart from the attention being drawn back to the central argument and away from somehow the black panthers being relevant.

You can admit that you made a mistake, dude, and got this wrong. I don't think anyone would blame you if you said it.

What's racist about his post? He's calling out the black people who are going around claiming this case is about racism when there has been no proof to that effect. He's exactly right to do so. Crying racism over every case that involved a white person (which is not true in this case) and a black person whether it is present or not just detracts from the case when there is actual racism present.

[Symmetry]

NS, it's sad that you'd resort to this kind of stuff. At some point you can admit that certain arguments are racist against, as VOL puts it. "blacks", no? You can accept that racism isn't something that the "blacks" do, right? When you see racism against African Americans, or "blacks", you can come out and say that it's racist, right? Without equivocation?

Dude, call it when you see it, not just when you want to see it. And especially when calling it might mean losing a bit of impetus for your argument,

The only racism I've seen in this case is the media describing Zimmerman as white instead of Hispanic, and the violent riots encouraged by people like Al Sharpton and the new black panthers. There has been no proof that Zimmerman's actions were racist or came from a root of racism. If proof arises and it can be demonstrated that the killing was not in self defense (or if he instigated a confrontation), then he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. However, he should never be killed for a bounty as the new black panthers want.

Are you so afraid to call out VOL on his posts that you have to duck and weave like this? Has this become a difficult question for you? Surely you stand to lose nothing, apart from the attention being drawn back to the central argument and away from somehow the black panthers being relevant.

You can admit that you made a mistake, dude, and got this wrong. I don't think anyone would blame you if you said it.

What's racist about his post? He's calling out the black people who are going around claiming this case is about racism when there has been no proof to that effect. He's exactly right to do so. Crying racism over every case that involved a white person (which is not true in this case) and a black person whether it is present or not just detracts from the case when there is actual racism present.

Aside from the obvious point that he's. as you put it "calling out" people solely based on their race? And Aaide from the points raised that there is indeed a great deal of criticism leveled at arguments over racism, which VOL ignores? Or his long history of posting racist stuff.

Meh, dude, you drank the Kool-Aid on this one, and drank deep. Decide for yourself if he's got a bit of a problem, but do realise that it's a problem many other people have noticed, across a all kinds of spectra of politics and posters. The guy has issues.

[ViperOverLord]

I'm guessing, from the tone of your post, that this isn't the first time you've been called racist over something you've said

Sure. People with warped definitions of racism have called me racist. People with warped definitions of racism will call me racist in the future. I'm not going pander to people that engage in such antics as I stated. I'll gladly hold my ground.

[Night Strike]

NS, it's sad that you'd resort to this kind of stuff. At some point you can admit that certain arguments are racist against, as VOL puts it. "blacks", no? You can accept that racism isn't something that the "blacks" do, right? When you see racism against African Americans, or "blacks", you can come out and say that it's racist, right? Without equivocation?

Dude, call it when you see it, not just when you want to see it. And especially when calling it might mean losing a bit of impetus for your argument,

The only racism I've seen in this case is the media describing Zimmerman as white instead of Hispanic, and the violent riots encouraged by people like Al Sharpton and the new black panthers. There has been no proof that Zimmerman's actions were racist or came from a root of racism. If proof arises and it can be demonstrated that the killing was not in self defense (or if he instigated a confrontation), then he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. However, he should never be killed for a bounty as the new black panthers want.

Are you so afraid to call out VOL on his posts that you have to duck and weave like this? Has this become a difficult question for you? Surely you stand to lose nothing, apart from the attention being drawn back to the central argument and away from somehow the black panthers being relevant.

You can admit that you made a mistake, dude, and got this wrong. I don't think anyone would blame you if you said it.

What's racist about his post? He's calling out the black people who are going around claiming this case is about racism when there has been no proof to that effect. He's exactly right to do so. Crying racism over every case that involved a white person (which is not true in this case) and a black person whether it is present or not just detracts from the case when there is actual racism present.

Aside from the obvious point that he's. as you put it "calling out" people solely based on their race? And Aaide from the points raised that there is indeed a great deal of criticism leveled at arguments over racism, which VOL ignores? Or his long history of posting racist stuff.

Meh, dude, you drank the Kool-Aid on this one, and drank deep. Decide for yourself if he's got a bit of a problem, but do realise that it's a problem many other people have noticed, across a all kinds of spectra of politics and posters. The guy has issues.

Are you talking about VOL or the actual case at hand? VOL has a freedom of speech and can speak on whatever topic he wants. I don't see anything in this thread where he has posted anything that was racist. You may have a different take on the amount of criticism leveled at racism arguments, but that doesn't make his position racist. What he has posted in other threads is irrelevant to his posts on this topic as far as I'm concerned.

[Symmetry]

I'm guessing, from the tone of your post, that this isn't the first time you've been called racist over something you've said

Sure. People with warped definitions of racism have called me racist. People with warped definitions of racism will call me racist in the future. I'm not going pander to people that engage in such antics as I stated. I'll gladly hold my ground.

Perhaps, your ground is kind of racist. What with the irrational hatred of "blacks". Maybe not the kind of ground you want to be holding on to given that so many people have called you out on it.

[Night Strike]

I'm guessing, from the tone of your post, that this isn't the first time you've been called racist over something you've said

Sure. People with warped definitions of racism have called me racist. People with warped definitions of racism will call me racist in the future. I'm not going pander to people that engage in such antics as I stated. I'll gladly hold my ground.

Perhaps, your ground is kind of racist. What with the irrational hatred of "blacks". Maybe not the kind of ground you want to be holding on to given that so many people have called you out on it.

Was he hating blacks, or just hating the fact that, in his opinion, once a black person claims racism, no one else is allowed to challenge it? There's a HUGE difference.

[ViperOverLord]

I'm guessing, from the tone of your post, that this isn't the first time you've been called racist over something you've said

Sure. People with warped definitions of racism have called me racist. People with warped definitions of racism will call me racist in the future. I'm not going pander to people that engage in such antics as I stated. I'll gladly hold my ground.

Perhaps, your ground is kind of racist. What with the irrational hatred of "blacks". Maybe not the kind of ground you want to be holding on to given that so many people have called you out on it.

In the past you've made these childish claims and I've pm'd you to take exception. You then revised that history to claim that I was somehow harassing you via pms. It'll have to end here. Engaging your salacious personal attacks in the thread or pms does nothing to advance the conversation on this topic.

[Symmetry]

I'm guessing, from the tone of your post, that this isn't the first time you've been called racist over something you've said

Sure. People with warped definitions of racism have called me racist. People with warped definitions of racism will call me racist in the future. I'm not going pander to people that engage in such antics as I stated. I'll gladly hold my ground.

Perhaps, your ground is kind of racist. What with the irrational hatred of "blacks". Maybe not the kind of ground you want to be holding on to given that so many people have called you out on it.

In the past you've made these childish claims and I've pm'd you to take exception. You then revised that history to claim that I was somehow harassing you via pms. It'll have to end here. Engaging your salacious personal attacks does nothing to advance the conversation on this topic.

What a poor end to a sad career of dodging and diving. I presume that this post means that you won't be posting a bunch of racist, barely coherent stuff anymore?

Also, I'm not sure salacious means what you think it means.

[ViperOverLord]

*falacious

Good day.

[pimpdave]

NS, it's sad that you'd resort to this kind of stuff. At some point you can admit that certain arguments are racist against, as VOL puts it. "blacks", no? You can accept that racism isn't something that the "blacks" do, right? When you see racism against African Americans, or "blacks", you can come out and say that it's racist, right? Without equivocation?

Dude, call it when you see it, not just when you want to see it. And especially when calling it might mean losing a bit of impetus for your argument,

Night Strike only calls something racist when Herman Cain's campaign for President gets lampooned.

[spurgistan]

"Speculate" =/ "invent a scenario that would fit your worldview when we already possess most of the relevant information."

Zimmerman wasn't supposed to have a gun. The dispatcher Zimmerman spoke with was adamant that he not pursue Trayvon, because he wasn't supposed to do that. Zimmerman sounded angry that "they always get away."

Why wasn't he supposed to have a gun? Every law abiding citizen is allowed to have a gun if they choose to. That's why we have the 2nd Amendment.

He was not allowed to have a gun while operating as a Neighborhood Watch member.

How do you know this?

I think I mighta misinterpreted something I read.

[Night Strike]

"Speculate" =/ "invent a scenario that would fit your worldview when we already possess most of the relevant information."

Zimmerman wasn't supposed to have a gun. The dispatcher Zimmerman spoke with was adamant that he not pursue Trayvon, because he wasn't supposed to do that. Zimmerman sounded angry that "they always get away."

Why wasn't he supposed to have a gun? Every law abiding citizen is allowed to have a gun if they choose to. That's why we have the 2nd Amendment.

He was not allowed to have a gun while operating as a Neighborhood Watch member.

How do you know this?

I think I mighta misinterpreted something I read.

To be honest, I don't know if a factual statement about this specific neighborhood watch group has been put forth. People have made statements about other neighborhood watch groups not being allowed to use guns, but that doesn't automatically apply to this group. If this group was not allowed to carry guns, then that would throw Zimmerman's case in jeopardy. If they are allowed to carry guns, then we're still at the same place of finding out whether or not it was self-defense.

[ViperOverLord]

NS, it's sad that you'd resort to this kind of stuff. At some point you can admit that certain arguments are racist against, as VOL puts it. "blacks", no? You can accept that racism isn't something that the "blacks" do, right? When you see racism against African Americans, or "blacks", you can come out and say that it's racist, right? Without equivocation?

Dude, call it when you see it, not just when you want to see it. And especially when calling it might mean losing a bit of impetus for your argument,

Night Strike only calls something racist when Herman Cain's campaign for President gets lampooned.

Yea?

I'm not sure how a libertarian can argue that quotas or profiles should exist only for non whites, or that whites should have a quota. Libertarianism shouldn't demand the kind of quota system that you seem to passively accept as natural.

Are you now going to be a hypocrite and not call Sym racist for not using the term European Americans (or even caucasians)? And Sym, seems like you have your own nice little double standard there.

[BigBallinStalin]

Everyone has raised good points in this thread.

What's not in dispute, though, is that Zimmerman pursued Martin after being cautioned by police not to do that. If he is the victim of a horrible wrong he bears at least partial responsibility on that front.

People have an obligation to act when they see life threatened. Not only do they not have an obligation, it is exceptionally unwise, to intervene in cases of misdemeanors or civil wrongs. If someone is being robbed or beaten, intervene if you feel you can. But, if a mentally ill woman is screaming in class, call the police. If a suspicious person is in your neighborhood, call the police. If someone is giving tugjobs in the park, call the police. If you feel you absolutely need to intervene directly in minor situational disturbances, volunteer as a special constable or police reserve. Zimmerman was volunteering for the neighborhood "watch." The key word being the last one.

What!? Why?

[Aradhus]

I also am annoyed that blacks aren't held to account. They just get to scream racism any time they want and we're not supposed to challenge them. F that. They know the facts. They just want attention and to be victims of the man. PS said it best__ they murder more people than anyone. They need to take responsibility for their own actions instead of looking for scapegoats.

What you've written here is racist. Should I take responsibility for your racism towards blacks?


mod edit

[Nobunaga]

An Hispanic man was brutally attacked, the obvious victim of a hate crime.

The Hispanic man revealed his gun and his attacker fled.

The Hispanic man pursued the assailant and shot him.

..... OR .....

A WHITE-hispanic (note the emphasis) guy saw a black kid in his neighborhood. He didn't like that (being a racist WHITE-hispanic with a German name).

The WHITE-hispanic guy pursued the black kid.

The black kid hit the WHITE-hispanic guy in the face and head, in self defense, but it was not enough.

The WHITE-hispanic guy shot and killed the black kid - an obvious hate crime.

...

Now remove the racial tags above and it's a story you'd see in a local paper once, and never hear of again.

Had Martin been white, or if they'd both been black, or white, you bet your ass we'd never had heard of a word of it.

... It's pathetic, the way people gulp down this spoon-fed agenda-driven shite from the media.

Until all the evidence is shown, how can anybody comment? Did Martin attack Zimmerman before or after the pursuit? That's key, and at the moment - none of you has a clue.

...

[comic boy]

An Hispanic man was brutally attacked, the obvious victim of a hate crime.

The Hispanic man revealed his gun and his attacker fled.

The Hispanic man pursued the assailant and shot him.

..... OR .....

A WHITE-hispanic (note the emphasis) guy saw a black kid in his neighborhood. He didn't like that (being a racist WHITE-hispanic with a German name).

The WHITE-hispanic guy pursued the black kid.

The black kid hit the WHITE-hispanic guy in the face and head, in self defense, but it was not enough.

The WHITE-hispanic guy shot and killed the black kid - an obvious hate crime.

...

Now remove the racial tags above and it's a story you'd see in a local paper once, and never hear of again.

Had Martin been white, or if they'd both been black, or white, you bet your ass we'd never had heard of a word of it.

... It's pathetic, the way people gulp down this spoon-fed agenda-driven shite from the media.

Until all the evidence is shown, how can anybody comment? Did Martin attack Zimmerman before or after the pursuit? That's key, and at the moment - none of you has a clue.

...

So why are you commenting , why have you concluded that this story is driven only by racial overtones? The fact is that an unarmed man was shot dead , the circumstances of his death ( irrelevent of his race ) require close examination , this will now happen , whats the problem?