The Exploitation of Trayvon Martin

[BaalChatzaf]

I knew that. He invented is static electricity to current electricity machine when he was two.

LOL. Prove it with citations and page numbers.

Here is the proof: A is A. Q.E.D.

[merjet]

I knew that. He invented is static electricity to current electricity machine when he was two.

LOL. Prove it with citations and page numbers.

Here is the proof: A is A. Q.E.D.

You are a blowhard. Here is the proof: A is A. Q.E.D.

[Brant Gaede]

I knew that. He invented is static electricity to current electricity machine when he was two.

LOL. Prove it with citations and page numbers.

Here is the proof: A is A. Q.E.D.

You are a blowhard. Here is the proof: A is A. Q.E.D.

You just switched your As around.

A is B when B is A.

--Brant

or, A is B when A is B

(Help!--calling the epistemologists, calling the epistemologists!)

A is C when . . . A is C?

my red wine is tasting mighty fine

[moralist]

I merely asked Moralist a question. The answer I got ("I don't raise scum") shows a very emotional reaction.

Not in the least. That's only an assumption that others would emote as you would if you had written that.

I understand how hard the media tried to sanitize Martin's image just as they tried to sully Zimmerman's. I'm just happened to be in a tiny minority who didn't buy into the lie.

The realistic assessment of debates dealing with this highly controversial topic: strong emotions will weigh in by the participants on both sides, which can make it very difficult to have a rational discussion.

I don't consider it to be a rational act to drink the liberal media's "innocent kid" kool aid. But as good a job as they did with packaging the lie, the sequestered jury only heard the unsanitized facts and rendered a just verdict, and that pleased me to no end to see justice prevail for a change.

[Xray]

[Xray

... reminds me of another early bloomer: Jesus as 12-year-old already lecturing in the Temple. ]

I understand the smile. However, is this what you were taught in that Catholic school that you attended?

A...

Allegedly...seems like that has some mythological foundation, rather than historical.

Yes, that's what I was taught there. And it was presented to us not as a religious legend, but as it if were a fact.

Back then, as a kid, I didn't see the 'empistemological incorrectnes' in this, but believed it was true.

[Xray]

A few start preaching much younger than 12 (link).

Shocking documents about what indoctrination can do to a child's psyche.

[Xray]

I knew that. He invented is static electricity to current electricity machine when he was two.

LOL. Prove it with citations and page numbers.

Here is the proof: A is A. Q.E.D.

Okay I'm conviced. For no rational human being will deny that A is non-A!!

But kidding aside: crazy as it sounds, I can imagnine that one can indeed run into that kind of argumentation in debates with those Objectivists whose orthodoxy borders on fanatism.

So when they present an Objectivist tenet as undisputed fact, those who are trying to examine the assertion are probably accused fo violate the 'A is A' principle ...

[Xray]

Brant Gaede* wrote in post #754:

Not in the least. That's only an assumption that others would emote as you would if you had written that.

But "scum" is a term that connotes strong emotion on the part of the person who is using it.

I understand how hard the media tried to sanitize Martin's image just as they tried to sully Zimmerman's.

Isn't the 'other party' trying to do the same vice versa?

I don't consider it to be a rational act to drink the liberal media's "innocent kid" kool aid.

Could the truth be somewhere in the middle? From all we know, T. Martin was far from being a 'model teenager', but G. Zimmermann, when confronting him, may not have acted as a 'model citizen' either.

[*edited to add: Corrected version of this post (whose quotes from moralist I mistakenly attributed to Brant Gaede) by me in # 761]

[Brant Gaede]

Brant Gaede wrote in post # 754:

No he didn't.

--Brant

[Xray]

Brant Gaede wrote in post # 754:

No he didn't.

--Brant

Oops, sorry about my mistake! I'll correct it.

[Xray]

Correction of my #758 post:

Moralist wrote in #754:

Not in the least. That's only an assumption that others would emote as you would if you had written that.

But "scum" is a term that connotes strong emotion on the part of the person who is using it.

I understand how hard the media tried to sanitize Martin's image just as they tried to sully Zimmerman's.

Isn't the 'other party' trying to do the same vice versa?

I don't consider it to be a rational act to drink the liberal media's "innocent kid" kool aid.

Could the truth be somewhere in the middle? From all we know, T. Martin was far from being a 'model teenager', but G. Zimmermann, when confronting him, may not have acted as a 'model citizen' either.

[Xray]

Moralist wrote in # 723:

I don't raise scum.

But can parents really be that certain as to how their kids are going to turn out?

[moralist]

Correction of my #758 post:

Moralist wrote in #754:

Not in the least. That's only an assumption that others would emote as you would if you had written that.

But "scum" is a term that connotes strong emotion on the part of the person who is using it.

I understand how hard the media tried to sanitize Martin's image just as they tried to sully Zimmerman's.

Isn't the 'other party' trying to do the same vice versa?

I don't consider it to be a rational act to drink the liberal media's "innocent kid" kool aid.

Could the truth be somewhere in the middle? From all we know, T. Martin was far from being a 'model teenager', but G. Zimmermann, when confronting him, may not have acted as a 'model citizen' either.

[Brant Gaede]

Moralist wrote in # 723:

I don't raise scum.

But can parents really be that certain as to how their kids are going to turn out?

Moralist is very smart and considering what I have read by him I'd have to bet he made an accurate statement. Most parents are very un-smart. Their children self corrupt or make it on their own in spite of their un-smart environment, public education, peer pressure and the drug-sex, Internet, Facebook, Twitter culture infecting their uncensored environment.

--Brant

[moralist]

Correction of my #758 post:

Moralist wrote in #754:

Not in the least. That's only an assumption that others would emote as you would if you had written that.

But "scum" is a term that connotes strong emotion on the part of the person who is using it.

It would for you, but not for me. That's what I mean by assuming that others react as you would. Scum is an apt descriptor for Martin.

I understand how hard the media tried to sanitize Martin's image just as they tried to sully Zimmerman's.

Isn't the 'other party' trying to do the same vice versa?

No. Americans don't control most of the "mainstream" media's narrative because they're in the minority.

I don't consider it to be a rational act to drink the liberal media's "innocent kid" kool aid.

Could the truth be somewhere in the middle?

No.

The truth is in physical reality where the only wounds on Martin were his knuckles and the only wounds on Zimmerman were on his head.

The lying liberal media portrayed Zimmerman as a white racist.

Here is first person truth (Orlando Sentinel)"

"George is a Spanish speaking minority with many black family members and friends. He would be the last to discriminate for any reason whatsoever. One black neighbor recently interviewed said she knew everything in the media was untrue and that she would trust George with her life. Another black neighbor said that George was the only one, black or white, who came and welcomed her to the community, offering any assistance he could provide. Recently, I met two black children George invited to a social event. I asked where they met George. They responded that he was their mentor. They said George visited them routinely, took them places, helped them, and taught them things and that they really loved George. The media portrayal of George as a racist could not be further from the truth."

From all we know, T. Martin was far from being a 'model teenager'

I agree. He was scum.

but G. Zimmermann, when confronting him, may not have acted as a 'model citizen' either.

The jury heard the real story without the liberal spin and they did what was morally right

[Brant Gaede]

deleted

[Brant Gaede]

Could the truth be somewhere in the middle?

No.

The truth is in physical reality where the only wounds on Martin were his knuckles and the only wounds on Zimmerman were on his head.

The lying liberal media portrayed Zimmerman as a white racist.

Here is first person truth (Orlando Sentinel)"

"George is a Spanish speaking minority with many black family members and friends. He would be the last to discriminate for any reason whatsoever. One black neighbor recently interviewed said she knew everything in the media was untrue and that she would trust George with her life. Another black neighbor said that George was the only one, black or white, who came and welcomed her to the community, offering any assistance he could provide. Recently, I met two black children George invited to a social event. I asked where they met George. They responded that he was their mentor. They said George visited them routinely, took them places, helped them, and taught them things and that they really loved George. The media portrayal of George as a racist could not be further from the truth."

From all we know, T. Martin was far from being a 'model teenager'

I agree. He was scum.

but G. Zimmermann, when confronting him, may not have acted as a 'model citizen' either.

The jury heard the real story without the liberal spin and they did what was morally right

Always happy to quote true, rational statements.

--Brant

and get rid of unnecessary spacing

[anthony]

I don't regard it as tragic... just as the consequence of a chain of actions.

And I was truly happy when I heard the verdict.

What if this had happened to your kid?

Angela:

You offer that as a rational argument?

You are better than that.

A...

I merely asked Moralist a question. The answer I got ("I don't raise scum") shows a very emotional reaction.

The realistic assessment of debates dealing with this highly controversial topic: strong emotions will weigh in by the participants on both sides, which can make it very difficult to have a rational discussion.

Xray,

Your subjective query received a subjective reply.

On the contrary, it has been a mainly rational debate, and it's quite disingenuous of you to introduce that subjective angle- and then state: Look how emotions make a discussion difficult!

Rationality (btw) is entirely consistent with emotion.

It is 'subjective appraisal'- versus objective assessment, that has been the key issue in this whole thread.

[moralist]

Moralist wrote in # 723:

I don't raise scum.

But can parents really be that certain as to how their kids are going to turn out?

That all depends on the values the parents live by. Children respond to the reality of what parents are... not to what they say they are.

"Train up a child in the way he should go, and even when he is old he will not depart from it."

--Proverbs

[Xray]

Xray,

Your subjective query received a subjective reply.

On the contrary, it has been a mainly rational debate, and it's quite disingenuous of you to introduce that subjective angle- and then state: Look how emotions make a discussion difficult!

Rationality (btw) is entirely consistent with emotion.

Tony,

The problematic issue of objective morality had been addressed in this thread long before I took part in the discssion. See the exchange between you and poster Dglgmut :

whYNOT, on 29 Jul 2013 - 5:27 PM, said:

I think the distinction is this: the Objectivist has already incorporated a just and rational morality into the Law, while the progressive looks for his collective morality do be overtly demonstrated through the Law and Justice..

To which Dglgmut replied in post # 662:

This is impossible. An objective morality requires objective values, and objective justice is even farther from reality.

There are many situations where following a set of principles will not give you the best result.

As for emotions making a rational discussion difficult: it always depends on what kind of emotion it is. There certainly do exist emotions which can cloud a person's rational judgement.

[Xray]

I think the distinction is this: the Objectivist has already incorporated a just and rational morality into the Law, while the progressive looks for his collective morality do be overtly demonstrated through the Law and Justice..

This premise ('Objectivist morality is just and rational') applied to the T. Martin case: wouldn't it have been irrational (and therefore immoral) then by G. Zimmerman to carry a gun at all? For Rand was strictly against private persons carrying weapons, which imo also included any form of armed 'vigilantism'.

[merjet]

For Rand was strictly against private persons carrying weapons, which imo also included any form of armed 'vigilantism'.

Huh? Link.

[BaalChatzaf]

I think the distinction is this: the Objectivist has already incorporated a just and rational morality into the Law, while the progressive looks for his collective morality do be overtly demonstrated through the Law and Justice..

This premise ('Objectivist morality is just and rational') applied to the T. Martin case: wouldn't it have been irrational (and therefore immoral) then by G. Zimmerman to carry a gun at all? For Rand was strictly against private persons carrying weapons, which imo also included any form of armed 'vigilantism'.

How do you explain the rescue mission to free John Galt, in Atlas Shrugged?

[Selene]

For Rand was strictly against private persons carrying weapons, which imo also included any form of armed 'vigilantism'.

Huh? Link.

Excellent work MJ - these links end Angela's argument and assertion of Ayn's thoughts on the issue.

[caroljane]

The exploitation of Trayvon Martin has now reached a nadir, with Moralist declaring him scum and patting himself on the back for not raising scum himself. But perhaps someone in his family did,