This Person is a Member of the US House of Representatives

[Lemur]

This man is wrong.

Oh, I think everyone will find something to disagree with in his latest.

[Vladimir]

Thought this was an update.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This man is wrong.

Yes - because he makes "white Europeans" out to be a monolythic. They aren't.

You know, I thought his original contentious piece was meant to be ironic - but I suppose not.

He's just a crusty old racist.

[Strike For The South]

Yes - because he makes "white Europeans" out to be a monolythic. They aren't.

You know, I thought his original contentious piece was meant to be ironic - but I suppose not.

He's just a crusty old racist.

So you just narrow the scope to white Northern European Protastents?

[Vladimir]

What's Protastents precious?

Do you boil them, mash them, or put them in a stew?

[Ironside]

So you just narrow the scope to white Northern European Protastents?

Psh, the best conservatives was the Chinese.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So you just narrow the scope to white Northern European Protastents?

No - that was exactly my point - good Greek or Roman, or Florentine governance does not reflect on England, Germany or even Spain.

It is very difficult, now, to say what the Aztecs or Mayans might have produced after another 500 years, likewise the Zulus.

The Euroasian Continent has produced a succession of great civilisations, what has set us apart and given us a leg up is that we have each time learned from our neighbours and predecessors. In Europe this has been because first Greece and then the Church endured essentially intact while other civilisations rose and fell. In Asia this was because China never endured the sort of social collapse pretty much everywhere else has in the last 2,000 years at some point.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I like his other quote there:

I’m starting to favor a Constitutional Amendment to the effect that anyone saying in print or pixels that such-and-such a notion has been “discredited” should be obliged to tell us by whom the discrediting was done, when, where, with what methodology, and the specific informed criticism that countered it.

People often use "discredited" as a way to avoid having to provide arguments or evidence, it's a tempting out. But that describes his style of writing very well, "of course some blots on the record, "net-net", etc. He made his "main" subject the semantics of what to call his area of the right, I wonder if that was so that he could make the comments about race casually instead of as the focus of the article, where he would have to go in depth. Although more likely he believes that those things have been argued to death already, which the probably have been in the context of an insular political group.

It is very difficult, now, to say what the Aztecs or Mayans might have produced after another 500 years, likewise the Zulus.

Yes, but it's even harder to say that they would have produced something. It's possible that civilizations simply stabilize if they are isolated. China tended towards stability instead of growth and change too.

But I'm not sure what his argument is, don't think he makes one. He just says that the white European societies have done well and sub-saharan africa hasn't.

[PanzerJaeger]

Why is the concept of cultural superiority so often mixed with racial superiority?

[Whacker]

Why is the concept of cultural superiority so often mixed with racial superiority?

Because they're often next to impossible to separate. Depends on how broad of brush you use to paint the "culture" picture, because it could be argued that most "cultures" are limited to a specific racial group or sub-group. Counter-examples would include the "New Orleans" culture, which is by definition based on the contributions but a number of wildly different racial (and cultural) parental entities.

[Vladimir]

Why is the concept of cultural superiority so often mixed with racial superiority?

Tribalism. It's easier.

[Whacker]

Tribalism. It's easier.

Magic people? Voodoo people?

[Xiahou]

I came across this article today:

A medical report compiled by the family physician of accused Trayvon Martin murderer George Zimmerman and obtained exclusively by ABC News found that Zimmerman was diagnosed with a "closed fracture" of his nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury the day after he fatally shot Martin during an alleged altercation.

So, does this shoot down the rest of the initial knee-jerk storyline yet? Is there anything left?

We were told this was a malicious, premeditated murder by a racist man with a grudge. Since then, we've learned he's not a racist and is in fact a minority himself. And he was in fact assaulted at some point during the altercation- bolstering his self-defense claims.

[Vladimir]

I came across this article today:
So, does this shoot down the rest of the initial knee-jerk storyline yet? Is there anything left?

We were told this was a malicious, premeditated murder by a racist man with a grudge. Since then, we've learned he's not a racist and is in fact a minority himself. And he was in fact assaulted at some point during the altercation- bolstering his self-defense claims.

No. A black person was still killed by a non-black person so it's still racially motivated.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No. A black person was still killed by a non-black person so it's still racially motivated.

I'm sorry - I have to pick you up on your faulty logic, it's only recaially motivated if he was shot because he was black.

Does mister Zimmerman identify as a minority? The name would suggest not, it perhaps worth wondering if he changed it - or if his dad was just Germanic.

Either way, that Martin struck him does not prove Martin attacked him, merely that there was an altercation and Zimmerman shot Martin and killed him. Indeed, if there are people who argue that Zimmerman would have been within his rights to shoot Martin if attakced, surely then Martin was within his rights to strike Zimmerman if, indeed, he was the one attacked.

[Sir Moody]

not just that but the fact he was diagnosed a day later does not suggest he was injured during the attack - just that he was injured before being diagnosed... say while in Police custody... might explain why they almost didn't prosecute him...

wasn't there a Police report that stated he wasn't injured during the incident?

[Lemur]

Not to interrupt anyone's talking points, but this is generally why we have trials.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Either way, that Martin struck him does not prove Martin attacked him, merely that there was an altercation and Zimmerman shot Martin and killed him. Indeed, if there are people who argue that Zimmerman would have been within his rights to shoot Martin if attakced, surely then Martin was within his rights to strike Zimmerman if, indeed, he was the one attacked.

But Zimmerman wasn't the one who attacked. Forget the media madness about him being a bloodthirsty gunman.

not just that but the fact he was diagnosed a day later does not suggest he was injured during the attack - just that he was injured before being diagnosed... say while in Police custody... might explain why they almost didn't prosecute him...

wasn't there a Police report that stated he wasn't injured during the incident?

The found him like that at the scene. Martins knuckles were scuffed up too iirc. You can see the bloody head etc in the video of him being taken into the police station.

[Xiahou]

Not to interrupt anyone's talking points, but this is generally why we have trials.

Yes. But now it will be a trial irrevocably tainted by sensationalist, likely false, media coverage. That's not cool.

Honestly, it's beginning to look more and more like the local DA was right not to pursue the case. With all the information that's coming in, it's looking like a lost cause for the prosecution. If they took a look at the available information and decided not to waste resources taking the case to a trial that they think they'd lose, is that wrong?

[Vladimir]

I'm sorry - I have to pick you up on your faulty logic, it's only recaially motivated if he was shot because he was black.

Does mister Zimmerman identify as a minority? The name would suggest not, it perhaps worth wondering if he changed it - or if his dad was just Germanic.

Either way, that Martin struck him does not prove Martin attacked him, merely that there was an altercation and Zimmerman shot Martin and killed him. Indeed, if there are people who argue that Zimmerman would have been within his rights to shoot Martin if attakced, surely then Martin was within his rights to strike Zimmerman if, indeed, he was the one attacked.

Sorry. Being a bit cheeky. I'm referring to the perception of others'.

[Sir Moody]

well clearly he was injured then ill retract my previous statement...

however it doesn't mean he didn't start the fight - say he tried to stop the kid by restraining him only to get beaten down - that wouldn't be self defence since restraining someone is assault...

the only way it would be self defence is if Martin attacked him without provocation

the only thing that is clear is the media has done a real hack job on this...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

well clearly he was injured then ill retract my previous statement...

however it doesn't mean he didn't start the fight - say he tried to stop the kid by restraining him only to get beaten down - that wouldn't be self defence since restraining someone is assault...

the only way it would be self defence is if Martin attacked him without provocation

Eh, grabbing someone by the arm doesn't justify that kind of beat down. "restraining someone is assault" ?? Martin had no injuries on him other than broken skin on his knuckles.

Everything we do know about zimmerman:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...83O18H20120425

Paints a different picture than the main media story.

We wouldn't even be saying "Well, we don't know for sure that he didn't assault martin first..." if it hadn't been reported like it was.


I just wonder how much the initial story will stick, since it seems unlikely that the pictures of the bloody head etc will get nearly as much attention.

[Lemur]

Honestly, it's beginning to look more and more like the local DA was right not to pursue the case. With all the information that's coming in, it's looking like a lost cause for the prosecution. If they took a look at the available information and decided not to waste resources taking the case to a trial that they think they'd lose, is that wrong?

I don't see how declaring him innocent (after reading some media reports) is any better than declaring him guilty (after reading some media reports). Seems like you're indulging in the exact thing you're condemning, really.

To repeat myself: Zimmerman deserves his day in court. That is all.

[Sir Moody]

while I don't know the specifics of US law, under UK law even grabbing an arm is assault if you dont have provocation (as is spitting and pushing) of course the police wont do anything apart from warn the offender...

also remember Martin died - bruises require time to develop and any bruises on Martin would be very difficult to identify since they wouldn't have had that time

we also only have Zimmerman's side of the fight - its quite possible that Martin lashed out at someone attacking him - one punch with enough force to the nose could easily break it and bruise both eyes - Zimmerman could have fallen down and then hit his head on the curb causing the injuries to the back of his head... its unlikely simply because there's 2 gashes on the back of his head but its possible...

basically we are never going to know either way and Zimmerman should get off over reasonable doubt - the media have tainted this so badly (like several cases over here) that its near impossible to know for sure what happened

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Eh, grabbing someone by the arm doesn't justify that kind of beat down. "restraining someone is assault" ?? Martin had no injuries on him other than broken skin on his knuckles.

Everything we do know about zimmerman:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...83O18H20120425

Paints a different picture than the main media story.

We wouldn't even be saying "Well, we don't know for sure that he didn't assault martin first..." if it hadn't been reported like it was.


I just wonder how much the initial story will stick, since it seems unlikely that the pictures of the bloody head etc will get nearly as much attention.

Restraining someone is assault, and battery unless the jurisdiction Zimmerman lives in has redefined the 18th century case law.

So there you go.

Grabbing someone does not merit being repeatedly beaten, but beating someone with your fists does not merit being shot and killed.

[Whacker]

Grabbing someone does not merit being repeatedly beaten, but beating someone with your fists does not merit being shot and killed.

If you are in fear for your life from a very real and capable threat, then you can legally use lethal force under certain circumstances and in certain states/areas. I would tend to agree that "grabbing" someone wouldn't merit a "repeated beating", but iirc grabbing generally does fall under assault in the eyes of the law, and generally one may defend themselves to a reasonable extent. Punching someone to break their nose, stun them, then run is one thing. Sitting on top of someone's chest and pounding their head into the pavement is another entirely.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If you are in fear for your life from a very real and capable threat, then you can legally use lethal force under certain circumstances and in certain states/areas. I would tend to agree that "grabbing" someone wouldn't merit a "repeated beating", but iirc grabbing generally does fall under assault in the eyes of the law, and generally one may defend themselves to a reasonable extent. Punching someone to break their nose, stun them, then run is one thing. Sitting on top of someone's chest and pounding their head into the pavement is another entirely.

So is shooting someone.

If Zimmerman had accosted Martin and Martin had beaten him down he's be up for assault and battery now, and we'd be having a different discussion. The fact is, however, that what actually happened is a man responded to being beaten down be shooting the other guy dead and it still looks like he approached Martin rather than, say, called the cops.

Given that we have no evidence Martin was in the process of committing a crime when Zimmerman approached him we have to wonder what was going through his head prior to the shooting.

[Whacker]

So is shooting someone.

If Zimmerman had accosted Martin and Martin had beaten him down he's be up for assault and battery now, and we'd be having a different discussion. The fact is, however, that what actually happened is a man responded to being beaten down be shooting the other guy dead and it still looks like he approached Martin rather than, say, called the cops.

Given that we have no evidence Martin was in the process of committing a crime when Zimmerman approached him we have to wonder what was going through his head prior to the shooting.

The last part doesn't hold water legally, I am pretty sure. Simply attempting to talk to someone isn't an aggressive action. Even walking after someone attempting to engage them to talk or discuss isn't either. Attempting to bar someone's way or restraining them is another thing entirely though. The other factor is Zimmerman's choice of language. I'd very much like to hear his version of the conversation when this all occurred.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The last part doesn't hold water legally, I am pretty sure. Simply attempting to talk to someone isn't an aggressive action. Even walking after someone attempting to engage them to talk or discuss isn't either. Attempting to bar someone's way or restraining them is another thing entirely though. The other factor is Zimmerman's choice of language. I'd very much like to hear his version of the conversation when this all occurred.

We obviously don't have enough information - but the initial failure to try the case is not acceptable given that an unarmed man died whilst just walking the streets. If he had invaded Zimmerman's home things would be different.

[Xiahou]

I don't see how declaring him innocent (after reading some media reports) is any better than declaring him guilty (after reading some media reports). Seems like you're indulging in the exact thing you're condemning, really.

To repeat myself: Zimmerman deserves his day in court. That is all.

I haven't declared him innocent. He is innocent until proven guilty. And I think proving him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is going to be a tall order. Is it unreasonable to ask if it's possible that the police and DA's office- the people that actually were on the scene -took a look at the situation and the evidence and concluded that the chances of conviction were so slim that it would be a waste of taxpayer funds?

Can we acknowledge the possibility that he wasn't charged for good reason instead of because of corruption or incompetence? The reason he finally was charged was pretty obviously due to political pressure.

Here's Alan Dershowitz calling the arrest affidavit "unethical and irresponsible":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...=i4fr5QwG63M#!