when i believed in god i tried not to pray for anything selfish.. after a while i began to think that a lot of things i was asking my imaginary friend in the sky for were selfish for some reason.. i do not ever remember a single thing i prayed for ever being answered.
if there was the appearance of an answer it was because i did mental gymnastics to make it fit the delusion that god had actually answered me.
there was never an obvious message/answer from god.
If I pray for love and the action of love, what will you achieve if you convince me that my prayer story is bogus?
Imagine what we could achieve as a species if we quit wasting time on prayer.
Having said that, I found that post to be a bit all over the place. What are you trying to say? All you need is love? I don't need God or prayer for that.
Finally, still not a single concrete example of this supposedly common phenomenon.
when i believed in god i tried not to pray for anything selfish.. after a while i began to think that a lot of things i was asking my imaginary friend in the sky for were selfish for some reason.. i do not ever remember a single thing i prayed for ever being answered.
if there was the appearance of an answer it was because i did mental gymnastics to make it fit the delusion that god had actually answered me.
there was never an obvious message/answer from god.
So maybe there is something Jesus can't do? Not much of a god, then.
In any event, Tec, the whole point of a concrete example is to rule out coincidence, wishful thinking, etc. There is no evidence, there is no concrete example.
It's that simple.
when i believed in god i tried not to pray for anything selfish.. after a while i began to think that a lot of things i was asking my imaginary friend in the sky for were selfish for some reason.. i do not ever remember a single thing i prayed for ever being answered.
if there was the appearance of an answer it was because i did mental gymnastics to make it fit the delusion that god had actually answered me.
there was never an obvious message/answer from god.
EP, puncky, shirley, what is your definition of concret proof? Do you need witnesses, pictures, news stories, lightning strikes, a voice from heaven, signed letter from god ? Just wondering.
God healing an amputee would be a good start.
why is your god ignoring all the starving, malnourished, poor, dying people of the planet who no doubt are also praying for one simple thing: FOOD?
Don't forget clean water.
So.... after all this, still not one concrete example?
EP: there has to be an explanation of why you refuse to accept all the evidence that shows GZ is innocent and instead keep inventing make believe scenarios to portray him as guilty with no responsibility apportioned to TM whatsoever.
I have agreed that GZ is NOT guilty of any crime. I have and will continue to use the fact to show that he was a incredibly irresponsible gun owner that created the situation in which these events could occur. As a gun owner, he did not follow his own obligation to defuse a situation, his actions CREATED the situation.
Perhaps TM did hide and jump him. GZ still created the situation. Presuming GZ was attacked, he had a legal right to shoot TM. I am NOT debating that. I am making the point that GZ created the situation and due to his actions, poor judgement and foresight, one life is lost and others are ruined.
Seems like you are biased for some reason, I'd like to know why. The only thing I can guess is that it's because of race.
I am biased. If you want to know why, you could always ask rather than suggest I am a racist. In any event, since I am limited to 25 posts, I can't respond after this unless you bump up my post count.
That GZ sounded out of breath and not following TM as you say indicate he was not moving around very much.
Agreed. It indicates he had been chasing TM as I said but couldn't keep up. Just because someone is chased doesn't mean the chaser can keep up. As to how they met face to face minutes later, we'll never know.
you keep subtly changing the scenario to fit, and you keep subtly treating speculations as facts.
I have not changed anything. Please show where I have changed a single thing. If facts show I said something in error, I will gladly correct it.
**Edited to add NOT at the beginning. Sorry for the typo.
I guess you must hate hispanics or something?
Wow. That's an incredibly cheap shot. You have been dishonest about my comments and are now calling me a racist?
Weak, Simon, weak. I really didn't expect such a cheap shot from you.
GZ should have had foresight into the future ? But he did not have a Back to the Future DeLorean.
Absolutely. He should have had the foresight to know that it was a bad idea to follow someone with a gun. Anyone who doesn't have that foresight shouldn't have a gun.
Would Zimmerman still be 100% responsible for creating the situation?
Yes. He followed someone with a gun. Having said that, TM would bear responsibility for his actions, but GZ still created the situation in which those actions could occur.
So what the frak is it supposed to mean he was 100% responsible for creating the situation?
It's been explained many times.
Surely it cannot refer to the situation leading up to him getting punched in the face; so what happened after after he was punched in the face that retro-causally made the entire situation his fault?
It absoolutely does refer to him creating the situation. Each party bear responsibility for what they did once the situation was created, but GZ alone created the situation in which the actions could take place.
him getting the head banged against the sidewalk? it cannot be that he was armed, or ignored your "rule", because that would equally apply to the situation where he had died from the raptured vein.
His being armed was a large part of it. Him following TM, armed or not, was another component. TM, whatever actions he took once the situation was created, bears responsibility for taking those actions, but they did not happen in a vacumn, they happened in a situation that was created by GZ.
So here is the bit you made up: you dont know he chased someone down. You can get out of a car with other intentions than chasing someone down.
Actually, there IS evidence he chased TM down. He got out of his car, minutes later was out of breath and cursing and said he had been following TM. TM is running, GZ is out of breath and said he has been following him. That's chasing.
But I bet you wont accept that.
Of course not. All evidence indicates GZ created the situation and was, in fact chasing TM. He gets out of his car, minutes later is out of breath, cursing and says he lost someone that was running. It's all on the call recorded by police.
I'm almost out of posts, so I'll respond again later today when some free up, unless Simon wants to up my post count above 25.
Speculation? If we believe Martin was running AWAY then how on earth does he end up back in Zimmerman’s lap nearer Zimmerman’s truck than in front his father’s house where he told his friend he was at?
Great question. Perhaps you should look up "doubling back". If someone is chasing you, the idea is to get them chasing you in one direction while you try to get behind the direction they think you went. It's misdirection.
It's also possible he simply took a wrong turn in the dark and in the rain. We'll never actually know since GZ created a by situation that ultimately ended up with many lives ruined.
EntirelyPossible, you’re making stuff up as you go.
Interestingly, I have not done that a single time. Do you have a concrete example of that?
Either what you said is relevant or it’s not. If it’s relevant then the question for you to answer is:
It's a question designed to elicit a specific answer in a vacumn of context. It's not relavent without context. So, let's add some context!
- How many times would you let a complete stranger—who just broke your nose—bang your head against pavement before you acted to defend your life?
First, I would be following someone with a gun. How many times would I let a complete stranger with a gun follow me in the dark and in the rain? Zero.
If at all possible I’d run away, and I’d keep running AWAY.
But that’s not what Martin did. Right?
Actually, GZ himself said he was running on the call to the police. That's exactly was TM was doing when GZ followed.
Oh, and how do we know that GZ chased TM? He says TM was running, his car door is heard opening, he is later heard muttering profanities while out of breath, indicating that he was running.
Guess where Martin was running. That’s right. Around the block and back to confront Zimmerman.
As Simon rightly pointed out, you weren't there to see that. No one was. That's just speculation. What we DO know 100% for a fact is that if GZ had followed the first rule of carrying a weapon, none of this would have happened.
So let me get this straight. If I follow someone, and he break my nose, that situation is "100%" my own making in your oppinion? Its no fault of the guy who broke my nose for doing no more than walking on a public street?
GZ was doing more than walking on a public street. He was following someone he had just referred to as an asshole while carrying a gun. I specifically said the situation was created by GZ. It may well be true that TM jumped him and started beating him and TM bears responsibility for those specific actions. Having said that, GZ absolutely bears responsibility for creating the situation in the first place. Had he simply reported the suspicious activity and stayed in his car, TM would not be dead, TM's parents wouldn't have a dead son and GZs life would not be ruined.
Unfortunately, GZ exercised his freedom in a dumb and irresponsible manner.
Again, the leap is made to assume GZ was "chasing" TM. He followed to maintain visual contact so as to report to the police where the guy was. That is not chasing.
He said TM was running. How do you keep up with someone you want to follow that is running?
We can only go by the evidence and testimony, logical leaps or filling in gaps or connecting the dots is reasonable doubt and the defendant gets the assumption of innocence not guilt.
He is guilty of not breaking any laws. Agreed. He is guilty, however, of acting foolishly and irresponsibly.
How many times would you let a complete stranger—who just broke your nose—bang your head against pavement before you acted to defend your life?
Ask a relavent question. How many times have I followed someone with a gun and then gotten into an altercation? How would you react to someone getting out of their car to follow you in the dark in the rain? What if you saw that person had a gun?
'chased him down' ... and you saw this? You should have told the prosecution - they woukd have used that I'm sure. Oh wait no, I remember now - you're not allowed to just make stuff up. Duh.
Ah, snark, the last refuge of a person that's not making a valid point. Hmm....let's see how do you follow someone that is running? I dunno, by chasing them I suppose.
No one saw what happened. Maybe he sauntered after him. Either way, GZ got out of his car and went after TM with no reason to do so after being told he didn't need to and after he called TM an asshole and TM got shot.
GZ created that situation, 100%.
You believe that just because someone is followed then even if tyhat oerson is walking away you have the right to follow them and attack them and even if you try to kill them, they have forfeit the right to defend themselves ... simply for 'following you'?
Simon, please stop dishonestly claiming other people are saying utterly stupid things. No one said any of that and it's a cheap shot to pretend that someone did.
GZ created that situation, 100%.
