Why Has No One Killed George Zimmerman?

[Ace Yonder]

Would we agree that at present the most dangerous religion is Islam? Yes they all have potential for danger. But Islam to my mind is at current the most virulant.

I would agree with banning all religious people from entering. That makes it evenly applied and more constitutional, plus it lets us keep the people from South of the border out. Great idea.

Absolutely, but not by an enormous margin. Daniel Dennett has made some extremely cogent points about why that is the case, but to me it boils down to the emphasis on submission to the will of god and the strength of that belief which lends it the ability to inspire in its adherents a willingness to sacrifice their own lives for a higher cause. Whenever self preservation is no longer the most important thing to a human being, they become extremely dangerous. Of course other religions have and do have this effect on people, but not with quite the same frequency. I would actually argue that almost all religions would be equally dangerous if their fundamental tenets were followed, I just think that Muslims tend to actually believe in their religion more than other religions where most people kinda half ass it. That could be a product of the fact that many Muslim countries have vastly reduced access to information, and thus are less likely to question their views since their view is constantly reinforced by their peer groups and authority figures, and might (hopefully will) change with time.

 

[Ace Yonder]

If course I dont proscribe 100% accuracy to Z. He is human, it probably happened very fast with a lot of emotion and adrenaline and some guilt afterward.

But i would only say that this case from the moment it happend received national attention and was subject to an intense police investigation. Z has shown himself sicne to be sort of a dumbass. I don't think he could have gotten away with lying to the cops. Forensics being what they are...

We will never know with 100% certinty, but I've read the record of events several times these past couple days. I think what i describe is a highly likely scenario.

It would have been so easy for T to flee If he wanted to. He had to have turned to confront Z. No other way, Z couldn't have ran him down.

But wouldn't the same stand your ground laws that made Z's actions lawful also made T's decision to stand HIS ground lawful? Often times self defense is about whether a reasonable person would perceive the threat of immediate harm and does not require assault to actually have commenced, i.e. if someone grabs a knife in a threatening way, you can now use force to defend yourself even if they don't swing it at you. Of course it depends on the state and whether there is an obligation to flee. Florida law states "A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be." By all accounts, T had committed no crime, and was not trespassing. If he FELT the threat of imminent death or great bodily harm (an absolutely reasonable assumption if a stranger is chasing you), he had no obligation to flee. He had every right to "ambush" the potentially armed aggressor. There is no refuting the fact that Z was told by dispatchers NOT to follow T and followed him anyways. He WAS chasing him. The tragedy that followed was directly due to his refusal to comply with this order.

 

[ThickStemz]

Absolutely, but not by an enormous margin. Daniel Dennett has made some extremely cogent points about why that is the case, but to me it boils down to the emphasis on submission to the will of god and the strength of that belief which lends it the ability to inspire in its adherents a willingness to sacrifice their own lives for a higher cause. Whenever self preservation is no longer the most important thing to a human being, they become extremely dangerous. Of course other religions have and do have this effect on people, but not with quite the same frequency. I would actually argue that almost all religions would be equally dangerous if their fundamental tenets were followed, I just think that Muslims tend to actually believe in their religion more than other religions where most people kinda half ass it. That could be a product of the fact that many Muslim countries have vastly reduced access to information, and thus are less likely to question their views since their view is constantly reinforced by their peer groups and authority figures, and might (hopefully will) change with time.

A large part of what you say is true. There is an element of "othering" to any religion. But as Sam Harris points out, the more fundamental a Jane gets the more pacifist he becomes.

With Islam there is the othering, but its core tennants are more violent than any religion I know of. Even most of the violence in the OT is what the Israielites did in the past with God saying to not do it again. I think Islam is special in its depravity. As an atheist I dislike them all. But the other two Abrahamic faiths has been neutered. Christians are largely benigne.

 

[ThickStemz]

But wouldn't the same stand your ground laws that made Z's actions lawful also made T's decision to stand HIS ground lawful? Often times self defense is about whether a reasonable person would perceive the threat of immediate harm and does not require assault to actually have commenced, i.e. if someone grabs a knife in a threatening way, you can now use force to defend yourself even if they don't swing it at you. Of course it depends on the state and whether there is an obligation to flee. Florida law states "A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be." By all accounts, T had committed no crime, and was not trespassing. If he FELT the threat of imminent death or great bodily harm (an absolutely reasonable assumption if a stranger is chasing you), he had no obligation to flee. He had every right to "ambush" the potentially armed aggressor. There is no refuting the fact that Z was told by dispatchers NOT to follow T and followed him anyways. He WAS chasing him. The tragedy that followed was directly due to his refusal to comply with this order.

Just because it was lawful for Z to kill T doesn't mean it would have been wrong for T to kill Z. Had that happened I could easily see how T could say he was in fear for his life.

This was a mutual confrontation. Z could have declined to go after. And T could have easily gotten away. Both chose the interaction that began the unfortunate chain of events.

Its a terrible situation.

 

[Ace Yonder]

A large part of what you say is true. There is an element of "othering" to any religion. But as Sam Harris points out, the more fundamental a Jane gets the more pacifist he becomes.

With Islam there is the othering, but its core tennants are more violent than any religion I know of. Even most of the violence in the OT is what the Israielites did in the past with God saying to not do it again. I think Islam is special in its depravity. As an atheist I dislike them all. But the other two Abrahamic faiths has been neutered. Christians are largely benigne.

Christians maybe (Although all the anti-abortion violence and such actually leads me to believe this isn't the case either), but Christianity continues to drive heavy levels of violence through Liberation Theology and the effect that has had, particularly in south america

 

[ThickStemz]

Christians maybe (Although all the anti-abortion violence and such actually leads me to believe this isn't the case either), but Christianity continues to drive heavy levels of violence through Liberation Theology and the effect that has had, particularly in south america

All the anti abotion violence? Seriously man, there is an incident with that every few years. Not that that is an acceptable figure, but with all the fundamentalists we have in America, the level of access we have to guns, and the passion that is generated in opposition to abortion, I think its nearly a miracle there isn't much more violence. Considering that by their view babies are being murdered. I think the lack of violence is indicitave of their lack of true conviction. I know if i thought there was a place across town where children were systematically murdered, I would feel compelled to stop it.

Liberation theology is, in my opinion, secular politics interjected into religion, in places that have always known violence in modern time. I loved what Christopher Hitchens had to say about liberation theology. I also loved what he said about Christianity's propensity towards violence. That it had war'd and genocided itself out by 1919 when All the Christian empires went to war with each other over that religion.

Violence is at recod low levels for Christianity.

 

[bundee1]

South Carolina church ring a bell?

 

[UncleBuck]

Donald Trump doesn't have support of the kkk. That's nonsense.

wrong again, subway sandwich maker.

 

[UncleBuck]

It isn't a ban on religion.

let me quote your exact fucking words, retard.

"keeping Muslims out of your country is a way to make it safer." - you

so much for "it's not a ban on religion though!!!!"

fucking retard.

 

[UncleBuck]

Zimmerman is a brave man, if not wise.

no. he was a racist pussy just like you.

Were probably better off it ended this way.

yes, we know you (and your klan buddies) all celebrate the death of an unarmed black child.

the rest of the world looks at you like the racist shitbag that you are though.

 

[UncleBuck]

IHe had to have turned to confront Z.

why was zimmerman out there with two flashlights and a loaded gun then?

 

[UncleBuck]

I think Islam is special in its depravity.

coming from you, who thinks it is OK to have sex with 10 year old children, that is just special.

say, didn't we kill about a million innocent civilians in iraq alone?

care to point out any islamic violence which even comes close to that?

maybe you need to shut the fuck up and stick to making subway sandwiches.

 

[ThickStemz]

coming from you, who thinks it is OK to have sex with 10 year old children, that is just special.

say, didn't we kill about a million innocent civilians in iraq alone?

care to point out any islamic violence which even comes close to that?

maybe you need to shut the fuck up and stick to making subway sandwiches.

All I said about 10 year olds is that some societies have judged it moral, and as morality is determined by a society ipso facto it can be moral to fuck a 10 year old. Just not in our society.

That being the case. Islam worships a man who never did any wrong who had sex with a 9 year old. Why don't you hate them. They say it's right to fuck children.

 

[UncleBuck]

All I said about 10 year olds is that some societies have judged it moral, and as morality is determined by a society ipso facto it can be moral to fuck a 10 year old. Just not in our society.

That being the case. Islam worships a man who never did any wrong who had sex with a 9 year old. Why don't you hate them. They say it's right to fuck children.

muslims do not say it is OK to fuck 10 year old children.

you, on the other hand, said that as long as she is menstruating and willing, it should be OK.

fucking pedo.

 

[ThickStemz]

muslims do not say it is OK to fuck 10 year old children.

you, on the other hand, said that as long as she is menstruating and willing, it should be OK.

fucking pedo.

I said it could be ok... In the proper context of a society that judges it as part of growing up.

 

[UncleBuck]

I said it could be ok to fuck 10 year old children.

and you try to label other people as depraved?

 

[Ace Yonder]

muslims do not say it is OK to fuck 10 year old children.

you, on the other hand, said that as long as she is menstruating and willing, it should be OK.

fucking pedo.

Well... Not many Muslims are complaining about Muhammad consummating his marriage to Aisha when she was 9 years old, and child brides are still a big thing in that part of the world... It's not ALL Muslims, and it's certainly not only Muslims, but their books pretty much explicitly say yes, and that trickles down to the everyday people. In Iran, 42,000 children aged 10-14 were married in 2010, along with over 700 girls under the age of 10. And that's just one year.

 

[Ace Yonder]

All I said about 10 year olds is that some societies have judged it moral, and as morality is determined by a society ipso facto it can be moral to fuck a 10 year old. Just not in our society.

That being the case. Islam worships a man who never did any wrong who had sex with a 9 year old. Why don't you hate them. They say it's right to fuck children.

I don't buy the Moral Relativity bullshit. As an Atheist Utilitarian, things that cause harm are always immoral, no matter what society says, and fucking a 10 year old always causes harm, thus it is never moral. Case closed.

 

[ThickStemz]

and you try to label other people as depraved?

Do you not have the ability to place yourself in a different context?

Rape, the violent and forceful violation of someone could never be acceptable. It might not be illegal in some societies across time.

We only call sex with a 10 year old bad and make it illegal on the basis that a 10 year old can not consent. Can you not imagine a society that did not have this legal constraint?

If the consent of the 10 year old is deemd to be valid, then what is wrong with him or her consenting to it?

The fact that some societies have allowed it goes to show it can be moral. It can also be immoral. In a society where 10 year olds are having sex 10 year olds are prepared to have sex. These 10 year olds would be different from our 10 year olds, who are by and large sheltered from sexuality.

 

[ThickStemz]

Well... Not many Muslims are complaining about Muhammad consummating his marriage to Aisha when she was 9 years old, and child brides are still a big thing in that part of the world... It's not ALL Muslims, and it's certainly not only Muslims, but their books pretty much explicitly say yes, and that trickles down to the everyday people. In Iran, 42,000 children aged 10-14 were married in 2010, along with over 700 girls under the age of 10. And that's just one year.

That is a good example of my point that says it is possible to have a society where it is not considered amoral.

Moral values are different across time.