Jump to content

Michael Sam, a College Football Standout, Says He Is Gay


Harley

Recommended Posts

 

That's actually not how the media works. The media reports on sensational stories because they know people will watch. Case in point, when you watch the news, all you see are murders, armed robberies, viscous assaults. Of course people will tune in for that but one would also have reason to believe  that this is some sort of rampant problem. However, the odds of any of these things happening to you are slim to none. The media's quest for the most sensational stories they can find, paint a skewed vision for how America actually functions. I wish I still had my old college Sociology textbooks so that I can give you more pointed, vivid, empirical evidence on this.

You are correct. So you are blaming the media for giving the public the product they want. Again, not the media's fault. If people wouldn't consume it they wouldn't report it. 

 

 

 

3675e77d8bf1bd0a0276b8a6e78201c9.gif

 

It's a Gay Zombie thread...  :rsju31uh9:   ...and no, that is not Michael Weston.

MICHAEL WESTON!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why the prosecution didn't call you up to the stand, you could have corroborated their entire argument. Wait a second, you saw the whole thing and you didn't come forward? I think you have blood on your hands. Wait a second, how could you witness this and not tackle George Zimmerman before he hurt someone? You're a coward! Since you were there that night, I find it reprehensible that you chose not to give a witness statement to the police. 

about that. 

 

 

 

 

WTF are you talking about?

 

I'm not talking about some version of events - mine or anyone else's.  I'm talking about the facts, that even Zimmer didn't dispute.  He had a gun. He followed someone he thought looked suspicious, and pursued that person aggressively -- against police orders.  Sometime later, however it was started, they fought and Martin ended up dead.

 

That's all you need to know.  In many other states, where they have more sensible obligation-to-flee laws, Zimmerman would have been found guilty on these simple facts, as he should have been (and it almost certainly should have been manslaughter).

 

Zimmerman "started the fight" because he was the pursuer. And this is the reason stand your ground is amoral.  Anyone can kill anyone else, and then just say "I was protecting myself."  If there's an obligation to flee, then you at least can't pick the fight, and you have to prove that you did everything you could to avoid it.  In this case, Zimmerman didn't do that.  He was expressly told by the police not to follow (the equivalent of flee) and yet he didn't (of course, if you're black in Florida, those stand-your-ground laws probably won't serve you quite so well, but that's another story).

 

Just because Florida has decided to legalize murder doesn't make it justified. And if you're religion doesn't believe in the death penalty, your religion should also find legislation that permits the aggressor in a fight to commit murder legally equally objectionable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are correct. So you are blaming the media for giving the public the product they want. Again, not the media's fault. If people wouldn't consume it they wouldn't report it. 

 

 

MICHAEL WESTON!!!!

 

Under that scenario. the media would have no influence over the opinions of its viewers. Once again, I would implore you to go look at the studies that explore this in detail.

 

One small sample:

 

Experimental evidence seems to indicate that the mass media have little power to change people's opinions on issues for which they already have formed a strong opinion, but they have a profound influence when it comes to setting the agenda and priming people on new issues. The way an issue is framed determines how it is discussed, which causes a social problem is blamed on, and which of the possible remedies are entered into the discussion (Sasson 1995, Beckett 1994, Pan & Kosicki 1993, Wanta & Hu 1993, Iyengar 1991, Nelson 1984, Howitt 1982, Weimann & Winn 1994).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

WTF are you talking about?

 

I'm not talking about some version of events - mine or anyone else's.  I'm talking about the facts, that even Zimmer didn't dispute.  He had a gun. He followed someone he thought looked suspicious, and pursued that person aggressively -- against police orders.  Sometime later, however it was started, they fought and Martin ended up dead.

 

That's all you need to know.  In many other states, where they have more sensible obligation-to-flee laws, Zimmerman would have been found guilty on these simple facts, as he should have been (and it almost certainly should have been manslaughter).

 

Zimmerman "started the fight" because he was the pursuer. And this is the reason stand your ground is amoral.  Anyone can kill anyone else, and then just say "I was protecting myself."  If there's an obligation to flee, then you at least can't pick the fight, and you have to prove that you did everything you could to avoid it.  In this case, Zimmerman didn't do that.  He was expressly told by the police not to follow (the equivalent of flee) and yet he didn't (of course, if you're black in Florida, those stand-your-ground laws probably won't serve you quite so well, but that's another story).

 

Just because Florida has decided to legalize murder doesn't make it justified. And if you're religion doesn't believe in the death penalty, your religion should also find legislation that permits the aggressor in a fight to commit murder legally equally objectionable.

 

That's an opinion, not a fact. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not talking about some version of events - mine or anyone else's.  I'm talking about the facts, that even Zimmer didn't dispute.  He had a gun. He followed someone he thought looked suspicious, and pursued that person aggressively -- against police orders.  Sometime later, however it was started, they fought and Martin ended up dead.

 

 

Actually, here is what you said earlier:

 

An armed man carrying a loaded gun picked a fight with an unarmed man and when the unarmed man defended himself the man with the loaded gun shot and killed him.  

 

 

Which version would you like to go with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Under that scenario. the media would have no influence over the opinions of its viewers. Once again, I would implore you to go look at the studies that explore this in detail.

 

One small sample:

 

Experimental evidence seems to indicate that the mass media have little power to change people's opinions on issues for which they already have formed a strong opinion, but they have a profound influence when it comes to setting the agenda and priming people on new issues. The way an issue is framed determines how it is discussed, which causes a social problem is blamed on, and which of the possible remedies are entered into the discussion (Sasson 1995, Beckett 1994, Pan & Kosicki 1993, Wanta & Hu 1993, Iyengar 1991, Nelson 1984, Howitt 1982, Weimann & Winn 1994).

 

Your arguing things that are not put forward. It doesn't matter if the media has an influence or not. If something it put out and not watched the media goes to the next thing that is watched. Stop blaming the media for the people determining what is important. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Your arguing things that are not put forward. It doesn't matter if the media has an influence or not. If something it put out and not watched the media goes to the next thing that is watched. Stop blaming the media for the people determining what is important. 

 

You stated in your previous post that that if the people didn't consume it, the media wouldn't report it. That's actually a backwards representation of the consumer-media relationship. The consumer consumes it because the media reports it. The media determines the narrative of what is reported. The consumer doesn't know any better because the media is the place they get their information from to begin with. 

 

The media has this great influence over society (showcased in many studies) precisely because the consumer is so dependent upon the media for information. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your original assertion sounded a whole lot like "wahh wahh I'm a hetero white guy why can't these minorities just shut up and let me enjoy my privileged status". Pardon me if that's incorrect but that's how it sounds. Blaming the media for giving them a voice doesn't help your case much, either. Why can't they keep it to themselves? Because in half the states in our country they can legally be fired from their jobs for being gay, for starters. Or, y'know, the radical notion that they shouldn't need to hide their identity any more than you should. Difficult concept, apparently. Why is it anyone's business? Well, let's see.. Do you have a wife or s/o? Can you be seen together in public without fear of harassment or losing your job? Kinda nice, right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I did watch the trial.  The killing was legal, and that's what was so tragic about it. Florida is one of those states where there's a big concentration of people like you, and they wrote the stand-your-ground law, which is a travesty (there were many in that trial, the other most notable travesty being the reluctant DA who had to have her arm twisted to even bring the case and then assigned the dufus squad as prosecutors - could they have been any more incompetent?)

 

An armed man carrying a loaded gun picked a fight with an unarmed man and when the unarmed man defended himself the man with the loaded gun shot and killed him.  If you need a law degree to make that legitimate, then you can throw out your "law" while you're at it. Because for anyone other than the amoral, that kind of shit is subhuman behavior.

 

Again. Love.  That's pretty much it.  Maybe add to that Forgive. Maybe add to that not to Judge (the Buddhists have a more positive version of this, which is Accept - something that they encourage us to apply to all things, especially the present moment). 

 

Justifying the opposite of these things (Love, Begrudge, Judging, Denying Others (whether it's their sexuality, their race, or their very right to live) also amoral, and subhuman.

 

There is NO moral justification to what George Zimmerman did. Even your God would agree with that.

 

 

Are people still defending Zimmerman? Even after the incident with his girlfriend and that arrest after? Really?

 

In a bit of my own "vigilante justice" I hope DMX ensures that Zimmerman is drinking through a straw for the rest of his life.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Are people still defending Zimmerman? Even after the incident with his girlfriend and that arrest after? Really?

 

In a bit of my own "vigilante justice" I hope DMX ensures that Zimmerman is drinking through a straw for the rest of his life.  

 

 

That fight was cancelled. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Under that scenario. the media would have no influence over the opinions of its viewers. Once again, I would implore you to go look at the studies that explore this in detail.

 

One small sample:

 

Experimental evidence seems to indicate that the mass media have little power to change people's opinions on issues for which they already have formed a strong opinion, but they have a profound influence when it comes to setting the agenda and priming people on new issues. The way an issue is framed determines how it is discussed, which causes a social problem is blamed on, and which of the possible remedies are entered into the discussion (Sasson 1995, Beckett 1994, Pan & Kosicki 1993, Wanta & Hu 1993, Iyengar 1991, Nelson 1984, Howitt 1982, Weimann & Winn 1994).

 

So what does non-experimental evidence say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are people still defending Zimmerman? Even after the incident with his girlfriend and that arrest after? Really?
 
In a bit of my own "vigilante justice" I hope DMX ensures that Zimmerman is drinking through a straw for the rest of his life.

I really don't want to discuss the Zimmerman case any further, but I don't understand the correlation between an incident with his girlfriend (in which the charges were dropped) and what happened with the Martin kid. I would hope that if I was ever unlucky enough to be wrongly charged with a crime, in the event I ever got into future trouble, they wouldn't hold that wrongful charge against me.

I happen to think George Zimmerman is an idiot, and probably a loser. However, I watched every minute of the trial, discussed it with an attorney friend of mine, and we both came to the same conclusion, no one knows what the heck happened that night and the prosecution had no evidence to prove their case. You can think George Zimmerman is a murderer all you want, but in the greatest judicial system in the history of the world, it would have been a travesty to convict him based upon pure emotion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't want to discuss the Zimmerman case any further, but I don't understand the correlation between an incident with his girlfriend (in which the charges were dropped) and what happened with the Martin kid. I would hope that if I was ever unlucky enough to be wrongly charged with a crime, in the event I ever got into future trouble, they wouldn't hold that wrongful charge against me.

I happen to think George Zimmerman is an idiot, and probably a loser. However, I watched every minute of the trial, discussed it with an attorney friend of mine, and we both came to the same conclusion, no one knows what the heck happened that night and the prosecution had no evidence to prove their case. You can think George Zimmerman is a murderer all you want, but in the greatest judicial system in the history of the world, it would have been a travesty to convict him based upon pure emotion.

 

 

What was the travesty was that the prosecutor went for a greater charge than he should have otherwise Zimmerman would be in jail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...