Black Teen Shot, Killed By Neighborhood Watch

[quote name='dohdough']

While your assertion that Martin would be alive if Zimmerman was never given a CCW is correct, but are you saying that he'd kill someone eventually, his history should have restricted him from getting one, or that CCW is bad in general?


[/QUOTE]

I'm saying that Zimmerman's history should have prevented him from getting a CCW. While I'm not a gun fanatic and I don't directly own any guns I do support the right for people to own guns for whatever reason they choose; be it for sport, for collecting or for the feeling of safety they may provide inside ones home.

I am less supportive for these same people to carry firearms outside their homes (loaded) and mingle in the general population; especially when they may have a history of mental illness or violence.


I feel pretty confident stating that had Zimmerman not had a gun no one would have lost their life (in that situation) on that evening. I'm not saying an altercation may or may not have occured and I'd even go as far as to saying that Zimmerman's approach to the entire situation would have changed (i.e. he might not of had the balls to pursue someone he deemed suspicous).

Either way Martin would still be here.


Edit: Not trying to stir the pot here because I don't think it necessarily aides either side but I read in an article that the FBI deemed but the used of a racial slur and the screaming as inconclusive; meaning that they couldn't decide if Zimmerman said coons or not or if the screaming was Zimmerman's or Martin's.

Anyone else read that?
 
[quote name='dohdough']
Zimmerman also claims that he was walking back to check the street he was on...after he was able to identify his exact location from a car in the rain...in a neighborhood that he patrols...a neighborhood with 3 whole streets to keep track of. I'm going to invoke Occam's Razor on this one and say that Zimmerman is full of shit.

Also, if by voice stress test, you mean a lie detector test, they're inadmissible in court. Even if he "passed," the prosecution would never allow it.[/QUOTE]

heres the actual 911 call, I would say its not the way you describe:

911 dispatcher:
Alright, what address are you parked in front of? [3:21]

Zimmerman:
Um, I don’t know. It’s a cut-through so I don’t know the address. [3:25



This part of the call would not contradict his statement he was looking for an address. He generally knew where he was, but didn't have an actual address, which was requested by the dispatcher. I am pretty sure he never was able to give the dispatcher the name of the street he was on. I don't find it unbelievable he wouldn't know the name of the street. I live in a small neighborhood and couldn't tell you all the names of the few streets. I am sure thats not unique.

Also, I know the stress test cannot be used in court- but that doesn't mean it had absolutely no value in trying to discover the truth. Investigators use it for a reason.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yep...if he'd listened to the 9/11 dispatcher none of this would have happened.
[/QUOTE]

I want to agree with that but I know there's something deeper going on. When incidents like this happen the entire discussion gets compartmentalized into instances. Americans love to do that shit. We'd so much rather discuss the particular instances.

: If Zimmerman never left the car none of this would've happened.
: If Zimmerman wasn't on the neighborhood watch ,none of this would've happened.
:If Zimmerman didn't own a gun ,none of this would've happened.
: If he didn't carry the gun he wouldn't have felt brazen enough to confront Martin ,none of this would've happened.

:If Trayvon wasn't in the wrong neighborhood, ,none of this would've happened.
:If Trayvon wasn't wearing a hoodie and appearing "suspect" ,none of this would've happened.
:If Trayvon didn't try to confront/fight Zimmerman ,none of this would've happened.

It cant be about any 1 particular instance or a combination of them (If you're interested in changing the climate/culture)
 
I agree there are multiple instances--though I disagree with the first two about Trayvon. It's a free country, people can walk down the street wearing whatever they damn well please and shouldn't be deemed suspicious just because of their dress style, race or combination of the two.

But the biggest problem to me is the dumb ass suburban paranoia and the uselessness of neighborhood watch which has no impact on crime rates and promotes this type of vigilante stuff from want to be cop types. The only positive of the program is improving relationships between police and the community, but there are other programs that can do the same without involving the community in police like activities since citizens often end up "patrolling" etc. even though they're not supposed to as part of the official Neighborhood Watch program.
 
The neighborhood wasn't some idealic gated suburb from my understanding. It had quite a few instances of crime. It wasn't just paranoia- there was real crime taking place in that specific neighborhood. Also, neighborhood watches arent limited to suburbia, in fact I believe there are tons of them right were you live in ATL.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']

But the biggest problem to me is the dumb ass suburban paranoia and the uselessness of neighborhood watch which has no impact on crime rates and promotes this type of vigilante stuff from want to be cop types. The only positive of the program is improving relationships between police and the community, but there are other programs that can do the same without involving the community in police like activities since citizens often end up "patrolling" etc. even though they're not supposed to as part of the official Neighborhood Watch program.[/QUOTE]

Well I cant deny the entire concept of the neighborhood watch gets thrown out the window when there are multiple 911 calls and none of the callers have the balls enough to go outside or to even look out the fucking window. But again larger beyond the smaller particular instance. If Zimmerman was really interested in preventing crime in his own neighborhood certainly , there are several other more effective options. He definitely went the "easy" route of 'patrolling' the community rather than 'building' a community
 
[quote name='caltab']The neighborhood wasn't some idealic gated suburb from my understanding. It had quite a few instances of crime. It wasn't just paranoia- there was real crime taking place in that specific neighborhood. Also, neighborhood watches arent limited to suburbia, in fact I believe there are tons of them right were you live in ATL.[/QUOTE]

Of course. But crime in those types of areas is still relatively rare and there are better ways to stay safe than neighbor patrols. Research simply finds neighborhood watch, and community policing initiatives in general, simply don't prevent crime. They make people feel safer (despite not having an impact on crime) and can improve police-community relationships, but that's about it.

The biggest problem with them is they're the easiest to implement in lower crime areas--not just the idealistic suburbs, but also just areas of a city that have some crime, but not enough for people to be freaking out about.

The true crime hot spots are plagued by concentrated disadvantage, rampant distrust of the police etc. so it's very difficult to effectively implement neighborhood watch or any type of police-community partnerships as there simply isn't much community there. Any work that gets done tends to get done by neighborhood churches and non-profit organizations.

But in general, people just freak out too much about crime. It happens quite abit around my neighborhood--though not nearly as much as in the bad areas of the city. It's just not worth worrying about. Just use common sense. Live in a secure building/community if you can afford it, don't have parties where you have friends of friends etc. show up (lots of burglaries are committed by people who've been in your home), don't walk around alone at night, be aware and looking around when walking around at anytime, rather than distracting fucking around on your phone etc. Simple stuff like that will go much further in reducing your victimization risk than silly shit like neighborhood watch and constantly being paranoid of crime and suspicious of anyone you don't know.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114'] It's a free country, people can walk down the street wearing whatever they damn well please and shouldn't be deemed suspicious just because of their dress style, race or combination of the two.[/QUOTE]

One I can deem whoever I want suspicious for whatever reason I choose to see them as suspicious. Two where is the proof that he was deemed suspicious on the hoodie alone, race alone or a combination of those two? I have listened to the tape and I don't recall zimmerman saying hey this guy is suspicious because ....he is black or because he has a hoodie on or because he is black and has a hoodie on. Am I wrong?
 
Last edited:
[quote name='GBAstar']Edit: Not trying to stir the pot here because I don't think it necessarily aides either side but I read in an article that the FBI deemed but the used of a racial slur and the screaming as inconclusive; meaning that they couldn't decide if Zimmerman said coons or not or if the screaming was Zimmerman's or Martin's.

Anyone else read that?[/QUOTE]
I find it even more interesting that they're looking into charging him with a hate crime despite it. Federal cases aren't built just for the hell of it.

[quote name='caltab']heres the actual 911 call, I would say its not the way you describe:

911 dispatcher:
Alright, what address are you parked in front of? [3:21]

Zimmerman:
Um, I don’t know. It’s a cut-through so I don’t know the address. [3:25

This part of the call would not contradict his statement he was looking for an address. He generally knew where he was, but didn't have an actual address, which was requested by the dispatcher. I am pretty sure he never was able to give the dispatcher the name of the street he was on. I don't find it unbelievable he wouldn't know the name of the street. I live in a small neighborhood and couldn't tell you all the names of the few streets. I am sure thats not unique.[/quote]
There's a lot more to the conversation and 2 lines don't make your case. Neither does you not knowing the streets around your neighborhood when you don't go patrolling it like the neighborhood wannabe cop and that's what makes Zimmerman unique.

Also, I know the stress test cannot be used in court- but that doesn't mean it had absolutely no value in trying to discover the truth. Investigators use it for a reason.
Click to expand...
Sure, but straight up lying to suspects about known facts is also just as effective. I'm not saying that it has no value, just not as much as you seem to give it credit for as most people's perceptions of it are based on pure bullshit. Maury Povich makes millions off it people's misconceptions of it.

[quote name='caltab']The neighborhood wasn't some idealic gated suburb from my understanding. It had quite a few instances of crime. It wasn't just paranoia- there was real crime taking place in that specific neighborhood. Also, neighborhood watches arent limited to suburbia, in fact I believe there are tons of them right were you live in ATL.[/QUOTE]
Well let's be more specific here. There were a few burglaries that were perpetrated by a couple of black males. One of which was caught if I remember correctly. Which leads us to why Zimmerman decided to follow Martin to begin with. Unknown black male is not a reason to be suspicious. It's dumb and racist to think that all unknown black males are possible suspects if they happen to be walking down a certain street.
 
I don't think the stress test itself has that much value, but I think it could give some indication of how believable he will be when he testifies. If his statements are consistent (which we haven't really seen them all yet) and he is a believable witness on the stand that can only help him at trial. This case could largely turn on whether or not a jury believes his story.
 
Dazzled at the linguistic gymnastics both sides are using to deflect facts that support or hurt their opinions of what happened. The Dershowitz article was quite interesting as he seems to view it from a legal perspective, while criticizing the prosecution, which he feels is doing a poor job. He's got some history in law and the prosecution doing a poor job.
 
They are LOOKING at it as a possibility or investigating it (hate crime by the fed) because of all the hoopla that was stirred up and that is all. That doesn't mean they will make a charge of hate crime or that there is evidence that it is. They bowed to pressure from certain special interest groups. I would bet right now that a charge of hate crime NEVER happens.
 
Last edited:
[quote name='Pliskin101']They are LOOKING at it as a possibility or investigating it (hate crime by the fed) because of all the hoopla that was stirred up and that is all. That doesn't mean they will make a charge of hate crime or that there is evidence that it is. They bowed to pressure from certain special interest groups. I would bet right now that a charge of hate crime NEVER happens.[/QUOTE]

You and doh should bet. It would be fun to see what you two could come up with as payment on the bet.
 
[quote name='DurbanBrown']I think something i wrote a few days ago is deleted now....[/QUOTE]

It is. Dohdough has immunity and protection on the CAG vs. forum. He can act the fool and call people everything under the sun under this immunity and at the same time is protected from anyone who does it to him in defense or as the same type of engagement he uses. Therefore your post is gone as well as mine.

Puzzling but true.
 
[quote name='Pliskin101']I never said anything defending alcohol (NEVER) or denying its effects much less "handwaving" deaths caused by it NEVER!![/QUOTE]
Actually you handwaved it by saying it's legal and to write my representative if I don't like it. This is after you gave your criteria for the reason why weed is a Bad Thing and that your hobbies are free from murders, deaths, kidnappings, rape, and corruption, which is just plain ignorance. If other hobbies are directly responsible for the above, then your labels of bad and illegal are meaningless in relation to innocence when many forms of recreation are also directly responsible for those things while being legal.

But thanks for responding to my post without truly responding to the actual content and question of my post (just like the other responses to me). It shows what most everyone here knows you are no man and childish as hell.
I knew you couldn't man up. Typical. Go ahead and play your games.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry if my answers are too complicated for you.

Thanks also for alluding to, by all of your responses to me, that because there are other bads then the bad of illegal drugs/use and it's problems are then somehow magically made okay or doesn't exist. Since you don't want to MAN UP and answer the topic and questions directly we are left with that. Adult sane responses by you to the topic. NOT!!
Click to expand...
I know you think you're pwning me on this one, but didn't I JUST say in a couple of posts above this one that weed and alcohol directly cause all of the same bad things you describe?

Want to try again? Is it possible for you to MAN UP?
Click to expand...
I don't think you know what "manning up" looks like.

edit: Focus DohDough I have hope for you.. not really buts let's try anyway...FOCUS. You even quoted me above in my first post on the topic "OFF topic but since when is using an illegal drug that is directly responsible for thousands of murders and deaths considered an acceptable recreational activity?

FOCUS dohdough it is illegal drugs/use and its direct ties with horrific costs to life and humanity.

Here was the last question I posted so try to focus "So you are okay with illegal drugs and use and deny that it causes everything I said?"
You can break it down to 1. So are you okay with ILLEGAL DRUG use? 2. Do you deny it (illegal drugs/use) is directly responsible for everything I said it is?
(kidnapping rape and murder by the thousands as the top three)

Show us all that big brain of yours and give it that good old college try (if you truly went to college) and don't give the same playground and or mental ward rhetoric unless that is all you are capable of..

edit: I know it's not illegal EVERYWHERE I was talking about where it is illegal and its ILLEGAL use and the enormous problems and god awful crimes that accompany it. Nor am I was I talking about whether it should or shouldn't be illegal. Illegal use is directly responsible for horrific crimes. I personally can't condone or be a part of illegal use because of what is behind it. Also as I said I will gladly discuss other BAD things, activities, recreations, products etc etc with you and offer my opinions (which i have not yet) legal or illegal when you man up to this topic and my questions.
Click to expand...
Your argument of saying that something is bad because it is illegal and causes xyz falls apart when something legal causes 2(xyz). You can't base your argument on the illegality of something without examining why it's illegal and other things aren't especially if they are directly responsible for the same damn things.

I also find it hilarious that over the course of 6 hours, you've edited this post at least 6 times while not adding anything substantive. "Manning up" would also imply taking responsibility for what they say and not editing stuff that distorts their original argument. There's a reason why I quote posts.
 
[quote name='berzirk']You and doh should bet. It would be fun to see what you two could come up with as payment on the bet.[/QUOTE]
Nice troll attempt, but I'm not convinced that it will result in a charge. But LOLZ@ "special interest groups."
 
[quote name='dohdough']Nice troll attempt, but I'm not convinced that it will result in a charge. But LOLZ@ "special interest groups."[/QUOTE]

Hunh? How was I trolling? Should I have been talking about onramps in and around Atlanta instead? I just thought it would be funny if you guys bet, considering Pliskin said "I would bet right now that a charge of hate crime NEVER happens" and you had mentioned that the Feds were investigating it and the charge was a possibility.

If anything, I figured it would be taken as an attack on Pli for making a rather bold statement with nothing but a guess to base it on.

Was the lolz @ special interest groups directed my way or someone else? I don't recall saying anything about them. I'm confused.

Whew, this thread has waaay too much sand in way too many vaginas. Peace ya'll.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Hunh? How was I trolling? Should I have been talking about onramps in and around Atlanta instead? I just thought it would be funny if you guys bet, considering Pliskin said "I would bet right now that a charge of hate crime NEVER happens" and you had mentioned that the Feds were investigating it and the charge was a possibility.

If anything, I figured it would be taken as an attack on Pli for making a rather bold statement with nothing but a guess to base it on.[/quote]
I meant that you were egging him on, albeit sarcastically. I don't think he needs the encouragement.

Was the lolz @ special interest groups directed my way or someone else? I don't recall saying anything about them. I'm confused.

Whew, this thread has waaay too much sand in way too many vaginas. Peace ya'll.
Click to expand...
A little of both. I'm just curious to see if anyone had any comments about it.
 
I just cant see why neither of you dudes can concede that you both have valid points.
You're both ultimately making the same point. A distinction between harm caused through effect of use.
There's no hole in Pliskins argument that Marijuana cartels are responsible for murder rape and kidnapping.
There's no hole in Doh's assessment that legal substance like prescription drugs and alcohol also causes death , murder , spousal abuse, domestic violence and other atrocities.
The key being abuse. Legality/ ease of obtaining prescription narcotics is ultimately why its abuse is on the rise. Same can be said for alcohol and other substances.

If you're not going to try to reach consensus then you're throwing away the entire debate format. The results itself should be productivity otherwise its just a big spank-fest These sort of Polemic arguments should be saved for another forum... IDK AlexJones.com or something
 
[quote name='EdRyder']I just cant see why neither of you dudes can concede that you both have valid points.
You're both ultimately making the same point. A distinction between harm caused through effect of use.
There's no hole in Pliskins argument that Marijuana cartels are responsible for murder rape and kidnapping.
There's no hole in Doh's assessment that legal substance like prescription drugs and alcohol also causes death , murder , spousal abuse, domestic violence and other atrocities.
The key being abuse. Legality/ ease of obtaining prescription narcotics is ultimately why its abuse is on the rise. Same can be said for alcohol and other substances.

If you're not going to try to reach consensus then you're throwing away the entire debate format. The results itself should be productivity otherwise its just a big spank-fest These sort of Polemic arguments should be saved for another forum... IDK AlexJones.com or something[/QUOTE]

:applause: You sir, are my new favorite poster. Brilliantly stated. Well played!
 
[quote name='EdRyder']I just cant see why neither of you dudes can concede that you both have valid points.
You're both ultimately making the same point. A distinction between harm caused through effect of use.
There's no hole in Pliskins argument that Marijuana cartels are responsible for murder rape and kidnapping.
There's no hole in Doh's assessment that legal substance like prescription drugs and alcohol also causes death , murder , spousal abuse, domestic violence and other atrocities.
The key being abuse. Legality/ ease of obtaining prescription narcotics is ultimately why its abuse is on the rise. Same can be said for alcohol and other substances.

If you're not going to try to reach consensus then you're throwing away the entire debate format. The results itself should be productivity otherwise its just a big spank-fest These sort of Polemic arguments should be saved for another forum... IDK AlexJones.com or something[/QUOTE]

I will concede to that point. I totally agree. I was just trying to keep it focused on one thing at a time and that argument being valid before moving on to another point/argument. But if it helps I agree with your point on dd's assessment of legal substances. I concede that easily it is a no brainer.

I agree with the above poster berzirk.

Well done and thank you.
 
Last edited:
[quote name='berzirk']Hunh? How was I trolling? Should I have been talking about onramps in and around Atlanta instead? I just thought it would be funny if you guys bet, considering Pliskin said "I would bet right now that a charge of hate crime NEVER happens" and you had mentioned that the Feds were investigating it and the charge was a possibility.

If anything, I figured it would be taken as an attack on Pli for making a rather bold statement with nothing but a guess to base it on.

Was the lolz @ special interest groups directed my way or someone else? I don't recall saying anything about them. I'm confused.

Whew, this thread has waaay too much sand in way too many vaginas. Peace ya'll.[/QUOTE]

I don't see it as a bold statement based on how hard it is to prove a hate crime. Also based on the evidence of the case known at this time. With that information it imo isn't such a bold statement and it is one where yes I could be wrong with new evidence or evidence unheard as of yet but I would still willingly bet on it and believe the odds to be in my favor but not a certainty.
@special interest groups it was some gasoline added by me but more of a jab at certain groups for adding to turning this into a circus when it first came out.
 
[quote name='EdRyder']I just cant see why neither of you dudes can concede that you both have valid points.
You're both ultimately making the same point. A distinction between harm caused through effect of use.
There's no hole in Pliskins argument that Marijuana cartels are responsible for murder rape and kidnapping.
There's no hole in Doh's assessment that legal substance like prescription drugs and alcohol also causes death , murder , spousal abuse, domestic violence and other atrocities.
The key being abuse. Legality/ ease of obtaining prescription narcotics is ultimately why its abuse is on the rise. Same can be said for alcohol and other substances.

If you're not going to try to reach consensus then you're throwing away the entire debate format. The results itself should be productivity otherwise its just a big spank-fest These sort of Polemic arguments should be saved for another forum... IDK AlexJones.com or something[/QUOTE]
Hi there.

It's nice to see a summary of the points we used in our arguments, but you're mistaking my points for the argument itself. My initial argument was that with the newly released information about the presence of trace amounts of THC in Martin's system, people are more concerned about the ridiculous notion that he was somehow high as a fucking kite and how THC gives the user hulk-like strength and spastic movements. While at the same time, Zimmerman probably had a higher concentration of 3 strong prescription drugs to help with his anxiety, aggressive tendencies, and insomnia, yet no one really gives a flying fuck as evidenced by several other posters as you yourself had seen.

Then Pliskin decided to grace us with the superficial argument that the devil weed, aka PCP to some, is a Bad Thing that causes other Bad Things, but most of all, illegal. He's more concerned with claiming moral superiority by saying that his choices of recreational activities are somehow immune from similar types of harm. It's a ridiculous premise that shouldn't need to be explained. You might've missed that part because he edited it out of his post. Fortunately, I still have an unedited version of it in one of my own posts.

It's right here if you want to refresh your memory:
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9634029&postcount=933

I'm not disputing that there are negative effects, but arguing that the entire way he's composing his arguments as simply dumb. It's just one giant mess of dissonance. I don't expect people to be 100% logically consistent; that's impossible, but I do expect people not to make outlandish claims to make themselves look like the have the moral highground.
 
Give it up folks Dohdough is incapable of manning up. Ed you said exactly what I was saying and made it simple enough for a child to understand unfortunately dohdouigh is a stupid motherfucker. If he can't acknowledge that simplest of fact because he is a sick SOB then there is nothing anyone can do to change that... as seen with just conceding the simplest and undeniable fact that.....

"There's no hole in Pliskins argument that Marijuana cartels are responsible for murder rape and kidnapping."

Nobody said he had to agree with everything I said nor me everything he said. I can understand that and that is why I conceded simple fact knowing it doesn't mean I agree with everything he was saying. The fact is he is challenged and childish ....he can't concede the bolded line above and it is disturbing.

As I have said all along he is a disgusting excuse for a human being and everything about him makes me sick.

Anyway we all know that point is valid and fact.

One sick motherfucker dohdough is!!!
 
Last edited:
[quote name='dohdough']Hi there.
[/QUOTE]

Seriously motherfucker get some help!!!

BTW get some fucking HELP!!!

edit: BTW It was iatcg that said PCP as seen in post #925 and I never said devil weed. looky here...http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=317558&page=47

BTW I edited the post where I mentioned my recreational activities again moments after I put it because i knew it left it open for your idiotic ass to say something stupid like OIL. Who knew you were just waiting to jump on the post as soon as I posted it.

Either way edited or not the rest is still making the main point and even your link shows that and my post below.
[quote name='Pliskin101']Still Off Topic but....Even for you to defend a drug that is ILLEGAL and is the direct cause of tens of thousand of murders rape and kidnappings is a effing stretch. Alcohol is LEGAL and while you may not like it as many don't it is legal and if you want to change that I suggest you start writing your political reps and not use it or be a part of the problem.

Illegal pot is directly tied to tens of thousands of deaths murders rapes kidnappings and widespread economic issues coupled with corruption and bribery.

You can defend the illegal activity and try to downplay that it is illegal and contains the problems I mentioned but you are still the one truly burying your head in the sand or maybe the pot bag?

You see how that works? I didn't defend alcohol problems by down playing it as some TOTALLY innocent recreation nor did I take it to something else like smoking cigarettes as being somehow worse than tens of thousands of rape murders etc etc etc (you know like you did to alcohol). You can twist it anyway you want but it is illegal and is the direct cause of all that I mentioned. I know most illegal drug users aren't aware (for obvious reasons) that their illegal crud just doesn't automatically appear like magic in their pocket when they want it but that it comes from somewhere that has direct ties to all the major criminal activities and atrocities I mentioned and there is no excuse for that type of ignorance or DENIAL.[/QUOTE]

As it is seen below here as well

[quote name='Pliskin101']DohDough...So you are okay with illegal drugs and use and deny that it causes everything I said?
By that last post it seems you do. You see as I pointed out in my last post we can get into a conversation about fertilizer, oil, trans fat, rubber and on and on and on but I was specifically talking about marijuana in response to your post about it. The easy way to clear it up is answer my question and actually discuss it instead of trying to spin away from it. I will gladly discuss the problems with all kinds of products and activities with you but first answer my questions since you seem to have a problem with my posts about the problems with illegal drug use. You see I can discuss with honesty any of those other things so why can't you with the topic of my post that you responded to with nonsense. If you didn't want to discuss that topic then you should have ignored me and it. So man up and quit playing childish games.[/QUOTE]

and also here...

[quote name='Pliskin101']I never said anything defending alcohol (NEVER) or denying its effects much less "handwaving" deaths caused by it NEVER!!

But thanks for responding to my post without truly responding to the actual content and question of my post (just like the other responses to me). It shows what most everyone here knows you are no man and childish as hell.
I knew you couldn't man up. Typical. Go ahead and play your games.

Thanks also for alluding to, by all of your responses to me, that because there are other bads then the bad of illegal drugs/use and it's problems are then somehow magically made okay or doesn't exist. Since you don't want to MAN UP and answer the topic and questions directly we are left with that. Adult sane responses by you to the topic. NOT!!

Want to try again? Is it possible for you to MAN UP?

edit: Focus DohDough I have hope for you.. not really buts let's try anyway...FOCUS. You even quoted me above in my first post on the topic "OFF topic but since when is using an illegal drug that is directly responsible for thousands of murders and deaths considered an acceptable recreational activity?

FOCUS dohdough it is illegal drugs/use and its direct ties with horrific costs to life and humanity.

Here was the last question I posted so try to focus "So you are okay with illegal drugs and use and deny that it causes everything I said?"
You can break it down to 1. So are you okay with ILLEGAL DRUG use? 2. Do you deny it (illegal drugs/use) is directly responsible for everything I said it is?
(kidnapping rape and murder by the thousands as the top three)

Show us all that big brain of yours and give it that good old college try (if you truly went to college) and don't give the same playground and or mental ward rhetoric unless that is all you are capable of..

edit: I know it's not illegal EVERYWHERE I was talking about where it is illegal and its ILLEGAL use and the enormous problems and god awful crimes that accompany it. Nor am I was I talking about whether it should or shouldn't be illegal. Illegal use is directly responsible for horrific crimes. I personally can't condone or be a part of illegal use because of what is behind it. Also as I said I will gladly discuss other BAD things, activities, recreations, products etc etc with you and offer my opinions (which i have not yet) legal or illegal when you man up to this topic and my questions.[/QUOTE]

Did I mention get some help??!!
and for further reading...
[quote name='EdRyder']I just cant see why neither of you dudes can concede that you both have valid points.
You're both ultimately making the same point. A distinction between harm caused through effect of use.
There's no hole in Pliskins argument that Marijuana cartels are responsible for murder rape and kidnapping.
There's no hole in Doh's assessment that legal substance like prescription drugs and alcohol also causes death , murder , spousal abuse, domestic violence and other atrocities.
The key being abuse. Legality/ ease of obtaining prescription narcotics is ultimately why its abuse is on the rise. Same can be said for alcohol and other substances.

If you're not going to try to reach consensus then you're throwing away the entire debate format. The results itself should be productivity otherwise its just a big spank-fest These sort of Polemic arguments should be saved for another forum... IDK AlexJones.com or something[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Pliskin101']I will concede to that point. I totally agree. I was just trying to keep it focused on one thing at a time and that argument being valid before moving on to another point/argument. But if it helps I agree with your point on dd's assessment of legal substances. I concede that easily it is a no brainer.

I agree with the above poster berzirk.

Well done and thank you.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Pliskin101']Give it up folks Dohdough is incapable of manning up. Ed you said exactly what I was saying and made it simple enough for a child to understand unfortunately dohdouigh is a stupid motherfucker. If he can't acknowledge that simplest of fact because he is a sick SOB then there is nothing anyone can do to change that... as seen with just conceding the simplest and undeniable fact that.....

"There's no hole in Pliskins argument that Marijuana cartels are responsible for murder rape and kidnapping."

Nobody said he had to agree with everything I said nor me everything he said. I can understand that and that is why I conceded simple fact knowing it doesn't mean I agree with everything he was saying. The fact is he is challenged and childish ....he can't concede the bolded line above and it is disturbing.

As I have said all along he is a disgusting excuse for a human being and everything about him makes me sick.

Anyway we all know that point is valid and fact.

One sick motherfucker dohdough is!!![/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
Denial aint just a river in Egypt.

Warning graphic image of drug cartel violence!! Seriously.


and since dohdough wont acknowledge that little fact and I did concede to EdRyder on alcohol then I can move on now and be very happy that my recreational substance use enjoyed within the confines of my home with one glass with my wife is nowhere near the same thing. It does not contribute to anything like illegal drug use does to the photo above and my point. So yes I can comfortably take the higher ground especially since Dohdough really wants to push that and ignore the rest ... I figured why not because it is the "higher" (lol) ground.
Lancaster_Estate_Winery.jpg

and don't give me some bs about everyday products either that is just ridiculous to even bring that up. You know like rubber,plactic or whatever.
 
Last edited:
[quote name='depascal22']Not all marijuana comes from Mexico....[/QUOTE]

no shit sherlock...

not all cars come from detroit

There now we are even we are both walking away with nothing new learned today. Well at least I am.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Not all marijuana comes from Mexico....[/QUOTE]

no shit sherlock...now can you tell me what percentage of illegal marijuana in the US is estimated to come up though mexico?
Did you also know that drug cartels are growing all over the US and they operate within the United States? (in over a 1000 Cities)
Did you also know not all the violence I described rape, murder, and kidnappings happens just in Mexico?
Oh and there is yet sooo much more....
There is no way you are over 18 and have no clue of the wide implications and the complexity of it all...unless of course you are living in a cave and come out just to post your little nuggets from time to time.

not all cars are made in detriot...



I feel stupidier for reading your post damn I wish I could take it back.
 
Last edited:
[quote name='Pliskin101']I can move on now and be very happy that my recreational substance use enjoyed within the confines of my home with one glass with my wife is nowhere near the same thing. It does not contribute to anything like illegal drug use does to the photo above and my point. So yes I can comfortably take the higher ground especially since Dohdough really wants to push that and ignore the rest ... I figured why not because it is the "higher" (lol) ground.[/QUOTE]

Actually, yeah, if this were the 20s/30s you'd be contributing to gang violence according to your thoughts on marijuana.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Actually, yeah, if this were the 20s/30s you'd be contributing to gang violence according to your thoughts on marijuana.[/QUOTE]

I can't tell if you are serious or not...anyway
Is it the 20's ot 30's? NO. I am totally safe in my assessment of my use as I already said.
BTW not my thoughts on marijuana it is... some of my thoughts, backed up by fact, on illegal marijuana use and activity. Not even all my thoughts on illegal marijuana or marijuana as a whole.

As summed up by EdRyder
""There's no hole in Pliskins argument that Marijuana cartels are responsible for murder rape and kidnapping."


 
[quote name='Pliskin101']I can't tell if you are serious or not...anyway
Is it the 20's ot 30's? NO. I am totally safe in my assessment of my use as I already said.
BTW not my thoughts on marijuana it is... some of my thoughts, backed up by fact, on illegal marijuana use and activity. Not even all my thoughts on illegal marijuana or marijuana as a whole.

As summed up by EdRyder
""There's no hole in Pliskins argument that Marijuana cartels are responsible for murder rape and kidnapping."


[/QUOTE]

And? There's no mention of the source of the cartel's power in that assessment - a monopoly enforced by the State, not only in various arms of the government (including military) defending and then trafficking substances into the country, but legislatively, by criminalizing the growth, possession, and sale of substances by the ruled class.

Strip the State-enforced monopoly and the cartel's power is gone, and with it, murder, rape, and kidnapping. To argue otherwise is to deny the effects of prohibition of alcohol.
 
[quote name='Pliskin101']I can't tell if you are serious or not...anyway
Is it the 20's ot 30's? NO. I am totally safe in my assessment of my use as I already said.
BTW not my thoughts on marijuana it is... some of my thoughts, backed up by fact, on illegal marijuana use and activity. Not even all my thoughts on illegal marijuana or marijuana as a whole.

As summed up by EdRyder
""There's no hole in Pliskins argument that Marijuana cartels are responsible for murder rape and kidnapping."


[/QUOTE]

Make marijuana legal, drug cartels go away. End of story. There were also murders and gangs when prohibition was around, so this is nothing new. I'm not even sure what argument you're trying to make here.

Damn, me and Abscess are basically saying the same thing. JINX!!!:)
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']And? There's no mention of the source of the cartel's power in that assessment - a monopoly enforced by the State, not only in various arms of the government (including military) defending and then trafficking substances into the country, but legislatively, by criminalizing the growth, possession, and sale of substances by the ruled class.

Strip the State-enforced monopoly and the cartel's power is gone, and with it, murder, rape, and kidnapping. To argue otherwise is to deny the effects of prohibition of alcohol.[/QUOTE]

Listen I know where you were going and this whole simple point I was making can turn into dozens of pages on if pot should be legal if it shouldn't, health issues, economic issues, illegal immigration issues, terrorism issues, petty crime issues, prison issues and on and on and on. I made a simple point that is fact and a moron couldn't admit that simple thing. I am not here to be the goto person for debate on MARIJUANA and everything associated with it.
If people want to get into all the aspects of this then maybe they should start a thread. I made my point and it is FACT.
Again I will not be here as the goat for a long and drawn out debate on the overall subject of marijuana with hundreds of facets and mini topics associated with it.

Have a good day.
 
[quote name='soulvengeance']Make marijuana legal, drug cartels go away. End of story. There were also murders and gangs when prohibition was around, so this is nothing new. I'm not even sure what argument you're trying to make here.

Damn, me and Abscess are basically saying the same thing. JINX!!!:)[/QUOTE]

OH NO it is not that simple. But anyway please see my post above.

I made my point and only one idiot can't acknowledge that it is FACT and that is rape murder and kidnappings associated with illegal pot. The END. I know strange it took pages and pages and yet the moron can't own up to that simple fact. Lets move on now we all lnow it causes those problems except him so why waste pages and pages more on what should have been two or three posts between him and I to begin with on a simple FACT.

Thank You have a good day.
 
[quote name='Pliskin101']Listen I know where you were going and this whole simple point I was making can turn into dozens of pages on if pot should be legal if it shouldn't, health issues, economic issues, illegal immigration issues, terrorism issues, petty crime issues, prison issues and on and on and on. I made a simple point that is fact and a moron couldn't admit that simple thing. I am not here to be the goto person for debate on MARIJUANA and everything associated with it.
If people want to get into all the aspects of this then maybe they should start a thread. I made my point and it is FACT.
Again I will not be here as the goat for a long and drawn out debate on the overall subject of marijuana with hundreds of facets and mini topics associated with it.

Have a good day.[/QUOTE]

Well, you're basically trying to say marijuana is responsible for people murdering and raping people, when you could easily say that religion is responsible for murdering and raping people. I'm just saying that the association that you created is wrong.
 
[quote name='soulvengeance']Well, you're basically trying to say marijuana is responsible for people murdering and raping people, when you could easily say that religion is responsible for murdering and raping people. I'm just saying that the association that you created is wrong.[/QUOTE]

OMFG no that is not what I was BASICALLY SAYING. If you want to jump in on the end of something without reading about six posts about what I said and my point. Then don't jump in. Frickin ADD people if you want to jump in on me then start at the beginning and not the end and say something stupid like you just said.

ARHHH!!!!! HOLDING back choice words....MMMMMM

edit: BTW If i pray in my car in my home in a field it in absolutely no way has any direct link to rape murder and kidnappings. So again next time don't jump in and say such silly things at the end. ILLEGAL DRUG USE BTW and of course "marijuana" doesn't kill people people kill people. It is the market for the illegal drug and that market is created by the end user. That market is controlled by cartels and cartel violence. Now once again I am not here to discuss all of society's ills or all the aspects of MJ. I made my point and it is indisputable.
Again Have a good day
 
I think he's confused (big surprise there) with people murdering, raping etc. and their association with drug cartels. It's like he's somehow blaming the drugs.
 
[quote name='Clak']I think he's confused (big surprise there) with people murdering, raping etc. and their association with drug cartels. It's like he's somehow blaming the drugs.[/QUOTE]

Are you telling me that the bulk illegal drug use does not contribute directly to the drug cartels? Are you telling me the drug cartels are doing all that over nothing?
Like it or not illegal drug users have to own up that they are conributing to the market and the drug cartels and the violence.
 
Last edited:
[quote name='Pliskin101']Are you telling me that illegal drug use does not contribute directly to the drug cartels? Are you telling me the drug cartels are doing all that over ravioli or wheat?
Like it or not drug users have to own up that they are conributing to the market and the drug cartels and the violence.
It is simple supply and demand.[/QUOTE]

You're right back where you started and any progress you made is lost.
Would the problems surrounding drug use go away if it were legalized ? No :
Still be murder, still be Rapes, and other violence and careless acts through the usage.
How do we know that?: Because prescription drugs and alcohol are legal and those problems still exist. They existed during prohibition , they exist today.

If you legalized it tomorrow , you wouldn't eliminate the Cartel , you'd legitimize the Cartel. You'd only change the brand from 'Medellín' to 'Pfizer"
If you're saying like most of us do its a supply side issue, then thats going to be what its going to be.

You , Pliskin , Drinking your beer at home with your wife nice and innocent doesn't wash away a contribution as you put it, to the bullshit.
If Anheuser-Busch donates $10k to fight a marijuana legalization/ proposition in Cali . then they just contributed more to the Cartels acts of violence and slaughter than any 1 single pot user could in a decade
 
[quote name='EdRyder']You're right back where you started and any progress you made is lost.
Would the problems surrounding drug use go away if it were legalized ? No :
Still be murder, still be Rapes, and other violence and careless acts through the usage.
How do we know that?: Because prescription drugs and alcohol are legal and those problems still exist. They existed during prohibition , they exist today.

If you legalized it tomorrow , you wouldn't eliminate the Cartel , you'd legitimize the Cartel. You'd only change the brand from 'Medellín' to 'Pfizer"
If you're saying like most of us do its a supply side issue, then thats going to be what its going to be.

You , Pliskin , Drinking your beer at home with your wife nice and innocent doesn't wash away a contribution as you put it, to the bullshit.
If Anheuser-Busch donates $10k to fight a marijuana legalization/ proposition in Cali . then they just contributed more to the Cartels acts of violence and slaughter than any 1 single pot user could in a decade[/QUOTE]

I never said that legalizing it would eliminate the cartels in fact I told the other guy it is not as simple as that. Since they control the bulk of it. Just to magically sweep a broom at it and say now it's legal so all is well is at the minimum, ignorant.
BTW it isn't beer it is wine and I get my wine from ONE place and well without going into details it is fine and dandy. That is one reason not all illegal pot users contribute but the bulk do knowingly or not. Everything has negative along with it it is the nature of the world. But I am still happy to drink a glass of wine and feel like it is better than lighting up a joint that is stained in blood. It is a no brainer and don't try to tell me otherwise there is no comparison.

edit: lol you quoted me before my edit. But it still basically says the same thing.
 
Last edited:
[quote name='Pliskin101']. But I am still happy to drink a glass of wine and feel like it is better then lighting up a joint that is stained in blood. It is a no brainer and don't try to tell me otherwise there is no comparison.[/QUOTE]

You can feel like thats 'better' if you want to, I'm not trying to take anything away from you. But it is a cop out. And again Id never try to take away any individuals cop out because the issues are so immense sometimes thats all you can do.
We as Americans love to indulge our own personal bullshit to infinite extents. Just to try and feel better about the fact that the situation is a monster.

Lets say "Sally" learns that The Gap abuses child Labor laws. So Sally says to herself "fuck the gap, I'm not shopping there anymore" Sally did nothing more than excuse herself from the situation. Not shopping at the Gap didnt make the problems go away. Shitty pay and shitty working conditions and shitty living conditions didn't all get miraculously cured because Sally took her dollar out of the equation. Sally's confused an inactive role with an active role.

She aint helping those exploited children live a better life , Shes helping herself live a better life

I dont hate Sally or blame Sally for her choices. I understand them , all she wants is to feel better about her own personal decisions. Its all she can do because making an actual difference is beyond Sally.

I dont smoke Pot , And I dont drink. That blood you're talking about is on my hands , its on your hands, its on the country's hands.
 
[quote name='EdRyder']You can feel like thats 'better' if you want to, I'm not trying to take anything away from you. But it is a cop out. And again Id never try to take away any individuals cop out because the issues are so immense sometimes thats all you can do.
We as Americans love to indulge our own personal bullshit to infinite extents. Just to try and feel better about the fact that the situation is a monster.

Lets say "Sally" learns that The Gap abuses child Labor laws. So Sally says to herself "fuck the gap, I'm not shopping there anymore" Sally did nothing more than excuse herself from the situation. Not shopping at the Gap didnt make the problems go away. Shitty pay and shitty working conditions and shitty living conditions didn't all get miraculously cured because Sally took her dollar out of the equation. Sally's confused an inactive role with an active role.

She aint helping those exploited children live a better life , Shes helping herself live a better life

I dont hate Sally or blame Sally for her choices. I understand them , all she wants is to feel better about her own personal decisions. Its all she can do because making an actual difference is beyond Sally.

I dont smoke Pot , And I dont drink. That blood you're talking about is on my hands , its on your hands, its on the country's hands.[/QUOTE]

Sally not shopping there is one thing and it is something while it is not enough. You see you don't know me. I have spent my entire life not just saying hey I am not going to buy that blood diamond or shop there if I can do more. I am one person but yet my whole life I get involved in deep deep ways I have been in office I have served I volunteer I donate I get involved in policy and bills. I am involved from the street level then city level and all the way up. I can only do so much but I do everything I can. That starts from personal choice and other levels of involvement from the bottom up. Am I sin free are my hands completely clean no I am not naive.

If you knew me you would know.
 
[quote name='EdRyder']Thats great man, you should be proud. You know that inaction is not action.
More power to ya brother[/QUOTE]

Thank You and you too.

Btw I should have said "most" of my life as some of my life I was pretty messed up so I have had to work extra hard to make up for it;).
 
Dude strikes me as someone with some deep issues and he's greatly over compensating. Like someone who spent their life pretty fucked up, then suddenly becomes a diehard Christian. As usual they go way overboard and are usually horribly misguided. I guess this is the secular version of that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top