George Zimmerman banned from Tinder dating app

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Is that supposed to show you aren’t an idiot who appeared deranged in that post?

It's supposed to educate your dumb ass on deductive reasoning, but that seems like a hopeless endeavor.

 

[Faun]

You said that about me after pointing out someone is beating on someone past defeat...

... which is what you said about Martin.

Please try harder to keep up.

What the fuck does that mean?

.

Why do you think being an asshole pisses anyone off?

How can you prove I am an asshole?



yes, that is how you sound.

.

Your posts prove it for me.

 

[Faun]

Is that supposed to show you aren’t an idiot who appeared deranged in that post?

It's supposed to educate your dumb ass on deductive reasoning, but that seems like a hopeless endeavor.

Deductive reasoning.... like looking at a wet lawn and concluding the only reason it’s wet is because the sprinklers must have doused it?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Your posts prove it for me.

So based on my actions here, you have drawn the conclusion that I am an asshole?

But, it's WRONG for ME to draw the conclusion that Martin is a thug, based on the evidence which supports the conclusion that he is a thief AND the FACT that he was beating the fuck out of Zimmerman's face so much that only DEATH stopped him?

Do you see why you are a light weight?

Who am I kidding? You don't see. That's why you continue to argue.

 

[Faun]

I have no doubt you b’lieve that.

You don't even understand deductive reasoning and proper factual inferences.

I WILL b'lee dat all day long, DUMB ASS!!



.

Of course I understand that. Just like I also understand that in this case, it’s your overactive imagination filling in the gaps for you.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Deductive reasoning.... like looking at a wet lawn and concluding the only reason it’s wet is because the sprinklers must have doused it?

No, dumbfuck. It's concluding that it was NOT caused by rain. And given the ONLY alternative of sprinklers, a proper inference allows the conclusion that it was, in fact, the sprinklers.

Dumb ass!!!


.

 

[Faun]

Your posts prove it for me.

So based on my actions here, you have drawn the conclusion that I am an asshole?

But, it's WRONG for ME to draw the conclusion that Martin is a thug, based on the evidence which supports the conclusion that he is a thief AND the FACT that he was beating the fuck out of Zimmerman's face so much that only DEATH stopped him?

Do you see why you are a light weight?

Who am I kidding? You don't see. That's why you continue to argue.

What else do I have to go on but your posts?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Of course I understand that. Just like I also understand that in this case, it’s your overactive imagination filling in the gaps for you.

But, not yours when filling in the gaps that make Martin seem like an innocent little angel skipping through the forest to grandmother's house.



.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

What else do I have to go on but your posts?

What else do we have to go on but the women's jewelry that caused Martin to get suspended from school and his BEATING THE FUCK OUT OF ZIMMERMAN?



.

 

[Faun]

Deductive reasoning.... like looking at a wet lawn and concluding the only reason it’s wet is because the sprinklers must have doused it?

No, dumbfuck. It's concluding that it was NOT caused by rain. And given the ONLY alternative of sprinklers, a proper inference allows the conclusion that it was, in fact, the sprinklers.

Dumb ass!!!


.

LOLOL

And as I demonstrated, it could have been rain. You prove to be wrong about Trayvon being a thief for the same reason you prove to be wrong for assuming sprinklers wet the lawn.

 

[Faun]

What else do I have to go on but your posts?

What else do we have to go on but the women's jewelry that caused Martin to get suspended from school and his BEATING THE FUCK OUT OF ZIMMERMAN?



.

Being in possession of women’s jewelry does not make one a thug. See that? There ya go being deranged again.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

And as I demonstrated, it could have been rain.

But, that would not have been a proper inference, given the facts.

You prove to be wrong about Trayvon being a thief for the same reason you prove to be wrong for assuming sprinklers wet the lawn.

What proves that I am wrong? (this should be good)

Being in possession of women’s jewelry does not make one a thug.

True.

Being in possession of that jewelry AND having a burglary tool AND the only story you can come up with is "sombodyz gibs it to me" AND relentlessly beating the shit out of Zimmerman DOES.

.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Looks like trayvon got some nice teeth. hehheh

I wonder why nbc insisted in only distributing a picture of him when he was like l2 yrs. old?

Well lookie here...they block the picture. I wonder why?

Let me try and post one of him when he was l2 and see if that gets past the censor...............................yep hehheh well there ya go....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thuggery was beating on a creepy cracka instead of walking home.

Let’s see your proof Trayvon started the fight....

LOL!

Maybe Trayvon started beating on GZ after he was shot?

Or maybe Zimmerman started the fight.

You have any proof?

Look up the word, “maybe.”

Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. The thug died.

 

[Faun]

And as I demonstrated, it could have been rain.

But, that would not have been a proper inference, given the facts.

LOLOL

You're literally citing no evidence other than your own notion that that would not a proper inference. And in the face of other VERY plausible possibilities.

Take my lawn for example. The sprinklers come on every day at 6pm. If I got home before then on a day forecast for clear skies and the lawn was wet, my first guess would be the forecast was wrong. My last guess would be my sprinklers came on early.

See now why you come off as an imbecile?

You prove to be wrong about Trayvon being a thief for the same reason you prove to be wrong for assuming sprinklers wet the lawn.

What proves that I am wrong? (this should be good)

What proves you wrong was your moronic scenario regarding a wet lawn, which you tried using as an analogy with Trayvon being caught with Jewelry to demonstrate deductive reasoning.

Well you proved to be batshit insane with your wet lawn; and for the same reasons for that, you are also wrong about Trayvon. And I'm not saying he didn't steal the jewelry. I am saying there's insufficient evidence to prove it conclusively, as you are foolishly trying desperately to do. And for the same reasons .... despite serious gaps in the evidence, you are citing nothing but your own fervent imagination to fill in those gaps; all the while, citing nothing but yourself for eliminating any and all other possibilities.

Being in possession of women’s jewelry does not make one a thug.

True.

Being in possession of that jewelry AND having a burglary tool AND the only story you can come up with is "sombodyz gibs it to me" AND relentlessly beating the shit out of Zimmerman DOES.

.

And again, the "burglary tool" was actually just a screwdriver and you possess zero evidence someone didn't give him the jewelry. Even worse for your dementia, none of the jewelry found on him was reported stolen. Not one piece.

And even worse still, even had he stolen it, that still doesn't make him a thug.

thug

a brutal ruffian or assassin : GANGSTER, TOUGH​

Nothing in there about a thief being a thug. Once again, being an abject imbecile like you are bites you in the ass.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You're literally citing no evidence other than your own notion that that would not a proper inference. And in the face of other VERY plausible possibilities.

Other possibilities supported by known facts?

Even if there are other possibilities, I am still justified in reaching a conclusion that is supported by facts. I don't have to play dumb and ignore the evidence right before my eyes just because there MAY be other possibilities.

Take my lawn for example. The sprinklers come on every day at 6pm. If I got home before then on a day forecast for clear skies and the lawn was wet, my first guess would be the forecast was wrong. My last guess would be my sprinklers came on early.

And THAT would be a proper inference. Why? Because you have a reason to believe the forecast is wrong.

Ignoring the forecast when there is no reason to do so is what you have asked of me.

See why you are a fucking idiot?

What proves you wrong was your moronic scenario regarding a wet lawn, which you tried using as an analogy with Trayvon being caught with Jewelry to demonstrate deductive reasoning.

Yeah, see above.

You are the one improperly ignoring evidence and MAKING UP other evidence.

Well you proved to be batshit insane with your wet lawn; and for the same reasons for that, you are also wrong about Trayvon.

You just made about 25 leaps to get to that conclusion, bucko.

And I'm not saying he didn't steal the jewelry. I am saying there's insufficient evidence to prove it conclusively, as you are foolishly trying desperately to do.

When did I ever say that I had it proved CONCLUSIVELY. Hardly ANYTHING can be proved conclusively. That's a higher burden than beyond a reasonable doubt.

And for the same reasons .... despite serious gaps in the evidence, you are citing nothing but your own fervent imagination to fill in those gaps; all the while, citing nothing but yourself for eliminating any and all other possibilities.

Let me state this again. Tell me where I am imagining things:

Being in possession of that jewelry

AND

having a burglary tool

AND

the only story you can come up with is "sombodyz gibs it to me"

AND

relentlessly beating the shit out of Zimmerman (which, in my opinion stands on its own).


It's not MY job to eliminate all other possibilities. Do you have some evidence that would justify my questioning the reasons above? If not, those are simply possibilities and are NOT evidence.

And again, the "burglary tool" was actually just a screwdriver and you possess zero evidence someone didn't give him the jewelry.

A screwdriver is a tool that can be used to break in, right?

I am not required to believe a Goddamn word out of his mouth. Of course, somebodyz gibbs it to him. That's what a dumbass would say. I am allowed to judge his credibility. That is a bullshit explanation that I do not believe and I am not required (or stupid enough) to believe it.

Even worse for your dementia, none of the jewelry found on him was reported stolen. Not one piece.

There, you are making the improper inference that because someone didn't call the police and report stolen jewelry, there was no theft. The FACT that he was in possession of jewelry that he likely would not wear AND had a screwdriver (commonly used as a burglary tool) AND his dumbass explanation that somebody was kind enough to give him that jewelry (who?) is more than enough to reach the conclusion that he stole that shit.

You just don't like the conclusion.

And even worse still, even had he stolen it, that still doesn't make him a thug.

thug

a brutal ruffian or assassin : GANGSTER, TOUGH

Nothing in there about a thief being a thug. Once again, being an abject imbecile like you are bites you in the ass.

Okay. Fine.

He was a brutal ruffian--WHEN HE BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF ZIMMERMAN!!!


This is so pathetic. You're just mad because an idiot kid thought he was a badass and got smoked for it.




.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Nothing in there about a thief being a thug. Once again, being an abject imbecile like you are bites you in the ass.

Ignoring the brutal part of that definition makes you what?



God, you are fucking stupid. You just proved my case that Martin was a fucking thug by providing that definition.

.

 

[Faun]

You're literally citing no evidence other than your own notion that that would not a proper inference. And in the face of other VERY plausible possibilities.

Other possibilities supported by known facts?

Even if there are other possibilities, I am still justified in reaching a conclusion that is supported by facts. I don't have to play dumb and ignore the evidence right before my eyes just because there MAY be other possibilities.

Take my lawn for example. The sprinklers come on every day at 6pm. If I got home before then on a day forecast for clear skies and the lawn was wet, my first guess would be the forecast was wrong. My last guess would be my sprinklers came on early.

And THAT would be a proper inference. Why? Because you have a reason to believe the forecast is wrong.

Ignoring the forecast when there is no reason to do so is what you have asked of me.

See why you are a fucking idiot?

What proves you wrong was your moronic scenario regarding a wet lawn, which you tried using as an analogy with Trayvon being caught with Jewelry to demonstrate deductive reasoning.

Yeah, see above.

You are the one improperly ignoring evidence and MAKING UP other evidence.

Well you proved to be batshit insane with your wet lawn; and for the same reasons for that, you are also wrong about Trayvon.

You just made about 25 leaps to get to that conclusion, bucko.

And I'm not saying he didn't steal the jewelry. I am saying there's insufficient evidence to prove it conclusively, as you are foolishly trying desperately to do.

When did I ever say that I had it proved CONCLUSIVELY. Hardly ANYTHING can be proved conclusively. That's a higher burden than beyond a reasonable doubt.

And for the same reasons .... despite serious gaps in the evidence, you are citing nothing but your own fervent imagination to fill in those gaps; all the while, citing nothing but yourself for eliminating any and all other possibilities.

Let me state this again. Tell me where I am imagining things:

Being in possession of that jewelry

AND

having a burglary tool

AND

the only story you can come up with is "sombodyz gibs it to me"

AND

relentlessly beating the shit out of Zimmerman (which, in my opinion stands on its own).


It's not MY job to eliminate all other possibilities. Do you have some evidence that would justify my questioning the reasons above? If not, those are simply possibilities and are NOT evidence.

And again, the "burglary tool" was actually just a screwdriver and you possess zero evidence someone didn't give him the jewelry.

A screwdriver is a tool that can be used to break in, right?

I am not required to believe a Goddamn word out of his mouth. Of course, somebodyz gibbs it to him. That's what a dumbass would say. I am allowed to judge his credibility. That is a bullshit explanation that I do not believe and I am not required (or stupid enough) to believe it.

Even worse for your dementia, none of the jewelry found on him was reported stolen. Not one piece.

There, you are making the improper inference that because someone didn't call the police and report stolen jewelry, there was no theft. The FACT that he was in possession of jewelry that he likely would not wear AND had a screwdriver (commonly used as a burglary tool) AND his dumbass explanation that somebody was kind enough to give him that jewelry (who?) is more than enough to reach the conclusion that he stole that shit.

You just don't like the conclusion.

And even worse still, even had he stolen it, that still doesn't make him a thug.

thug

a brutal ruffian or assassin : GANGSTER, TOUGH

Nothing in there about a thief being a thug. Once again, being an abject imbecile like you are bites you in the ass.

Okay. Fine.

He was a brutal ruffian--WHEN HE BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF ZIMMERMAN!!!


This is so pathetic. You're just mad because an idiot kid thought he was a badass and got smoked for it.




.

LOLOL

Oh look ^^^ It's a post full of, 'I know you are but what am I?' Over and over and over again.

How old are you? About 4?

"He was a brutal ruffian--WHEN HE BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF ZIMMERMAN!!!"​

LOLOLOL

Again, what you moronically call "BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF ZIMMERMAN" was actually two small lacerations on the back of his head, a fractured nose and a cut lip.

All total, no hospital visit needed, no stitches needed, not even a band-aid needed. You're quite the pussy, huh, if that's your idea of having the shit beat out of you.

 

[Faun]

Nothing in there about a thief being a thug. Once again, being an abject imbecile like you are bites you in the ass.

Ignoring the brutal part of that definition makes you what?



God, you are fucking stupid. You just proved my case that Martin was a fucking thug by providing that definition.

.

So thievery is brutal, is it?

 

[progressive hunter]

You're literally citing no evidence other than your own notion that that would not a proper inference. And in the face of other VERY plausible possibilities.

Other possibilities supported by known facts?

Even if there are other possibilities, I am still justified in reaching a conclusion that is supported by facts. I don't have to play dumb and ignore the evidence right before my eyes just because there MAY be other possibilities.

Take my lawn for example. The sprinklers come on every day at 6pm. If I got home before then on a day forecast for clear skies and the lawn was wet, my first guess would be the forecast was wrong. My last guess would be my sprinklers came on early.

And THAT would be a proper inference. Why? Because you have a reason to believe the forecast is wrong.

Ignoring the forecast when there is no reason to do so is what you have asked of me.

See why you are a fucking idiot?

What proves you wrong was your moronic scenario regarding a wet lawn, which you tried using as an analogy with Trayvon being caught with Jewelry to demonstrate deductive reasoning.

Yeah, see above.

You are the one improperly ignoring evidence and MAKING UP other evidence.

Well you proved to be batshit insane with your wet lawn; and for the same reasons for that, you are also wrong about Trayvon.

You just made about 25 leaps to get to that conclusion, bucko.

And I'm not saying he didn't steal the jewelry. I am saying there's insufficient evidence to prove it conclusively, as you are foolishly trying desperately to do.

When did I ever say that I had it proved CONCLUSIVELY. Hardly ANYTHING can be proved conclusively. That's a higher burden than beyond a reasonable doubt.

And for the same reasons .... despite serious gaps in the evidence, you are citing nothing but your own fervent imagination to fill in those gaps; all the while, citing nothing but yourself for eliminating any and all other possibilities.

Let me state this again. Tell me where I am imagining things:

Being in possession of that jewelry

AND

having a burglary tool

AND

the only story you can come up with is "sombodyz gibs it to me"

AND

relentlessly beating the shit out of Zimmerman (which, in my opinion stands on its own).


It's not MY job to eliminate all other possibilities. Do you have some evidence that would justify my questioning the reasons above? If not, those are simply possibilities and are NOT evidence.

And again, the "burglary tool" was actually just a screwdriver and you possess zero evidence someone didn't give him the jewelry.

A screwdriver is a tool that can be used to break in, right?

I am not required to believe a Goddamn word out of his mouth. Of course, somebodyz gibbs it to him. That's what a dumbass would say. I am allowed to judge his credibility. That is a bullshit explanation that I do not believe and I am not required (or stupid enough) to believe it.

Even worse for your dementia, none of the jewelry found on him was reported stolen. Not one piece.

There, you are making the improper inference that because someone didn't call the police and report stolen jewelry, there was no theft. The FACT that he was in possession of jewelry that he likely would not wear AND had a screwdriver (commonly used as a burglary tool) AND his dumbass explanation that somebody was kind enough to give him that jewelry (who?) is more than enough to reach the conclusion that he stole that shit.

You just don't like the conclusion.

And even worse still, even had he stolen it, that still doesn't make him a thug.

thug

a brutal ruffian or assassin : GANGSTER, TOUGH

Nothing in there about a thief being a thug. Once again, being an abject imbecile like you are bites you in the ass.

Okay. Fine.

He was a brutal ruffian--WHEN HE BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF ZIMMERMAN!!!


This is so pathetic. You're just mad because an idiot kid thought he was a badass and got smoked for it.




.

LOLOL

Oh look ^^^ It's a post full of, 'I know you are but what am I?' Over and over and over again.

How old are you? About 4?

"He was a brutal ruffian--WHEN HE BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF ZIMMERMAN!!!"​

LOLOLOL

Again, what you moronically call "BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF ZIMMERMAN" was actually two small lacerations on the back of his head, a fractured nose and a cut lip.

All total, no hospital visit needed, no stitches needed, not even a band-aid needed. You're quite the pussy, huh, if that's your idea of having the shit beat out of you.

you have got some serious reality issues,,,,