Virigina tech football player kills transgender Tinder date after finding out he was a man (acquitted)

[Creamu]

Dear lord. No, @Creamu, that's not how burden of proof works. That article you posted is the only source making this claim - the burden of proof is on them. Every single other source I came across says he was openly male and gay, including from his family, and it wasn't recorded as a hate crime against that community.

The burden of proof is the same on both sides. Where is the proof for the homosexual man who just presents as a woman, but is not transgender narrative?

I posted the source already, which has it's own sources. I suggest actually reading it before ignorantly assuming that one article must have their baseless claim correct.

So if the familiy of the victim thinks that he was 'gay' that means he wasn't transgender? Is that all, am I missing something?

He literally used the photo of another person entirely, not even near the same age.

This does not say anything about the identity of the victim.

His family said he himself was an openly gay male - not female.

Did they explicitly say that he wasn't transgender? I don't expect her/his/their family to be clued in on this.

There is zero evidence that he was actually a trans woman, that I can find.

Doesn't mean she/he/they wasn't

I asked for a counter example, and instead of providing that, this entire thread is running with the notion Smith was trans.

Well, if this person liked men and was female presenting, it is at least related to the subject of trans, maybe two weeks later this person would have openly identified as transgender, if that wasn't already the case. Assuming this is out of the question is framing the issue in a direction that favours the football player, just like the selfdefense verdict.

Like, I don't want to give you all a hard time, but this is just lazy, and it kills the whole discussion by throwing out hot takes based on a clearly poorly written article, with plenty of evidence to support that.

It's okay if you got a good point you can give me a hard time.

Show me any evidence of Smith being trans and then we'll have something to discuss there. I'm not assuming that off of one poorly written article in a sea of others that seem to have a consistent story.

I question how legit this distinction is from the get go. How far is a transgender person away from being framed this way, when he/she/they gets brutalized by a celebrity.

 

[appleburger]

The burden of proof is the same on both sides. Where is the proof for the homosexual man who just presents as a woman, but is not transgender narrative?

So if the familiy of the victim thinks that he was 'gay' that means he wasn't transgender? Is that all, am I missing something?

This does not say anything about the identity of the victim.

Did they explicitly say that he wasn't transgender? I don't expect her/his/their family to be clued in on this.

Doesn't mean she/he/they wasn't

Well, if this person liked men and was female presenting, it is at least related to the subject of trans, maybe two weeks later this person would have openly identified as transgender, if that wasn't already the case. Assuming this is out of the question is framing the issue in a direction that favours the football player, just like the selfdefense verdict.

It's okay if you got a good point you can give me a hard time.

I question how legit this distinction is from the get go. How far is a transgender person away from being framed this way, when he/she/they gets brutalized by a celebrity.

This is straight up bad logic. Not according to me, but objectively.

f you ever take a debate or philosophy class, this is all covered. Using good reasoning will make your discussions more engaging. I highly recommend checking out something like this: https://www.khanacademy.org/test-pr...ogical-reasoning--article--intro-to-arguments

I don't know if you're really young, or just haven't spent much time in debate, philosophy, whatever, but we're shouting across a canyon, here. I wanted to discuss the case, and you're stuck on saying this person was misgendered without any evidence. I really, really shouldn't have to walk you through why a single uncorroborated statement should be met with skepticism. You're using backwards logic.

That being said, again, I'm not trying to make you feel bad - we're always learning. I am making an effort to show you that you have resources to help you use reason, so that you can make stronger arguments. Otherwise, you're not going to effectively reason what you think or why you think it.

EDIT: And no, I'm not going to walk through, sentence by sentence, breaking down the bad logic. It would literally take up too much of my time. I do urge you to read up on this yourself. Teach a man to fish, and feed him for a lifetime, and all that.

 

[Creamu]

This is straight up bad logic. Not according to me, but objectively.

f you ever take a debate or philosophy class, this is all covered. Using good reasoning will make your discussions more engaging. I highly recommend checking out something like this: https://www.khanacademy.org/test-pr...ogical-reasoning--article--intro-to-arguments

I don't know if you're really young, or just haven't spent much time in debate, philosophy, whatever, but we're shouting across a canyon, here. I wanted to discuss the case, and you're stuck on saying this person was misgendered without any evidence. I really, really shouldn't have to walk you through why a single uncorroborated statement should be met with skepticism. You're using backwards logic.

That being said, again, I'm not trying to make you feel bad - we're always learning. I am making an effort to show you that you have resources to help you use reason, so that you can make stronger arguments. Otherwise, you're not going to effectively reason what you think or why you think it.

EDIT: And no, I'm not going to walk through, sentence by sentence, breaking down the bad logic. It would literally take up too much of my time. I do urge you to read up on this yourself. Teach a man to fish, and feed him for a lifetime, and all that.

Okay you have made your case and I have made mine. You did not convince me. That her/his/their family wasn't clued in on her/his/their gender identity is plausible to me. Even if she/he/they has not fully identified as a transgender person, she/he/they might have done so in the future, or did so but not openly. This is all plausible.

Bottom line is, a female presenting person was brutally beaten to death, because this person was biologically speaking a man. To completly dissociate that from the transgender issue, I think is a valid perspective, but I perosnally see a connection and I think there are others who see a connection as well and that is also valid.

 

[appleburger]

Even if she/he/they has not fully identified as a transgender person, she/he/they might have done so in the future, or did so but not openly. This is all plausible.

Yeah, no shit @Creamu. Does plausible mean it's then reasonable to assume as such? Because reasons? Again - your logic literally makes no sense. Bad logic = not reality.

Did you bother to actually read anything I just wrote to you? Good lord. I'm out.

 

[Valwinz]

The question is is it moral to kill your rapist?

 

[Creamu]

Yeah, no shit @Creamu. Does plausible mean it's then reasonable to assume as such?

It is reasonalbe to assume that we don't know either way.

Because reasons?

Yes

Again - your logic literally makes no sense. Bad logic = not reality.

Logic is not concerned with reality but with coherency.

Did you bother to actually read anything I just wrote to you? Good lord. I'm out.

I did. Take care!

 

[elk1007]

It looks like the defendant was raped by deception and lost his temper.
I would have similar feelings of rage if raped by deception.

I would have reported it to the police and saved my vigilantism for *after* the law failed me.

Bottom line is, a female presenting person was brutally beaten to death, because this person was biologically speaking a man. To completly dissociate that from the transgender issue, I think is a valid perspective, but I perosnally see a connection and I think there are others who see a connection as well and that is also valid.

They were killed because they lied and raped someone. It wasn't a hate crime targeted at someone who was publicly transgender.
This reminds me of that guy who died by decapitation in a motorcycle accident and they still said he died of COVID

The question is is it moral to kill your rapist?

I think the answer is a resounding yes, but if you want to continue enjoying your freedoms, you must deal with it through legal avenues.
If you kill the rapist during the act, no jury would convict.
Also, considering the amount of damage he did to the murder victim in this case, I think the force was excessive.
At some point, the murder victim stopped fighting him and he just kept punching.

 

[Creamu]

It looks like the defendant was raped by deception and lost his temper.
I would have similar feelings of rage if raped by deception.

I would have reported it to the police and saved my vigilantism for *after* the law failed me.


They were killed because they lied and raped someone. It wasn't a hate crime targeted at someone who was publicly transgender.
This reminds me of that guy who died by decapitation in a motorcycle accident and they still said he died of COVID

I did not know about this conception. If you look at the wikipedia article, it's historically speaking a rather new conception. Rape by deception, very interesitng.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_deception

Under this conception it is plausible, that this massive football player was raped by a believably female presenting person.

So if someone can make a case, that there was deception in a sexual relationship he/she/they can accuse the partner of rape.

 

[elk1007]

I did not know about this conception. If you look at the wikipedia article, it's historically speaking a rather new conception. Rape by deception, very interesitng.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_deception

Under this conception it is plausible, that this massive football player was raped by a believably female presenting person.

 

[Elodain]

You should check out gay/trans "panic" laws, it's a legal defense and it's banned in various states https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/member-features/gay-trans-panic-defense/

https://www.lgbtmap.org/img/maps/citations-panic-defense-bans.pdf

Interesting to note that it was banned in Virginia last year.

Seems to me like unless there is more to the story that we don't know, there is absolutely no reason dude should have gotten away with murder.

 

[tabzer]

The combination between self-defense and a fit of passion type of argument may have appealed to the jury.