So the reason I care is that every half-truth is a chink in the armor of the overall cause. Social and racial justice are incredibly important causes. When people make bold statements that aren't entirely factual, the opposition points to them in order to discredit the cause as a whole. I want to persuade the persuadable by being factually correct whenever possible.
I do understand your overall point though.
Look, I think it is clear that there is no amount of evidence that will make you change your mind on this.
Walker clearly said they were watching a movie, which you choose to interpret as they were probably asleep. I choose to interpret it more literally as they were actually watching a movie.
The preponderance of evidence suggests they were watching a movie, and there is no evidence saying they were asleep, only that they "could" have been asleep.
Yeah, this is definitely a bit confusing. I think I replied to you on multiple threads and also wrongfully assumed you were the original poster of the graphic. I apologize for any frustration that added to the situation.
Edit for any future readers: Upon closer look, "bauhaus" and "BrooklynMan" have extremely similar looking profiles pictures, banners, and writing styles. On brief inspection, it looks like the images in particular were generated by AI. It's not a smoking gun per se, but it seems sketchy.
What are you even saying? The text thread is all there. There are no "lies" to be found in my comments. This is clearly an actual ad hominem attack.
Look, it's not like we have a recording of their bedroom at the time of the incident. Do you have a source for your claim that she was asleep?
I made the claim you are arguing in bad faith because from my perspective that is exactly what you are doing.
I state your original claim is untrue, then you tell me your statement should be interpreted as she was asleep before police woke her up. Then I present solid evidence that she was watching a movie. Then you move the goalpost and claim my evidence isn't explicit enough for you. You also present no counter evidence. I then call you out on arguing in bad faith.
How else am I supposed to interpret what you are doing? From my perspective it seems obvious you are just trying to win an argument rather than get to the truth of the matter.
From my perspective, I am the person saying "We found these facts. care to respond?" and you are the person replying "Everything in the media is FAKE NEWS!"
It's not a "personal insult," it's my direct observation of what you are actively doing based on my perspective.
I don't know. How about the one where he said they were watching a movie?
Bullshit. You are arguing in bad faith and you 100% know it.
I'm referring to the witness statements given by Walker.
and it doesn’t prove she was awake at the time, ether. people doze off while watching movies.
I provided a good source that directly refutes your claim, with a statement from the witness at the scene. You clearly don't care about the truth, and just want to "win."
This just in, witness testimony ≠ evidence.