the death of OJ...

[Peter Kropotkin]

it was reported on the news today that OJ Simpson died...
and it give us pause to wonder about his legacy and ours...

to get the obvious out of the way, that he killed Nicole Brown
and Ronald Goldman is clear.... but he was legally found innocent...
so, he is, legally, innocent...

but what sort of legacy did he leave?
That he was a great football player cannot be doubted.. he was
one of greatest Running backs in NFL history.. period...
and his movie career was also something to be noted...

but where do we draw the line? do we note the fact that
he almost certainly killed two people or do we note
the other aspects, of his athletic greatness and movie career?

and which legacy should we remember?

If you are of a certain age, you cannot have missed OJ,
in the public consciousness.... his trial was truly
the trial of the century... my wife was addicted to watching
that trial on TV, every single day...as with millions of others.....
and the line that everyone remembers is this: if the glove does not
fit, you must acquit!

every single broadcast for months was about the trial and OJ..
for months on end... on every single channel... I think I read somewhere
that over 95% of all media on the country was listening in live during
the reading of the verdict...and I don't doubt it....

but what legacy should we hold for him?

it is complex and that is the point... that each and every single one
of us has a complex legacy, of both good and bad/evil.... which legacy
should we hold to in our own understanding of what it means to be human?

we human beings have both an outright evil legacy, the Holocaust among
others, and we have immense beauty to our legacy.. to name just one,
the music of Mozart for example... so, which legacy should we point to?

the right wing, the conservative follows Machiavelli in promoting
the bad/evil legacy of human beings...once born evil, one will
always be evil... just as a leopard cannot change its spots, a evil
person cannot change their spots...
and conversely, one who is born good, will always be good...
there is no changing our spots, no matter what....

and yet, we see that belief being wrong, every single day....
goodness and evil are both redeemable and changeable....
not by some metaphysically source, but by human actions
and changes...

so, in regard to OJ, which spot do we see him in? is he good
or is he evil? depends on which OJ we see... and our own
legacy is just as complicated as OJ, we just can't see it
as clearly....

Kropotkin

[Harbal]

it was reported on the news today that OJ Simpson died...
and it give us pause to wonder about his legacy and ours...

It gave me pause to not give it a second thought.

[promethean75]

How funny would it be if the coroner changed the time of death section of the certificate to 'juice expiration date'?

[Age]

it was reported on the news today that OJ Simpson died...
and it give us pause to wonder about his legacy and ours...

to get the obvious out of the way, that he killed Nicole Brown
and Ronald Goldman is clear.... but he was legally found innocent...
so, he is, legally, innocent...

but what sort of legacy did he leave?
That he was a great football player cannot be doubted.. he was
one of greatest Running backs in NFL history.. period...
and his movie career was also something to be noted...

but where do we draw the line?

Where you people, in that country, 'draw the line' can be, and is, very, very different from where people, in other countries 'draw the line'.

do we note the fact that
he almost certainly killed two people or do we note
the other aspects, of his athletic greatness and movie career?

What I will first note here is how you previously claimed that "he" killed two other is clear, but now you say that "he" only almost certainly killed two. So, I will suggest you decide what the actual irrefutable Truth is before you go on questioning other things here.

you are absolutely free to note absolutely any thing you like, but, at least, gets the facts right, from the beginning.

and which legacy should we remember?

If you are of a certain age, you cannot have missed OJ,
in the public consciousness.... his trial was truly
the trial of the century... my wife was addicted to watching
that trial on TV, every single day...as with millions of others.....
and the line that everyone remembers is this: if the glove does not
fit, you must acquit!

every single broadcast for months was about the trial and OJ..
for months on end... on every single channel... I think I read somewhere
that over 95% of all media on the country was listening in live during
the reading of the verdict...and I don't doubt it....

but what legacy should we hold for him?

it is complex and that is the point... that each and every single one
of us has a complex legacy, of both good and bad/evil.... which legacy
should we hold to in our own understanding of what it means to be human?

we human beings have both an outright evil legacy, the Holocaust among
others, and we have immense beauty to our legacy.. to name just one,
the music of Mozart for example... so, which legacy should we point to?

the right wing, the conservative follows Machiavelli in promoting
the bad/evil legacy of human beings...once born evil, one will
always be evil... just as a leopard cannot change its spots, a evil
person cannot change their spots...
and conversely, one who is born good, will always be good...
there is no changing our spots, no matter what....

and yet, we see that belief being wrong, every single day....
goodness and evil are both redeemable and changeable....
not by some metaphysically source, but by human actions
and changes...

so, in regard to OJ, which spot do we see him in? is he good
or is he evil? depends on which OJ we see... and our own
legacy is just as complicated as OJ, we just can't see it
as clearly....

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

Age: What I will first note here is how you previously claimed that "he" killed two other is clear, but now you say that "he" only almost certainly killed two. So, I will suggest you decide what the actual irrefutable Truth is before you go on questioning other things here.
you are absolutely free to note absolutely any thing you like, but, at least, gets the facts right, from the beginning.

K: I aware of the fact that I am violating my own personal rule of
engaging with Age...

you have, as usual, confused the idea of truth and fact....
that there are ''actual irrefutable facts'', yes, that Abe Lincoln
was the 16th president of the US, is an ''irrefutable fact''
but ''truths'' are very different... we can't get any ''irrefutable''
truths.. there is a god.. that is nothing more than opinion,
and is not a fact... although many try to turn that into a ''TRUTH'',
it isn't... truths are not ''irrefutable''... many, as you have done,
confused truth with fact.. legally, OJ didn't kill anyone.. that is a fact...
he was found not guilty... thus not liable.. but he clearly did
killed them.. that is a ''TRUTH''.. which is clearly debatable...

now you may other ''TRUTHS"" and that is kinda the point...
each of us can have our own ''TRUTHS'', but we can't
have our own facts.... a fact is ''irrefutable'' until it isn't...
see science for that one.... that science tells us the speed of light
is 186,000 miles per second until it isn't, when it is caught by
the gravity of a black hole...clearly the speed of light can change
depending on what is going on... it is not ''irrefutable'' because
it is changeable... ''irrefutable'' is no matter what, it
doesn't change...

fact is, he is innocent of murder, truth is he is guilty....

Kropotkin

[accelafine]

Good riddance. I hope it was really unpleasant, as unpleasant as it was for the people he murdered.

[Age]

Age: What I will first note here is how you previously claimed that "he" killed two other is clear, but now you say that "he" only almost certainly killed two. So, I will suggest you decide what the actual irrefutable Truth is before you go on questioning other things here.
you are absolutely free to note absolutely any thing you like, but, at least, gets the facts right, from the beginning.

K: I aware of the fact that I am violating my own personal rule of
engaging with Age...

you have, as usual, confused the idea of truth and fact....

I have not confused any such thing.

And, please do not try to deflect away from the fact that you contradictory claimed that "he" killed two people and that this is clear, as well as, "he" almost certainly killed two people.

your presumption here is, as usual, completely and utterly Inaccurate and Wrong.

that there are ''actual irrefutable facts'', yes, that Abe Lincoln
was the 16th president of the US, is an ''irrefutable fact''
but ''truths'' are very different... we can't get any ''irrefutable''
truths..

So, if you cannot get any irrefutable truth at all, then this means that what you just said and claimed here is a refutable truth, which, once more, is showing more of your absolute absurdity, here.

there is a god.. that is nothing more than opinion,
and is not a fact...

Once again here 'we' can clearly see confirmation bias by this one.

This one actually believes, so strongly, that there is no God, so this means, to this one anyway, that even when one has the irrefutable proof that there is a God this one would never be open to this fact.

although many try to turn that into a ''TRUTH'',
it isn't... truths are not ''irrefutable''... many, as you have done,
confused truth with fact.. legally, OJ didn't kill anyone.. that is a fact...
he was found not guilty... thus not liable.. but he clearly did
killed them.. that is a ''TRUTH''.. which is clearly debatable...

Talk about showing who the one here who is Truly confused. Obviously, if something is debatable, then that thing is not necessarily a truth at all, let alone a so-called 'TRUTH', in capital letters.

Do you even know what the word 'truth' means and/or refers to, exactly?

now you may other ''TRUTHS"" and that is kinda the point...
each of us can have our own ''TRUTHS'', but we can't
have our own facts.... a fact is ''irrefutable'' until it isn't...
see science for that one.... that science tells us the speed of light
is 186,000 miles per second until it isn't, when it is caught by
the gravity of a black hole...clearly the speed of light can change
depending on what is going on... it is not ''irrefutable'' because
it is changeable... ''irrefutable'' is no matter what, it
doesn't change...

fact is, he is innocent of murder, truth is he is guilty....

Kropotkin

So, if supposedly the 'truth' is "he is guilty of murder, but 'factually' "he" is not, then what is the 'truth' here based upon, exactly?

What 'we' have here is another prime example of one who will try to say absolutely ANY thing in an attempt to try to 'justify' and/or back up and support what they have previously said and/or 'currently' believe is true.

you, obviously, contradicted "yourself" above here. Now, if you do not want to acknowledge this 'irrefutable facts' and/or want to just keep trying to deflect, then so be it

[Flannel Jesus]

and the line that everyone remembers is this: if the glove does not
fit, you must acquit!

Maybe the second most famous implicit syllogism in history, after "I think therefore I am".

Maybe even more famous than that.

[Walker]

“Man, I’m gonna tell you that is some bad luck when the one guy who would have died for you, kills you.”
- Norm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SSVIg4Noqc (1:56)

[Walker]

legacy

The word is, most of the jury viewed the verdict of “not guilty,” that they rendered, as payback for the Rodney King verdict, and other past inequities in the legal system.

The larger issue of that group intent is a principle not limited to any particular circumstance such as the OJ verdict.

It’s not a matter of knowing.
Of course the OJ jurors knew he did it.

It’s a matter of approval, like Trump.
Everyone knows that Trump is being persecuted, so knowing is not the issue.

It's a matter of approval.

[Peter Kropotkin]

Age: What I will first note here is how you previously claimed that "he" killed two other is clear, but now you say that "he" only almost certainly killed two. So, I will suggest you decide what the actual irrefutable Truth is before you go on questioning other things here.
you are absolutely free to note absolutely any thing you like, but, at least, gets the facts right, from the beginning.

K: I aware of the fact that I am violating my own personal rule of
engaging with Age...

you have, as usual, confused the idea of truth and fact....

I have not confused any such thing.

And, please do not try to deflect away from the fact that you contradictory claimed that "he" killed two people and that this is clear, as well as, "he" almost certainly killed two people.

your presumption here is, as usual, completely and utterly Inaccurate and Wrong.

that there are ''actual irrefutable facts'', yes, that Abe Lincoln
was the 16th president of the US, is an ''irrefutable fact''
but ''truths'' are very different... we can't get any ''irrefutable''
truths..

So, if you cannot get any irrefutable truth at all, then this means that what you just said and claimed here is a refutable truth, which, once more, is showing more of your absolute absurdity, here.

there is a god.. that is nothing more than opinion,
and is not a fact...

Once again here 'we' can clearly see confirmation bias by this one.

This one actually believes, so strongly, that there is no God, so this means, to this one anyway, that even when one has the irrefutable proof that there is a God this one would never be open to this fact.

although many try to turn that into a ''TRUTH'',
it isn't... truths are not ''irrefutable''... many, as you have done,
confused truth with fact.. legally, OJ didn't kill anyone.. that is a fact...
he was found not guilty... thus not liable.. but he clearly did
killed them.. that is a ''TRUTH''.. which is clearly debatable...

Talk about showing who the one here who is Truly confused. Obviously, if something is debatable, then that thing is not necessarily a truth at all, let alone a so-called 'TRUTH', in capital letters.

Do you even know what the word 'truth' means and/or refers to, exactly?

now you may other ''TRUTHS"" and that is kinda the point...
each of us can have our own ''TRUTHS'', but we can't
have our own facts.... a fact is ''irrefutable'' until it isn't...
see science for that one.... that science tells us the speed of light
is 186,000 miles per second until it isn't, when it is caught by
the gravity of a black hole...clearly the speed of light can change
depending on what is going on... it is not ''irrefutable'' because
it is changeable... ''irrefutable'' is no matter what, it
doesn't change...

fact is, he is innocent of murder, truth is he is guilty....

Kropotkin

So, if supposedly the 'truth' is "he is guilty of murder, but 'factually' "he" is not, then what is the 'truth' here based upon, exactly?

What 'we' have here is another prime example of one who will try to say absolutely ANY thing in an attempt to try to 'justify' and/or back up and support what they have previously said and/or 'currently' believe is true.

you, obviously, contradicted "yourself" above here. Now, if you do not want to acknowledge this 'irrefutable facts' and/or want to just keep trying to deflect, then so be it

K: a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by
little statesmen and philosophers and divines.''

Ralph Waldo Emerson.....

Kropotkin

[Walker]

K: a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by
little statesmen and philosophers and divines.''

Ralph Waldo Emerson.....

Kropotkin

Have you considered that OJ's son could have been the murderer?

[Alexis Jacobi]

The right wing, the conservative follows Machiavelli in promoting the bad/evil legacy of human beings...once born evil, one will always be evil... just as a leopard cannot change its spots, an evil person cannot change their spots... and conversely, one who is born good, will always be good... there is no changing our spots, no matter what...

How your mind conceives these odd formulations about “the right wing” is anyone’s guess. If anything, grounded, experienced people recognize that a criminal person, when established in their criminality, rarely changes unless they have a genuine conversion experience. And then there must be a confession — a self-confession. A confrontation with the self. What if Simpson, acquitted, would have presented to the world his confrontation with his self — in the sense of guilt, remorse, and some other level of commitment?

OJ Simpson maintained the “front” he put up right through to his end. Note that the last years of his life were spent among criminal types, among hookers, and among those who “admired” him or sought him for his celebrity. There was no evidence of any change of heart.

You failed to bring up that OJ Simpson and George Floyd can be spoken of together. That national, and certainly local L.A. opinion, desired to see Simpson acquitted as “payback” for the police’s treatment of Rodney King. Some part of this is forgivable since no one was able to clearly see the evidentiary trail as we can now, but most Blacks wanted him off the hook even if he was guilty.

The elevation of Floyd to a “saintly” status when he was totally committed to criminality and violence by the BLM community and their White enablers is a strange evidence of Left-Liberal sickness and also absurdity.

People continued to honor and respect Simpson when he should have been shunned. Similar is the phenomenon in Colombia of admiration of Pablo Escobar and his lieutenants. But absent the racial element.

[phyllo]

You failed to bring up that OJ Simpson and George Floyd can be spoken of together. That national, and certainly local L.A. opinion, desired to see Simpson acquitted as “payback” for the police’s treatment of Rodney King. Some part of this is forgivable since no one was able to clearly see the evidentiary trail as we can now, but most Blacks wanted him off the hook even if he was guilty.

The elevation of Floyd to a “saintly” status when he was totally committed to criminality and violence by the BLM community and their White enablers is a strange evidence of Left-Liberal sickness and also absurdity.

Injustice breeds injustice.

Because of all the blacks who were lynched for crimes that they did not commit, now blacks are freed for crimes that they did commit.

You can't lay the blame on the Left-liberals.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You can't lay the blame on the Left-liberals.

I’m not immune nor incapable of grasping the moral complexity of the problem. In fact the identification of the problem is problematic.

Africans “stolen from the shores of Africa” (quoting Angela Davis) and “forced to labor in the empire of the white man’s will” (can’t remember where I read that) were a people ripped out of their context and forced to labor on all levels — including that of being forced to learn and adapt to European civilization and all its forms.

How strange it must be — thinking of LeRoy Jones here (Amiri Baraka) — to realize the magnitude of what happened. To have been ripped from one destiny and forced into another not of one’s own design. And to be held to that standard and asked with reproachful gazes “What’s the matter with you?! Why can’t you be civilized?!”