Is Punching A Nazi OK?

[Medium Dave]

I think punching a Communist could be better justified. Is punching a Communist OK? Sure it is.

 

[Ophiolite]

I think punching a Communist could be better justified. Is punching a Communist OK? Sure it is.

Go ahead. Justify it.

 

[iceaura]

I think punching a Communist could be better justified. Is punching a Communist OK? Sure it is.

The punching of "nazis" is still unsettled - nobody seems happy with my "fighting words" idea, but nothing else reasonable seems to be on the table.

One thing at a time - Communists don't even have an American history of physical threat, or defined target populations.

 

[sculptor]

I think punching a Communist could be better justified. Is punching a Communist OK? Sure it is.

circa mid '60s
"kill a commie for Christ"

 

[spidergoat]

I think punching a Communist could be better justified. Is punching a Communist OK? Sure it is.

Communism doesn't automatically include an ideology of genocide or racial supremacy.

 

[Tiassa]

Review: Part the First

wrong again - lets review

Yes, let's.

• Isn't that the problem?↑ ― Does it strike you as strange that of all there is in that post, what our international, anti-American, conspiracist neighbor who promotes white supremacism perceives is an opportunity to suggest the idea that subscribing to a genocidal supremacist ideology is somehow the same as demanding an end to observable race-based disparate impact.

• No, really↑ ― To the one, no, it's not really so surprising; to the other, that's what you decided to step into. (See also, Iceaura's↑ two cents on a related post↑.)

• On straw men, or something like that↑ ― This is the beginning of where you find what you're complaining about; then again, this is also what you decided to step into. There is, after all, a straw man: "Again, it's immoral to punch someone who is not attacking you." Huh, what? "Again"? What's this, "Again"? It's one of those outfield words just flung into the mix for rhythm and style; if we back up to consider what our neighbor is responding to, it becomes clear he's raising a straw man, objecting to an issue that isn't actually there. And here we should probably consider a couple related points: The guy is a conspiracist; it's funny that this is the one time he wants to be so precise. And it's probably pretty important to note that what I mean is exactly contained in this post:

I live in a country where you can shoot someone to death for being black.

That's pretty much all it takes, these days, to qualify for mortal fear.​

• Avoiding something↑ ― You'll notice our neighbor strikes the second part of that in order to reiterate it adversarially: "You can shoot anyone to death to defend yourself. And you should do so if you are being attacked or someone with a gun has entered your store or home with the intent to harm you." And like I said, at the outset, being black is "pretty much all it takes, these days, to qualify for mortal fear." It's worth noting the second half of this post, but ... I mean ... mainly it's worth noting that portion exists, and is there, as if it has anything to do with anything.

• Concurrent strangeness↑ ― What do you do when the relevance is conditional―whether the argument follows course A or B makes it more or less significant―except for the fact that the question of that relevance pertains to ignorance? That's the thing; it's a weird post along the way in his discussion with Iceaura, but as you're also on about PJ↑, we might as well watch for his entry. The line, "They were specifically referring to some noodly arm kid sucker-slapping another kid in the cheek while he was giving an interview about his asinine beliefs", is what did it; this thread is about someone sucker punching an adult who is an organizational leader, and a Nazi-saluting white supremacist. People can argue all they want about the difference between tapping canteloupe↑ and the fighting words threshold, but is Michael's ignorance genuine or just a troll façade? (If we take him at his word↑, he really doesn't know what he's on about.) But, yeah, PJdude↑ enters the fray in response to that one, and there's another post from Michael↑ in between that is worth it if you're following Iceaura's↑ attempt to take him seriously.

• On what's wrong with black people↑ ― Our alleged expat, anti-American propagandist apparently didn't like something about being reminded↑ that he's speculating from afar, so he spends a paragraph on what's wrong with black people as a transition into his usual smarter-than-Americans vagary.

• You do realize what you're getting into, right?↑ ― At this point it's just a two-bit back and forth loop, but apparently Dr Toad↑ wanted in, but couldn't be bothered to address what I actually have on the record, he just wants to distract from the point. Nor am I going to knock him for the bit about Yoni Appelbaum; like I said↑, I get it, but just wasn't feeling that one.

• Strange demands↑ ― Michael lays out his demands, including a bizarre straw man, and then goes off about the moon or whatever, because this makes his speculation from afar that much more useful.

• "In all three cases, a criterion of 'threat' was their dark skin."↑ ― This is an important point that you .What gets me is how desperate↑ this makes your quest to justify the murder of a black man.

• "fucking thug"↑ ― Dr Toad offers his opinion.

• Why can't black people stand their ground?↑ ― You actually make the point for me. In the Martin case, you refuse the right of a black person to stand their ground. In the Brown and Garner cases you're reciting seriously distorted compressions.

• Demands↑ ― Here you make some demand, because apparently the observable is insufficient to you.

• You're afraid of this post for some reason↑ ― Here we have some points that apparently distress you. Such as Trayvon Martin's right to stand his ground. "I don't know why so many people think blacks aren't allowed to defend themselves," I wrote, "but some manner of explanation for this absurdly racist recurring outcome nigh on American heritage would be appreciated." Unfortunately, you couldn't deal with it↑―

→ Trayvon Martin had every right to stand his ground against the armed stalker who was harassing him for his skin color. (For whatever reason, you disagree.)

→ How many other suspects get that kind of grand jury investigation? (For whatever reason, you refuse to ansewr this question.)

→ How many other suspects get the state, ostensibly investigating the suspect for crimes, acting as the suspect's defense attorney, even calling the suspect to testify in his own defense, and misinforming the jury of the law? (You don't need special documentation to know that the state called the officer to the stand, questioned him as if they were protecting him, and did, in fact, attempt to deceive the jury.)

→ Seriously, according to Equal Protection, who else gets that? ("In all this time," I wrote, "not a single advocate for the racists in Missouri has been able to show standard process; not a single advocate has been willing to try." And that now includes you.)

→ The empirical evidence is what we all can see, the so-called "due process" of the grand jury investigation. (This part is pretty straightforward, what we call "observable".)

→ Meanwhile, an unarmed black man with his back to you as he walks away is more of a threat to life and limb of law enforcement in the U.S. than a white guy with a rifle saying he intends to kill law enforcement. (A true fact in these United States of America, no matter how much you want to ignore it.)

→ Honestly, if it was a latinx cop kicking a handcuffed white guy on the ground while shouting, "I'm gonna stomp the French piss out of you!" we wouldn't have to scream and shout for intervention; law enforcement would do its job.

→ If it was a nonwhite cop shooting a white, deaf woodcarver to death, lying about it, and getting caught lying, the state would find reason to file charges, and federal prosecutors wouldn't tremble at the presumption of good faith that includes the argument that he lied in good faith.

→ If it was a black cop strangling an overweight white guy to death, we could easily win a conviction.

→ Honestly, when they have to lie to the grand jury in order to protect the white cop who shot the black guy, it's pretty damn clear what's going on.​

―and settled into trolling.​

[To be continued]

―End Part I―​

 

[Tiassa]

Review: Part the Second

wrong again - lets review

[continued]​

Let us resume:

• Stumpy the Troll↑ ― It's quite a post; observe the following three points:

→ standing his ground is not the same as battery. the police were called and the situation could have been resolved without gunfire had there not been a physical confrontation, correct?

→ not defending the shooter for that one, but i will state that if anyone smashed my head into the ground i would shoot them as well - it's a matter of self defense. period

→ where did i ever state they couldn't defend themselves?​

To start with that last, I never know why people bother with that bit. That black people aren't allowed to defend themselves is a serious question plaguing society for generations, has been reiterated in both the Martin and Alexander cases from Florida, and is a requisite condition of your own argument in both this post in which you actually have the temerity to ask, "where did i ever state they couldn't defend themselves?" as well as #123↑: "Martin was watched or followed, perhaps, because of his skin colour, but not shot because of it: he was shot because he was pounding Zimmerman's head into the pavement". Again: Trayvon Martin had every right to stand his ground against the armed stalker who was harassing him for his skin color. See, that's the part you keep leaving out. Where did you ever state that? It's requisite to your argument.

Now, of course you can try to make up some reason why Trayvon Martin isn't allowed to stand his ground, but it's also a little late.

But the rest of your post continues demanding that people play your stupid game. There are no DOJ stats on the criteria of danger listed by every shooter. And there are no DOJ stats describing percentages or some other relative figure explaining how accurate or inaccurate any shooter's testimony is. What we have are results. Which explains your sputtering, quasi-statutory digression.

But where did you ever state they couldn't defend themselves? It's inherent to your argument, and there really isn't any reason I should be surprised you're not paying attention, since, you know, the point is apparently to say snything in order to justify the murder of a black man↑. Seriously, by the time you're down to making up stories in order to dodge the issue, you're just another dishonest racist troll.

Meanwhile, you're welcome to review prior discussions of the issue, including a five-post bloc↗ addressing the issue of the Ferguson grand jury.

More to the point, read this article↱, which suffices as at least a reason why I'm challenging you to observe results instead of simply making up racist excuses to justify the murder of a black man. After all, even as I dredge through this muck to accommodate your point about review, you continue screeching about fallacies, as if large block-capitalized letters in flaming red somehow make a point for being large, red, block-capitalized letters strung together.

• Disgusting↑ ― (A) Skin color as criterion of suspicion. (B) Make-believe. (C) Make-believe. (D) Trayvon Martin had every right to stand his ground against the armed stalker who was harassing him for his skin color.

• An obvious question↑ ― Given your insistence that the Stand Your Ground rule kicks in only after a black man stands his ground against racist harassment, it seems an obvious question. And you seem to have known it, too, given your response↑. But you stil haven't answered, Stumpy: When it comes to picking a fight and then killing someone in self-defense, do you recommend targeting Negroes exclusively, or do you think a person of color could do the same to a white person? Try it this way: To whom do you think a black man in Florida could do that and expect to get away with it?

• Another obvious question↑ ― If he was white he wouldn't have been shot? Likely not. He likely wouldn't have been stalked by a known racist looking for an excuse to take a piece of him. That is to say, had Trayvon Martin been white, he wouldn't have needed to stand his ground. And that's the most significant thing about your reconstruction; it erases Trayvon Martin's right to stand his ground.

• Dr Toad↑ ― I actually do wonder, from time to time, why people do that. That Stumpy is one of the least racist people Toad knows is both entirely relative and generally irrelevant. Someone says something violent, the fact that he might be one of the "least violent" people I know would be insufficient to change the fact of that person having said something violent. That Stumpy is one of the least racist people Toad knows is insufficient to erase the racism of Stumpy's "argument".

• Yet another obvious question ― Clueless political dismissals are pretty obvious. It's one of those cases when if someone objects to my point they ought to state their objection instead of just make a point of throwing in a supremacist dismissal.

• Futile questions↑ ― Honestly, take a look. This is what is required to defend your behavior.

• Ne'er helpful↑ ― The question I always have for people like you is whether you want a discussion or not. From there it can get complex; if it sounds silly, for instance, to suggest that conservatives behave as wrongly as they do because they really, really want to do the right thing, but pride prevents them, so they're trying to force everyone else to do the right thing for them, well, yes, it is silly. As our society is in one of those transformational moments 'twixt messaging and substantial reality, it seems worth mentioning. But that's just the thing; even taking Toad's appeal in a more altruistic sense, that, as you would have it, you "aint racist racist... well, maybe against white folk and texans"―a point you can't even make in any serious context, but, you know, it works for our illustrative purposes―why push racism, then? Because your argument excludes Trayvon Martin's right to stand his ground against the armed stalker who was harassing him for his skin color.

• Reminder↑ ― The thing is that Toad's appeal to alt-right argument and method just doesn't make sense, and certainly didn't address the question of assessing what is on the record.

• Self-indictment↑ ― Mockery, sarcasm, and a nonsensical claim to "a parodic and satirical look at the comical and racist post of PJ", which is exactly bullshit. You posted grotesque racism. Your defense is that you were being "parodic and satirical", but it's really more of a confession: Truck Captain Stumpy will say anything to justify the murder of a black man. And it really is disgusting. Still, though, your "parodic and satirical" context is worth attending long enough to point out that it makes the rest of your screeching-diva excrement in giant red letters pretty much useless.

• An obvious point↑ ― It's worth reiterating: Yeah, Cap'n, we read you loud and clear.​

But, seriously, it seemed wise to pause following your confessional↑ because, well, your continued bad faith only reiterates the problem about trying to take you seriously. So bait↑ away↑; all you're doing is illustrating and reiterating the warps about your perspective.

Still ....

[To be continued]

―End Part II―​

 

[Tiassa]

Review: Part the Third

[continued]​

you are on a hair-trigger response with a set delusional argument of anti-firearm propaganda churned out by irresponsible and ignorant fanatics attempting to disarm the law abiding citizen because criminals don't, by definition, obey the law

never once have you ever actually stuck to the topic and discussed the core problem of violence in humans as i've tried to get you to open up about
you instead choose to regurgitate rhetoric that is driven by your belief and your very, very specific failure to comprehend that the legal system is not the same thing as the criminal

No, Stumpy, you're a troll who redefined the question at hand in order to pitch a fit in order to say pretty much any disgraceful thing you can think of in order to justify the murder of a black man. Never once have I actually stuck to your trolling? Of course I haven't.

nope. it was intentionally used to show the stupidity of the claim by the poster and the logical fallacy of their thought process using a comical approach

See, it's not so much that I just don't believe you. I mean, sure, you're utterly without credibility, but that's largely because you made your point clear. Your excuse doesn't actually make any sense except to illustrate how little respect you show these issues.

That is to say, I can accept that you think you were illustrating something about PJ, but all you really managed to show us was a rather grotesque little glimpse of something about yourself.

I will, though, acknowledge that PJ's forumulation↑ can, at least, be argued vague; that is to say, when he throws a short statement like that, okay, sure, I get what he means because it's pretty damn clear; then again, despite any number of disagreements he and I can be observed about, this isn't one of them. What strikes me curiously, though, is that while it's true there is never a time when everyone is on the same page, or that those who are might be at the same place on the page, as such, you appear to be reading from another book. And though I might disagree with that book, we can in this loose metaphorical context say it's well enough that you should, but you miss the point if PJ or Iceaura or anyone else can only be taken according to that book. For instance, you assign, in your ABCD, for PJ, and do so according to your book.

And your book, in this case, is a fantasy. So make whatever excuses you will. What you've shown us is how you view this question, and on these points is there any reason we should disbelieve your insistence of incorrigibiliity?

So this is the basic problem: Nobody doubts, for instance, that a police officer or anyone else must protect themselves. But there is also a question of skin color as a criterion of danger↑, which, as PJ pointed out↑ is present in your construction of the Martin killing.

And nobody in your general position―whether it is defending police authority to kill or simply taking the word of a known racist with a violent history in order to justify the murder of a black man―ever really wants to address this question.

And, honestly, when you're checking in on behalf of a supremacist and conspiracist whose great concession to state power is the slaying of black men, it might well be an issue worth addressing, for once.

Instead of, you know, this usual troll routine where you change the subject and then just bawl.

The problem with the review is that your argument isn't any less sickening the second time through. Or the third. Or the fourth. Look, it only goes downhill with age and repetition. Which reminds something something giant red text.

Mocking the murders of black men is no rational, useful, or decent argument.

It's not clear to anyone what you're actually trying to accomplish, but you are, at least, diminishing yourself.

When dark skin is a criterion of danger? Your "argument" needs it to be.

―Fin―​

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

No, you didn't.

blatantly false claim - repeating it won't make it more true

a link to a post in which you did - unusually enough - quote my claim rather than paraphrase it wrong

blatantly false claim: i've been quoting you all along and only occasionally paraphrasing
if you could prove otherwise you would have posted the evidence

repeating this also won't make it suddenly true

Denying that I have pointed to evidence and made arguments is not the same thing as dealing with them, you see.
Even in all red and big caps, because that's how tantrums are thrown, it's not the same.

you've not provided evidence for anything except your claim regarding pg12 of the DOJ document - period

also note: the big red letters were there because i was hoping your literacy problem was due to not wearing corrective lenses when required or that you're ignoring the relevant data

In the initial encounter, Wilson did not recognize Brown as a robbery suspect.

there was only one encounter as i see it, and i don't see a reason or supporting evidence to show otherwise, as noted by the evidence that continues on pg 13. let me quote this to you again

As Wilson drove past Brown, he saw cigarillos in Brown’s hand, which alerted him to a radio dispatch of a “stealing in progress” that he heard a few minutes prior

this means that as he disengaged and was leaving the encounter, still all in the same encounter, he noted the evidence and turned to re-engage. it was still the same encounter in my book and i think the evidence supports it as well, especially in the summary as i noted.

it was all in the same short time period. there was no removal to another report (or situation) then a sudden realisation bringing said officer back to the original situation. it was all the same time and general (limited) space and place. all this in two minutes.

I get it. You're throwing a tantrum, and nothing is getting through to you until you stop and listen.

transference and delusional behaviour
again: the big red letters were there because i was hoping your literacy problem was due to not wearing corrective lenses when required - thanks for validating that your eyesight works and that your literacy problem is related directly to your delusional beliefs. i will make a note of that to remember in the future

Your claim that he did was false, just as I said.

see above, including supporting evidence

He drove ahead, and then - and only then, according to Wilson - recognized the correspondence with the robbery perp description.

see above

Any more of this shit, say,
and the prospects of getting anything sensible out of you basically vanish.

if you make a claim then substantiate it with evidence

I've provided evidence for my claims above and in my posts... so when you lie, whether intentional or not, then completely ignore evidence for your own personal reasons, real or imagined, then i am fully justified in making those comments as you are being intentionally inflammatory by attempting or feigning ignorance for the sake of an ideal, belief, or some other biased reason, like emotional blindness, which causes fault with your reasoning ability

i tried being sensible with you and you simply ignored it
i don't care why
but i sure as hell will make fun of it

About the "nazis":
Once again, as in its first appearance and as often as it reappears: that begs the question.

no, it doesn't "beg the question"

it is a repeated statement that you must meet the legal requirements as written and enforced by your local, state or other law enforcement agency
it is a repeat of the basic requirements as found under federal statues while also referencing them
it is a repeat of the fact that it is illegal to strike anyone unless in self defense or in the commission of a duty that requires the use of force mandated by the rule of law, so long as said use of force does not violate the legal restrictions noted by the Hate Crimes laws, as utilising race or political beliefs (etc, as already noted) as a motivation for feeling threatened is called prejudice and moves said battery into the realm of a hate crime action and thus is prosecutable under said federal statues

it is a clear, concise statement that is being touted as circular due to your ignorance of legal pleading and or unfamiliarity with the legal system, perhaps, but it is not in any way circular or "begging the question" as you state

Post 196 has your approach summarized in more useful form, unless you have something to add.

it was repeated and re-worded simply because you refused to actually comprehend the statement in any other form and refused to read the federal and/or other links

i thought it was perfectly clear, especially as it was supported by the law and links/references. most everyone else i asked stated it was perfectly clear.

only you didn't comprehend it

why?

While laughter is good medicine for the soul, you've been losing a lot of your ass lately:

erm.....new workout - LMFAO to the oldies???

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

that's what you decided to step into

actually, what i decided to "step into" was your continual spread of misinformation and false claims becuase of your anti-2nd amendment stance that is prevalent in any thread you post your anti-gun BS

that was it
it's called lying when you make a blatantly false claim for the sake of your personal ideology
when Michael said

You do not live in a country were it is legal to shoot people just because they are "black".

and you stated

Yeah, actually I do. Remember, I live here, while you make believe from afar.

this is called a blatantly false claim
especially when you attempt to justify it with the examples you used
so it's a lie, if you will
it is also hypocrisy

i'll get back to your other BS as soon as i can as i have limited time at this moment - but i have to address something i saw as i scrolled

let me be very clear as to your diatribe above: i haven't read, nor did i engage, the other posters in the thread except those who attempted to defend your stupidity about living in a country where it's ok to shoot people that are black.

you even state it again - i saw it as a scrolled down to quote you here:

I live in a country where you can shoot someone to death for being black.

That's pretty much all it takes, these days, to qualify for mortal fear.

did you not read the links i left regarding hate crimes?
perhaps you should

if you or anyone else utilises the criteria listed in the hate crimes laws to justify "mortal fear" and thus exercise physical battery and or shooting, then you are committing a hate crime
period
full stop

therefore, your argument that "I live in a country where you can shoot someone to death for being black" is blatantly false and makes you a lying POS

make all the justification you want for your belief
...post all the articles you want and misrepresent all the data you want...
it still makes you a liar as it is directly refuted by the facts, evidence and the law

you have a problem with what you perceive is justice in the legal system
you wanna know something? most folk do
that is not the same thing as something being legal and you know it
that is called a blatantly false claim

more later

 

[iceaura]

No, you didn't.
blatantly false claim - repeating it won't make it more true

I didn't just repeat it, I quoted your post and pointed to the exact problem. Earlier. More than once. You had three of four chances to deal, and from now on you post the dumbass and I deny it. Saves typing.

blatantly false claim: i've been quoting you all along and only occasionally paraphrasing
if you could prove otherwise you would have posted the evidence

I did post the evidence. For example, I posted your bs rewording side by side with my original in post 171. And I directed your attention to that comparison, twice. And I repeated the basic form of the argument from it, several times now - you have yet to address that.

you've not provided evidence for anything except your claim regarding pg12 of the DOJ document - period

And you have four times denied that I posted that, and called me a liar for insisting that I had.

there was only one encounter as i see it,

And your problems with "seeing" things need no further documentation.

You wish to deny the significance of Wilson's behavior to the subsequent official handling of the event, and to do that you have to muddle and obscure and deny what he did - even what is explicitly documented in a DOJ report you linked yourself, never mind the obvious inferences from physical evidence.

Likewise with Zimmerman's actions in the Trayvon Martin shooting - you simply skip to where he is losing a fight, and somehow has a gun handy to defend his life with. The rest? You invent some idiotic a,b,c crap, and as far as you see it that's what must have happened.

Then you avoid the entire argument that followed - ignore it completely, no mention. You even cut off a quote, half way through a sentence, to avoid recognizing the existence of the argument. And no amount patient, repeated, quote and evidence based persuasion has yet brought you to acknowledge it.

Here it is again, in summary form: It is legal to kill somebody because one feels sufficiently and legitimately threatened by them; it is legal to feel legitimately threatened by someone because they are black; Therefore, in some circumstances, it is legal to kill somebody because they are black. (Would you prefer a less pejorative rewording, less redolent of presumed bigotry?
Here: It is legal to have killed somebody because they were black. Or even: Because they were black, it is legal to have killed somebody. Feel better? )

And, in relevance, this bears on the threat level created by someone - an various circumstances - identifying themselves as a "nazi".

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

No, Stumpy, you're a troll who redefined the question at hand in order to pitch a fit in order to say pretty much any disgraceful thing you can think of in order to justify the murder of a black man.

i am actually impressed with the absolute devotion to your big fat lie and delusional belief... i've been going through your post ...

all it is: a distraction and attempted appeal to justify you told a big fat lie
that's it

from the beginning, i have stuck to this point. you even reiterate your beliefs and big fat lie
let me show you:

And it's probably pretty important to note that what I mean is exactly contained in this post:

I live in a country where you can shoot someone to death for being black.

That's pretty much all it takes, these days, to qualify for mortal fear.

and this is the big fat lie that i proved false. more than once. in fact, i can do it again: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/249
let me repeat something i posted already, since you're ignoring this:

Offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin.—Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person—
(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if—
(i)death results from the offense; or
(ii)the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

so your entire posts above are nothing but distracting from the fact that you told a big fat lie
you got caught telling a big fat lie
you're throwing out an intentional gish gallop of opinion and convoluted delusional belief about my posts which still don't support your big fat lie

Nowhere in any of those posts have you proven that it's ok, legal, sometimes legal or ok, or even acceptable to kill a person for being black, you've just used a lot of characters to support your big fat lie

and i get the fact that you're pissed that sh*t happens and you don't agree with the justice system or what happened. i get it and i said as much. you're pissed at the legal system because of your overwhelming fear of firearms. you have always been such that i've seen... but it still doesn't justify the telling of a big fat lie .


you're entire review and three posts boil down to this: you told a big fat lie

you got caught telling a big fat lie

i proved you told a big fat lie

nowhere, in any of your posts did you ever prove that what you said and believe is not a big fat lie

it doesn't matter what the original topic was because i didn't argue any of those points, but i focused upon a single point that was a big fat lie

nor do i support any nazism or racism, etc, as it appears to you when you posted the following

• On straw men, or something like that↑ ― This is the beginning of where you find what you're complaining about; then again, this is also what you decided to step into.

i am not complaining about his beliefs or anything else. i made that clear. i am making a point that you told a big fat lie

all of your initial post is an attempt to justify your big fat lie

the following two posts are a convoluted distraction and attack on me because you told a big fat lie and i outed you for it

so you change the goalposts and attempt to state the problem is with me...

See, it's not so much that I just don't believe you. I mean, sure, you're utterly without credibility, but that's largely because you made your point clear. Your excuse doesn't actually make any sense except to illustrate how little respect you show these issues.

That is to say, I can accept that you think you were illustrating something about PJ, but all you really managed to show us was a rather grotesque little glimpse of something about yourself.

but as i've just pointed out: that is a big fat lie


because the point is now and has been the same.


it didn't refer to the OP
it didn't refer to the situation or even the beliefs of anyone other than you
it didn't have anything to do with your own diatribe or distraction as you just "explained" in your diatribe
it had to do with one thing only: you made a blatantly false statement that was not supported by facts because it was your opinion and it's demonstrative of not onyl your delusion, but of your hatred of the 2nd amendment and anyone else who supports it.

there is nothing else to it
there is nothing but the simple fact that this entire argument centers around your attempt to post a big fat lie

period
full stop

just because you believe something to be true doesn't mean it is, nor does it justify making a blatantly false claim that is prove to be a big fat lie

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

I didn't just repeat it, I quoted your post and pointed to the exact problem. Earlier. More than once. You had three of four chances to deal, and from now on you post the dumbass and I deny it. Saves typing.

uhm... ok?
"dumbass and I deny it"

And I repeated the basic form of the argument from it, several times now - you have yet to address that.

let me post what you posted

It's obviously legal to feel threatened by someone largely because they are black;
wait... so, you can't establish evidence to support the legality of shooting blacks in the US, so now you will change the goal-post and make it "feel threatened"?
wow

just .... wow

you state this is wrong
my original point to you, specifically... DR Toad stated

Whether or not someone wearing a badge or a fucked-up ego was wrong in a killing still doesn't make it legal.

to which you answered:

The race of the victim did, in those three cases, make it legal.

[links added to validate my claim - and for the illiterate]
so, i've established that the original point was the legality of shooting blacks in the US, to which you specifically altered your argument

It's obviously legal to feel threatened by someone largely because they are black

now, that is, very clearly, your backpedaling attempt to change things

is that more clear for you?
it wasn't rocket surgery the first time, it still aint, and you're still wrong

And you have four times denied that I posted that, and called me a liar for insisting that I had.

i stand by my posts and i feel the evidence is clearly supporting my argument
if you can prove otherwise...

And your problems with "seeing" things need no further documentation.

you're the one making delusional comments regarding the point of shooting blacks in the US - you supported Tiassa and you got caught in a sh*tstorm of a lie
it's really that simple
you got your dander up and someone else and attempted to justify a blatant lie because you either misunderstood my point from the beginning, which was that it is not legal to shoot blacks
OR you are intentionally misrepresenting this
take your pick

You wish to deny the significance of Wilson's behavior to the subsequent official handling of the event, and to do that you have to muddle and obscure and deny what he did - even what is explicitly documented in a DOJ report you linked yourself, never mind the obvious inferences from physical evidence.

by all means, where have i denied "the significance of Wilson's behavior"
please show this with quotes from specific posts
thanks

You invent some idiotic a,b,c crap,

uhm... you have me mistaken with someone else

Here it is again, in summary form: It is legal to kill somebody because one feels sufficiently and legitimately threatened by them;

this part is true

it is legal to feel legitimately threatened by someone because they are black;

this is blatantly false, as already noted and proven
again:

Offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin.—Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person—
(A)shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if—
(i)death results from the offense; or
(ii)the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

so that is not my opinion
that is not my interpretation
that is not a matter of debate
it is also not my "idiotic a,b,c crap"
that is a matter of fact found in 18 U.S. Code § 249 - Hate crime acts

so i say again: repeating your lie doesn't somehow make it more true

Therefore, in some circumstances, it is legal to kill somebody because they are black. (Would you prefer a less pejorative rewording, less redolent of presumed bigotry?

repeating your lie doesn't make it more true: 18 U.S. Code § 249 - Hate crime acts

Here: It is legal to have killed somebody because they were black. Or even: Because they were black, it is legal to have killed somebody. Feel better? )

"dumbass and I deny it"
why?
18 U.S. Code § 249 - Hate crime acts


you can continue this all you want but you will not be able to ever make a case that it is legal to kill someone due to race.

 

[iceaura]

so, i've established that the original point was the legality of shooting blacks in the US, to which you specifically altered your argument

1) You are rewording again - please simply quote me about "the original point", in my words, ok? You won't get it right, ever, until you can respond to it with some kind of comprehension to what I posted.
2) I did not alter my argument. I have not altered my argument anywhere on this thread. It's the same one, every time.

is that more clear for you?
it wasn't rocket surgery the first time, it still aint, and you're still wrong

I'm not wrong. You are confused - at best.

i stand by my posts and i feel the evidence is clearly supporting my argument
if you can prove otherwise...

You still haven't figured out what the argument is, even - it's been repeated for you how many times now?

you can continue this all you want but you will not be able to ever make a case that it is legal to kill someone due to race.

Please quote, and deal with the argument as I posted it and the examples as I pointed to them, or quit addressing me with this nonsense. Note that none of the laws you have posted - the hate crime bills and so forth - are relevant; they have nothing to do with my argument, or the examples.
Here it is again:

Here it is again, in summary form: It is legal to kill somebody because one feels sufficiently and legitimately threatened by them; it is legal to feel legitimately threatened by someone because they are black; Therefore, in some circumstances, it is legal to kill somebody because they are black. (Would you prefer a less pejorative rewording, less redolent of presumed bigotry?
Here: It is legal to have killed somebody because they were black. Or even: Because they were black, it is legal to have killed somebody. Feel better? )

Meanwhile, about the punching of "nazis": there seems to be a connection between an inability to recognize the implications of people feeling threatened by blackness in some situations, and the inability to recognize the threat posed by self-identification as a "nazi" in some situations. This introduces the possibility that a threatening "nazi" might be in some sense an innocent - like a toddler waving a loaded gun around, completely unaware of what they are doing. Does that bear on whether and under what circumstances it's ok to punch them?

 

[sculptor]

Wow
214 posts
and
still
no agreement
(curious, that)
...........................
anecdote
circa early '70s
I was sitting in a booth in a restaurant when some damned fool came over and punched me. I had nowhere to run, 'cepting over him.
So, i did, (a few minutes later) with broken tables and dishes, and him bleeding, the cops showed up. The idiot picked a fight not 100 feet from the local cop shop.
First, he had to pay for the damages, then his friends had to take him to the hospital.

If you think it OK to punch a nazi then it would be ok(and quite legal) for him to beat the crap out of you.(in self defense of course)

.......................
as/re

jackbooted thugs

(a jackboot is a military boot that comes up to the knees)
I have seen 2 people wearing jackboots in the past few years. One was a california motorcycle cop, the other was a tall woman wearing thigh high boots and a mini skirt (a tad kinky for my tastes).
I doubt that either were nazis or thugs.

IMHO:
The person who punched the nazi is the real thug.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

You are rewording again - please simply quote me about "the original point", in my words, ok?

you mean like i just did above?
"dumbass and I deny it"

ok... lets do this yet again, because you're incapable of actually reading or using the link i provided for you in the above:

The race of the victim did, in those three cases, make it legal.

it is found here, as noted above: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is-punching-a-nazi-ok.158810/page-6#post-3435694

please note that it is a verbatim quote, so you can see that i am not "rewording", and you then change the argument here:

It's obviously legal to feel threatened by someone largely because they are black; and we see demonstration (by those examples, and dozens of others) that it is often - in standard circumstances such as police traffic stops, or seeing somebody walk down the street - legal to shoot them if you feel sufficiently threatened for that reason.

so you quite literally changed the goalposts, altered your own wording and then said i was rewording and then changing what you said

which is a blatant lie - and almost comical that you would concentrate on this as it's easily proven and i've repeatedly pointed to your exact words

just like when you stated above:

And you have four times denied that I posted that

i addressed it immediately: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is-punching-a-nazi-ok.158810/page-8#post-3436086
you just didn't like it - i even made the same point that i've been making the whole time

so this means, per your own request above: "dumbass and I deny it" and i just proved you an idiot
again

2) I did not alter my argument. I have not altered my argument anywhere on this thread. It's the same one, every time.

1- "dumbass and I deny it"
2- i just proved you wrong on that with the above in this post, and in multiple posts before that

care to continue to lie about it?
then i will continue to prove you a liar

I'm not wrong. You are confused - at best.

"dumbass and I deny it"
i not only proved you wrong, but i just repeatedly quoted your own words in your own posts linked, and referenced, yet again

note: anyone has the ability to check my argument by simply using those links and using CTRL+F with copy/paste to validate my claims
so this makes you a continual liar now...

You still haven't figured out what the argument is, even - it's been repeated for you how many times now?

i have yet to be swayed from my point and argument, which is:
it is not legal to shoot anyone because of race
period
full stop

i have also subsequently proved using your own words that you're using transference, much like Tiassa above, in an attempt to divert from your blatant big fat lie inthe hopes of garnering sympathy for your argument, but the facts are clear: Tiassa stated a big fat lie, to which you defended Tiassa with your support and re-post of the exact same claim (which i worded above). you then attempted to state it is about feeling threatened because of race (changing the goalpost) while this is also proven to be incorrect and biased, racist prejudice. proven incorrect with this link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/249
note that the link is not to a local statute, but a federal statute, therefore it applies in all US states.

so again, you're proven a blatant liar
in your own words
with your own posts

Note that none of the laws you have posted - the hate crime bills and so forth - are relevant;

blatant lie - "dumbass and I deny it"
i'll explain it simpler since you can't comprehend what a federal statute is:
you say

Note that none of the laws you have posted - the hate crime bills and so forth - are relevant; they have nothing to do with my argument, or the examples.

so lets review your own words

Here it is again, in summary form: It is legal to kill somebody because one feels sufficiently and legitimately threatened by them; it is legal to feel legitimately threatened by someone because they are black; Therefore, in some circumstances, it is legal to kill somebody because they are black. (Would you prefer a less pejorative rewording, less redolent of presumed bigotry?
Here: It is legal to have killed somebody because they were black. Or even: Because they were black, it is legal to have killed somebody. Feel better? )

so lets now examine the federal statute, which is applicable in all states in the US - all states which are ultimately governed by the US federal government, as in those states where the POTUS, Congress and SCOTUS hold sway over the union, which means every US state (get it yet?)
so lets review the law: you say

It is legal to have killed somebody because they were black

the law says

Offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin.—Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person—

so that is a big fat NO
so lets look at the feeling of threat, which means, per the law, that you feel a threat to life and limb due to race, per your argument
you say

it is legal to feel legitimately threatened by someone because they are black

the law says

Offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin.—Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person—

so again, a big fat NO
so you say the law doesn't apply
you say

Note that none of the laws you have posted - the hate crime bills and so forth - are relevant; they have nothing to do with my argument,

but the law says

18 U.S. Code § 249 - Hate crime acts

oops, its a federal statute that applies everywhere, including

Offenses occurring in the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the united states.

so we can see that using race as justification for the feeling of threat and for the action of self defense is covered under the ahte crimes act, therefore you're again, a big fat liar

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

addressing this separate because it is in reference to the OP, which i already answered

Meanwhile, about the punching of "nazis": there seems to be a connection between an inability to recognize the implications of people feeling threatened by blackness in some situations, and the inability to recognize the threat posed by self-identification as a "nazi" in some situations. This introduces the possibility that a threatening "nazi" might be in some sense an innocent - like a toddler waving a loaded gun around, completely unaware of what they are doing. Does that bear on whether and under what circumstances it's ok to punch them?

ok, lets break this down simpler, since you can't comprehend what the law says
it says, paraphrased by me: if you strike someone (battery) or assault someone due to race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability (in which political affiliation is considered under religion or belief as it's a belief system), then you are breaking the hate crimes act, and as it's a federal statute, it is against the law to strike someone due to your feeling threatened due to your prejudice against their political ideology.

it isn't about anything other than the law, which is directly relevant to the OP.
i've explained it more than once and you ignored it more than once, so this does merit your own request of: blatant lie - "dumbass and I deny it"
(considering you're making an inference that i am unable to recognize the situation)

this can be easily remedied as well: go to any federal prosecutor and present the case
i can tell you what they will say, to both the race argument fail of yours as well as your nazi fail above: it's illegal
why? because it's prejudice based upon ideology and belief which is covered in the constitution as well as the hate crimes act

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Wow
214 posts
and
still
no agreement
(curious, that)

i think it's because the question is poorly worded... and some people are riding a moral high horse that makes them feel justified in the use of violence so long as the opposition (in this case, a nazi) is morally repugnant on some level. if the word "pedophile" were used, all would likely say it's ok... but simply replacing it with something non-repugnant like "christian", "nurse", "teacher" or "child" and the argument alters drastically

the original argument is subjective and is really about what people feel and what they are willing to accept - but if you really look at it then it should be as follows: what do you consider legal?
is it ok to break the law?

the law clearly states that punching someone for an ideology is illegal and thus punishable under the hate crimes act. an ideology is a belief system, and as such is covere under religion in most cases. even a judge would state that battery for the sake of political ideology is illegal, so the question is firmly answered as : NO - it is not OK to punch someone because they're a nazi

just like it is not OK to punch someone if they're a: transgender; christian; republican; democrat; moonie (well, that's debatable considering their actions at airports - hyperbole intended, Tiassa)

 

[Tiassa]

just like it is not OK to punch someone if they're a: transgender; christian; republican; democrat; moonie (well, that's debatable considering their actions at airports - hyperbole intended, Tiassa)

That's pretty sick, Stumpy. Do we even care what you're on about? You know, other than comparing transgender to Nazis?

 

[DaveC426913]

Well put, TCS.

Is it OK to break the law?

Depends on what you mean by 'OK'. Are you 'OK' with being arrested for breaking the law?

Perhaps a more pointed question might actually be 'Are YOU OK with breaking the law?'