Is Punching A Nazi OK?

[DaveC426913]

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

I think you missed his point.

NONE of those things (whether banal or repugnant) make it OK. There is no reason to think TCS puts transgender or Christian or Republican in the 'repugnant' category. Did you think he did?

He did not compare transgender to Nazis, any more than he compared Christian to Republican. They're all in the very broad category of 'This is who I am. Mind your business.'

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

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

wow, so... you're still going to go with your big fat lie and attempt to distract away from your seriously stupid blatant false claim?

this is why you have no credibility
this is why your posts are nothing but baiting inflammatory troll bullsh*t
thanks for validating that, BTW

EDIT:
i did not compare them. it is listed in the law. the hate crimes act. you should read it sometime. it would be beneficial and open your eyes to your own stupidity in this particular thread.

more to the point: an ideology is a belief system, and as such is protected under the law under the freedom to believe what you want. it is listed as religion in the legal texts (and under multiple precedents) so it has the same standing as being transgender in the eyes of the law- it's protected as a right

that you can't see it is telling about your intentional bias and refusal to accept reality for your delusions

if you care to dispute this: ask any prosecutor if it's OK to shoot a black person in the US as you claimed. then use the "fear due to race" justification and see if this alters the answer.

i will await your reply and the validation from said prosecutor, for the record, mind you. don't let them get off with BS-ing you
make them put it in writing for the record

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

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?'

yeah, that would be far more clear as a description of the OP

it really is a divisive question in that it is so poorly worded;
and it is also unanswerable unless you make a stand on the legality

anyone who defends the nazi is considered horrible (see the idiot post right above yours) regardless of the legality of the points made and the facts presented

anyone who says it's ok is actually violating the law with a hate crime, which is just as morally repugnant as being a nazi

so the question really is in the right area ( > Ethics, Morality, & Justice )
do you accept the rule of law or do you accept the rule of the jungle
- either choice answers the question as the rule of the jungle will allow you to use violence on behalf of your perceived moral superiority, whereas the rule of law says you're guilty of a hate crime


of course, when you're emotionally invested in something (like Tiassa, iceaura,) then you argue from said ignorance and emotion to then present blatant false claims to the argument on a tangential and irrelevant topic (shooting blacks) with blatantly false claims for the sake of shock and to promote an agenda

 

[Dr_Toad]

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

Says the shrieking jack-booted feather boa wielder who seems incapable of rational and factual discussion on this subject. God almighty.

Edit: Drop the mod hammer, why don't you, and save all the snowflakes from anything they might disagree with?

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Says the shrieking jack-booted feather boa wielder who seems incapable of rational and factual discussion on this subject. God almighty.

Edit: Drop the mod hammer, why don't you, and save all the snowflakes from anything they might disagree with?

gonna start calling her "i-MOD"
LOL

 

[DaveC426913]

Uh, I'm not taking a side here, just clarifiyng what appears to be a misunderstanding.
I think Tiassa might have read what he expected to read (post 219), not what was actually written.

Trying to get back to some valid discussion, amongst the poo-flinging.

 

[DaveC426913]

Also well put:

do you accept the rule of law or do you accept the rule of the jungle
- either choice answers the question as the rule of the jungle will allow you to use violence on behalf of your perceived moral superiority, whereas the rule of law says you're guilty of a hate crime

 

[sculptor]

is it ok to break the law?

Yes.
As long as you understand the potential consequences, then it is your voluntary risk.
Kinda depends on the law. (my main sculpting mentor was a draft dodger---as in, keep moving and staying one step ahead of the fbi). Was he wrong? Some countries offered asylum to draft dodgers back then.

However we do get to choose if we will live in a civilized society that respects the rights of others. When someone assaults someone else, they are trying to deny that victim of one of the basic rights of all human beings.

(a bit of existentialism) When you choose a belief or action you make that choice for all of mankind.
(also the golden rule--from the "book") Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

This is really basic moral stuff.

......................
anecdote:
Recently, I got into it over dinner with a few professor friends concerning the universities making classes in ethics required.
I said that it was a fools errand because you could not teach an adult to be ethical. You could however, teach a sociopath how to behave as though he/she were ethical.
We went a few rounds/clarifications, then one by one, they agreed with me. (the question always remains---did they agree with me just to get me to shut the fuck up)

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

I think Tiassa might have read what he expected to read (post 219), not what was actually written.

likely
but that is another point of mine regarding Tiassa - there is no place for an ideological argument in a fact based discussion
when ideology is present, it undermines reality and doesn't allow anything factual, that refutes the ideology, jurisdiction in said argument

Yes.
As long as you understand the potential consequences, then it is your voluntary risk.
Kinda depends on the law.

i can see your point
... but that would be a personal moral or ethical decision

This is really basic moral stuff.

true, that

anecdote:
Recently, I got into it over dinner with a few professor friends concerning the universities making classes in ethics required.
I said that it was a fools errand because you could not teach an adult to be ethical. You could however, teach a sociopath how to behave as though he/she were ethical.
We went a few rounds/clarifications, then one by one, they agreed with me. (the question always remains---did they agree with me just to get me to shut the fuck up)

... just to STFU!
ROTFLMFAO
too funny!

question:
did you mean to write adult in the first sentence and sociopath in the second?
quite different things, those...

an adult can learn, but a sociopath cannot, and can only mimic or create a behaviour pattern that was similar to other adults, as they perceive it

 

[DaveC426913]

is it ok to break the law?

Yes.
As long as you understand the potential consequences, then it is your voluntary risk.

Actually, the question is not "can a person decide to punch a Nazi". Anyone could, of course, choose to break the law.

The question is "is it OK to break the law?"

And the ethical answer to that is no. It is not OK to punch someone or break the law.

 

[sculptor]

question:
did you mean to write adult in the first sentence and sociopath in the second?
quite different things, those...

an adult can learn, but a sociopath cannot, and can only mimic or create a behaviour pattern that was similar to other adults, as they perceive it

Well, that was the topic up for discussion. and, yes the use of the words was intentional.
The discussion hinged on whether or not there was an inherent quality of morality and/or ethical behaviour, or learned as a child, or whether this was something that could be taught to an adult, thereby making him/her into an ethical person. My contention was that by adulthood these qualities were or were not already ingrained within the personality, and that that could not be changed by a one class university dictated requirement.

(but, then again, I could be wrong)

 

[Tiassa]

NONE of those things (whether banal or repugnant) make it OK. There is no reason to think TCS puts transgender or Christian or Republican in the 'repugnant' category. Did you think he did?

Hey, Dave:

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)

Thus:

• No, it is not okay to punch someone because they're a Nazi

↳ just like it is not OK to punch someone if they're ....​

There is your comparison, DaveC: There is a specific reason to think TCS puts transgender in the 'repugnant' category: Because he compared them to Nazis. Did you think he didn't? Or do you sympathize with Nazis? Is that it? Are you trying to raise their stature?

 

[Dr_Toad]

What the hell is wrong with you? You conflate examples of bad behavior with actual bad behavior, or what?

You're the one who's taken this thread to the gutter, and why is that your right? Is it the same fictitious law that allows you to punch Nazis or transgenders, just because you don't like them?

Hypocritical.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

We could make a list of all those that it is OK to punch.
Mine would not have any entries.
Alex

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

There is a specific reason to think TCS puts transgender in the 'repugnant' category: Because he compared them to Nazis.

listen i-MOD, let me make this very clear: i did not put transgenders in the repugnant category. YOU DID
you even quoted me and prove this yourself, in your post!

LOL

this is painfully obvious if :
1- you can read
2- you're not blinded by some delusional bias and or irrational behaviour

transgender is located with: christian; republican; democrat; moonie
unless you consider the above repugnant then you are putting words into my mouth because you're delusional and biased

and lying

but that is exactly what you've been doing from the beginning of our exchange here: lying

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Well, that was the topic up for discussion. and, yes the use of the words was intentional.
The discussion hinged on whether or not there was an inherent quality of morality and/or ethical behaviour, or learned as a child, or whether this was something that could be taught to an adult, thereby making him/her into an ethical person. My contention was that by adulthood these qualities were or were not already ingrained within the personality, and that that could not be changed by a one class university dictated requirement.

(but, then again, I could be wrong)

interesting ... whereas i agree that by adulthood these qualities are typically ingrained in an adult, and that you can't be changed by a "one class university dictated requirement", it is possible for an adult to change.
with a qualifier to that: the adult has to want to change. and that is important to note.

now sociopaths - they're another story entirely. they can and will adapt a set of responses for personal reasons, gain or simply fun (in their eyes). a sociopath typically tries to manipulate, dominate and control others...

Hmm... sounds familiar.

,

We could make a list of all those that it is OK to punch.
Mine would not have any entries.

i'm seriously wondering if it shouldnt be legal to punch the blatantly stupid... perhaps knock some sense into them
LOL
[jk]

disclaimer for the illiterate, Tiassa, and the record: the above was offered in jest. and only in jest, between myself and Xelasnave.1947, who has a sense of humour.

it is in no way legal to punch the blatantly stupid unless they meet the requirements, per the law, of threatening behaviour justifying defensive action or special exacerbating conditions excusing violence, as noted by local, state and federal statutes.

so yall are safe

 

[Dr_Toad]

But, but, they don't feel safe unless there's a safe space with 4" wide red tape around the perimeter with "Trigger Warning Zone - Stay Back" emblazoned on it.

 

[DaveC426913]

All the rest of my response has been deleted as a waste of breath, because:

Did you think he didn't? Or do you sympathize with Nazis? Is that it? Are you trying to raise their stature?

I think that has got to be the single most trollish accusation I have ever seen on this site. And I've been here a long time.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

I think that has got to be the single most trollish accusation I have ever seen on this site. And I've been here a long time.

ditto

but i-MOD will get away with it because it is an i-MOD
just like i-MOD has and will get away with the rest of the trolling/baiting BS crap above

But, but, they don't feel safe unless there's a safe space with 4" wide red tape around the perimeter with "Trigger Warning Zone - Stay Back" emblazoned on it.

ROTFLMFAO

 

[iceaura]

please note that it is a verbatim quote, so you can see that i am not "rewording",

But it's not the argument. It's a verbatim quote of something else.

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

When I post something like that argument, I say different things than when I post something else, such as observations of what just happened. It's called "language" and "meaning" - look into it.

so lets now examine the federal statute, which is applicable in all states in the US

And contains exactly the terms - "willfully" and so forth - at issue. Did George Zimmerman "willfully" regard Trayvon Martin as a threat because he was black? Probably not - certainly not provably. Did he do that anyway, and act accordingly, unwillfully? Of course. Was his reasoning - based entirely on his race-warped perceptions of threat - accepted by the legal authorities as legally exonerating? Yes, it was.

So what he did - stalk, assault, and end up shooting to death a teenage boy because the boy was black - was legal. Similarly with the other examples.

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

With large and common exceptions, of course - as the various examples, including the DOJ official determinations in more than one of them, clearly demonstrate.

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

There's a muddle there, in that it's hard to tell whether you are talking about the perp's beliefs or the victim's as the "base". The hate crimes laws, interestingly enough, are sometimes similarly slippery.
Meanwhile, you are wrong in that prediction of what they will say in some particular cases, as the actual examples of doing just that demonstrate.

the law clearly states that punching someone for an ideology is illegal and thus punishable under the hate crimes act.

But punching someone for threatening - sufficiently - is not illegal. Even shooting someone. And some expressions of some ideologies do - under some circumstances - directly threaten people. The ideology common to all "nazi" is among the ideologies that lend themselves to such expressions. The expression and circumstances that would add up to "sufficient" are of course the topic of the thread.

My "flag burning" or "fighting words" general criterion is posted. Apparently the others have been withdrawn? Or something. Anyway: - -