|
Should it be legal for other people to assault you if they disagree with you? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
183 | 49.06% |
| No |
|
190 | 50.94% |
| Total: | 328 votes | ||
|
Guys like Spencer are going to start arming themselves in public and someone is going to end up getting shot.
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 06:03 |
|
|
Pittsburgh Lambic posted:discharging a firearm in washington dc under any circumstance sounds like a great way to get capped by a police sniper The punchers will still be shot. AARO fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Jan 22, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
botany posted:violence against people who think we should genocide the black population is always justified What other thoughts justify violence against the thought criminal?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:Hey, people can think what they like. When they decide to get up on a stage and get everyone doing roman salutes while spouting white nationalist rhetoric, however, that steps beyond thought or even speech and becomes political action. Politics is power, and whether abstracted or not in the end political power translates into violence. Actually botany said just the thoughts themselves justify violence against the thinker. I'd like to know what other thoughts people have I can justifiably inflict violence on them for.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
botany posted:that guy openly, repeatedly called for the genocide of black people and you're indignant about him getting socked in the face. You said it was justified to inflict violence on him for what he thinks. Are you changing your mind now and saying it's only ok to do violence against people who "call for" X? edit: Ok I see now that you are sloppy and imprecise in the things you say. AARO fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Jan 22, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
You guys are just making up your own rules. Why should anyone listen to you? You have no principles, you just make up your own morality as you go along. "He 'calls for' genocide so I can justifiably punch him." This is incorrect. Those who respect constitutional rights know that "No matter what he 'calls for' you cannot justifiably punch him solely based on that act of calling for something." It is not ok to inflict violence on people solely on the basis of them expressing their thoughts, regardless of how abhorrent their thoughts may be.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:there's no law against that. There are laws against punching people who said things you don't like. It is not legal to punch people except out of necessary self defense.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Yeah I'd love to express my opinion wrt punching Richard Spencer by punching Richard Spencer, alas I will not get that chance to I'm left to post about it on a dead comedy forum instead. No you don't know what you're talking about. quote:Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". Spencer's statements do not meet the above criteria.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
botany posted:nobody is claiming that it's legal. we're saying it's moral. But your morality is completely useless. You just made it up yourself. Who cares about your morality?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:i do. it's all that matters. Well, thanks for being honest.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
In the USA in the 1950's a man who openly said he was gay could very easily get punched in the face by any white Christian male onlooker. Even it it wasn't legal to punch this man for his mere act of saying he was gay, I'm sure large parts of 1950's America would have said the assault was moral. Richard Spencer is a disgusting rear end in a top hat and I hope he dies. However, I don't think we should normalize punching people for mere speech. I think it sets a dangerous precedent. We need to be a people who values free thought so much that we tolerate even the most abhorrent despicable speech of assholes.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
WillyTheNewGuy posted:Perhaps another example would help you understand. In many parts of Florida it is illegal to feed homeless people. So the people who go out and feed the homeless get arrested for breaking the law, while also doing the morally correct thing. But you agree that is a bad law correct? That situation is very different from this one in that way. In order for there to be more continuity in the analogy you would need to be arguing that it should be legal to punch people for speech, which many posters itt have said they are not doing. Can you give me an example of something that should be illegal while it is also moral to break that law?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
botany posted:punching nazis Hey there, you went right for it. Not actually surprised it was you.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
Higsian posted:Unfortunate thing is that authoritarians and nazis and fascists and their ilk don't give a gently caress about precedent so we can't just set an example for them and expect them to follow it. Nazis aren't people who won't think about using violence if you don't use it first. You can't be afraid to use tactics just because it's bad when bad people use those tactics. The violence meted out on homosexuals for being homosexual was and is bad because it's violence meted out on people for being homosexuals. It's not evidence of a universal violence is always bad rule. Nobody should be punched for mere speech, no matter how much you dislike it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:The US government killed Osama Bin Laden for things he said. I never saw him shoot anyone, did you? Brandenburg said "government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"" If it shouldn't be legal for the Government to punish him then it shouldn't be legal for private citizens to punish him.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
Condiv posted:oddly enough, nazi rhetoric is highly likely to incite or produce the deaths of minorities. therefore, private citizens are just stepping in to cover the government's failure to its duty to punish such horrific rhetoric You think Spencer's words are likely to incite or produce such action immanently? Likely? Give me a break.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
Why should it be illegal to punch Spencer? Should it be illegal to punch Spencer?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:In your example, the person isn't getting punched for saying he's gay, he's getting punched for being gay. He's not getting punched because of what he said, he's getting punched because of an unchangeable inherent part of who he is. That's completely different from punching a Nazi for holding Nazi opinions. You're comparing apples to rotted disgusting oranges. Would he be punched if he didn't say he was gay? No. Soooooo.....
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
Condiv posted:yes, he could be. for example, if he looked gay in some way. or did something that others interpreted as gay, etc. etc. You people make the stupidest arguments. An analogy is obviously not the exact same thing as the situation it is analogous to. Otherwise you would just be repeating the exact same scenario twice. In my analogy the man said he was gay. Don't you understand that the I, by my act of presenting the analogy, get to set up the parameters for this nonexistent situation?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
Arguing against the analogy is embarrassingly sophomoric drivel.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
Condiv posted:are you really trying to argue that your hypothetical gay man wouldn't be punched for being gay without outing himself because he's your hypothetical gay man and you set the rules for what happens to him? In the situation I set forth the reason he was punched was for stating that he was gay. It was not his being gay that triggered the punch, it was that he had spoken such.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:I will punch AARO here
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
Did you know if you post a bunch of straw man arguments you're a loving idiot?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Slippery slope arguments are okay though? All the arguments I have presented in this thread are iron clad and no one has even made a serious attempt to refute a single thing I've said.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
Pittsburgh Lambic posted:it's your fault for assuming people wanted to discuss the issue rather than live out violent fantasies Seriously? If that's all this is I can totally respect that. It really does explain the lack of cogent responses.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 01:40
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:Hi, nobody actually thinks like this and if you think that the course of reasoning was "this person said he was gay, therefore I will punch him because of the phonemic/lexemic sequence that he vocalized" rather than "this person said he was gay, therefore he probably is, therefore I will punch him" then you don't know how language works. Your scenario is unbelievably stupid, because a man who said that he was gay in a context that undercut the statement and signaled his heterosexuality would not be subject to that kind of treatment. He was not punched for a phonemic sequence, he was punched because the aggressor thought that what he said was true. I get to set the parameters on my own hypothetical situation. Do I need to substitute the man who punches him for an alien who only punch people for saying they are gay (AAWOPPFSTAG). Fine it's AAWOPPFSTAG. Can we move on now?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:No because in that case your analogy sucks and doesn't remotely map on to what's happening. You're attempting an equivocation that doesn't work and don't seem to understand why it doesn't. I guess we're at an impasse. I really am trying here to understand what the hell you're saying.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:That's funny, because everyone else understands what you are saying and finds it loving abhorrent. Oh I defintely will take a look at what you're saying in an attempt to change.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
GBS is catching on. Look how much good your memes have done. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Punching someone because of how they were born isn't the same as punching someone for the beliefs they hold. The fact that in both cases they told the puncher about the thing they got punched for doesn't make the two situations somehow equivalent. Do you doubt the possibility of coming up with a hypothetical situation in which the one who is assaulted is beaten merely for speech and also blameless? 1950's. Guy speaks out in defense of black people. Gets punched. (Or an infinite amount of other analogies) gently caress off with this argue against the analogy poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Here's what Lowtax has to say about this: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3806778&userid=27691 Jesus Christ, thanks for the common sense on this issue Lowtax.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
botany posted:hahaha I missed it. What's funny about that?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Wow, Lowtax wrong??? STOP THE PRESSES Answer this post. Lowtax posted:Again, nobody has been able to answer my question I've posed repeatedly. What type of violence should be acceptable? Is just punching allowed, or can we kick? Hit them with a brick? Break their legs? Put them into a coma? Hit them with a car? Murder them? Then, who determines if the victim was evil enough to justify the assault? How does a government agency regulate and objectively define where the line is regarding beliefs that should be punishable by assault?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:
You're a fool. And you do nothing more than show yourself as such.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 06:03 |
|
|
Is it morally ok to beat my wife if she hates Mongolians? Not legally ok, just morally guys.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 06:47
|
|