|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
It's also really strange to see huge groups of potentially dangerous and violent people with assault rifles protesting in the streets and the police keeps a respectful distance when african Americans are getting shot when mentioning they own guns. I would have loved to see an actual arrest of one of the neo-nazis out of that group.
|
On August 19 2017 01:15 Broetchenholer wrote:
It's also really strange to see huge groups of potentially dangerous and violent people with assault rifles protesting in the streets and the police keeps a respectful distance when african Americans are getting shot when mentioning they own guns. I would have loved to see an actual arrest of one of the neo-nazis out of that group.
Arrested for doing what? If the speech is protected, and the carrying of the firearm is lawful in that circumstance (I believe it was), what are the grounds for the arrest?
|
I can't help but think our weird free speech laws contribute to this "well, that's just another point of view" bullshit we hear people say about ethnic cleansing. It is sad how any thought of eliminating hate speech is immediately met with "whoa there, next thing you know it, the government will be jailing political opponents!"
|
On August 19 2017 01:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 00:57 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2017 00:47 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2017 00:33 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2017 00:24 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2017 00:15 Acrofales wrote:On August 19 2017 00:06 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 23:43 KwarK wrote:On August 18 2017 22:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 22:11 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Are they guilty of a crime beyond having a despicable ideology? I wasn't aware they surrender their rights of citizenship because you like the caps lock and have an opinion on the matter. Between denying civil rights and this newfound passion for destroying antiquities, we are getting our own little version of Taliban-lite in this country. And I'm highly amused by these arguments that police do not have an obligation to risk their lives or the appeals to the fact that the Nazis had guns. Whom, exactly, did the Nazis shoot? I haven't had enough coffee yet to tackle these mental gymnastics. Your passionate defence of civil rights would seem a whole lot more genuine if you showed up when people who weren't Nazis were getting their rights infringed upon. If you turn a blind eye when non Nazis are impacted then it gives the appearance that it was never actually about rights, it was just about Nazis. I never really have much of an opportunity to defend the leftist free speech rights because people on the right -- even the extreme right -- seem to be better at tolerating public discourse and don't try to start shit at lawful rallies. But when Ann Coulter shows up at Berkeley, that's a five-alarm fire for the various asshole factions of the left. Wasn't everybody protesting at Ferguson vermin? I remember you advocating they send in the national guard and didn't really care what happened to them if and when that happened. If BLM wants to demonstrate peaceably, I have no problem with that. I expressly referred to the rioters and looters as vermin. There is no constitutional protection to destroy the property of others. When that happens, regardless of who is doing it, I will always advocate sending in the authorities to clear the vermin out, whether it be BLM, Nazis, or the Girl Scouts of America. Getting away from the topic of rioting and free speech for a second, what about the constant violations of the civil rights of the black population of Ferguson that the investigation revealed? Where were you in defence of their rights? I've made it clear previously that I am on board with the idea that the police need reforming and that there's a problem regarding how black people are treated by the justice system. So I'm not sure what else you want. Thank you for that. So presumably you disagree with Sessions ending the justice department investigations into these police departments? Will you be marching peacefully alongside BLM when the time comes? I'll consider it when you start showing a commitment to refraining from shitting up the thread with irrelevant tangents.
Pretty telling that you would hold black support hostage to a petty squabble with a teamliquid forum moderator.
|
On August 19 2017 01:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 01:01 farvacola wrote:On August 19 2017 00:45 TanGeng wrote:On August 19 2017 00:35 farvacola wrote:
It's hilarious to me that xDaunt lets TanGeng get away with these half-assed, hand wavey gestures towards Supreme Court cases when we all know that "I'm a lawyer, you're out of your depth" admonishments would be thrown at the first liberal to make a sloppy reference to inherently complicated common law precedents.
So here, allow me: pointing to "clear and present danger" doctrine in the vein of Brandenburg in no way solves the difficult problems inherent to enforcing restrictions on public displays of speech that cross the line into true threats. Brandenburg strengthened the protection of speech to imminent lawless action, only clarifying clear and present danger. The decision gives justices of the peace agency to act when appropriate. It doesn't make the job of justices of the peace easy. If it was easy, we wouldn't need so many police or pay them at all well. Again, in our civil society, the side that resorts to violence is losing the war. It is especially true of a minority opinion as is the case. Common law precedent only delineates the contours of a framework through which lower courts must work in order to try and solve a particular legal problem. Constitutional protections are not a talisman endowed on individuals/actions that fit into the frame of a precedent, they are peformative rule-based iterations of enforcement and/or judgment that necessarily bend and change in relation to the facts of the issue at hand. Accordingly, even something as relatively straightforward as the age of a precedent leaves ample room for quibbling with the application of a test like that of "imminent lawless action." I think you are over-complicating things a bit. There most certainly are cases where courts -- even the US Supreme Court -- create fairly bright line rules that are easy to apply. Again, I don't know whether that's the case with what TanGeng is citing (I'd have to look), but I don't think you're being particularly fair or even accurate attacking him in the abstract.
I am being just as fair as TanGeng was when he called Plansix a troll for introducing doubt relative to the straightforward application of pre-existing precedent.
The point is that Supreme Court precedent is pretty much always the beginning of a conversation and very rarely if ever the end, particularly relative to the "good" problems in law.
|
On August 19 2017 01:16 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 01:15 Broetchenholer wrote:
It's also really strange to see huge groups of potentially dangerous and violent people with assault rifles protesting in the streets and the police keeps a respectful distance when african Americans are getting shot when mentioning they own guns. I would have loved to see an actual arrest of one of the neo-nazis out of that group. Arrested for doing what? If the speech is protected, and the carrying of the firearm is lawful in that circumstance (I believe it was), what are the grounds for the arrest?
Personally, I think there is an argument to be made that weapons have no place in peaceful assembly. The public is not served with an arms race between the state and protesters just to protect speech and protect the peace.
|
On August 19 2017 01:16 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 01:01 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2017 00:57 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2017 00:47 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2017 00:33 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2017 00:24 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2017 00:15 Acrofales wrote:On August 19 2017 00:06 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 23:43 KwarK wrote:On August 18 2017 22:33 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Between denying civil rights and this newfound passion for destroying antiquities, we are getting our own little version of Taliban-lite in this country. And I'm highly amused by these arguments that police do not have an obligation to risk their lives or the appeals to the fact that the Nazis had guns. Whom, exactly, did the Nazis shoot? I haven't had enough coffee yet to tackle these mental gymnastics. Your passionate defence of civil rights would seem a whole lot more genuine if you showed up when people who weren't Nazis were getting their rights infringed upon. If you turn a blind eye when non Nazis are impacted then it gives the appearance that it was never actually about rights, it was just about Nazis. I never really have much of an opportunity to defend the leftist free speech rights because people on the right -- even the extreme right -- seem to be better at tolerating public discourse and don't try to start shit at lawful rallies. But when Ann Coulter shows up at Berkeley, that's a five-alarm fire for the various asshole factions of the left. Wasn't everybody protesting at Ferguson vermin? I remember you advocating they send in the national guard and didn't really care what happened to them if and when that happened. If BLM wants to demonstrate peaceably, I have no problem with that. I expressly referred to the rioters and looters as vermin. There is no constitutional protection to destroy the property of others. When that happens, regardless of who is doing it, I will always advocate sending in the authorities to clear the vermin out, whether it be BLM, Nazis, or the Girl Scouts of America. Getting away from the topic of rioting and free speech for a second, what about the constant violations of the civil rights of the black population of Ferguson that the investigation revealed? Where were you in defence of their rights? I've made it clear previously that I am on board with the idea that the police need reforming and that there's a problem regarding how black people are treated by the justice system. So I'm not sure what else you want. Thank you for that. So presumably you disagree with Sessions ending the justice department investigations into these police departments? Will you be marching peacefully alongside BLM when the time comes? I'll consider it when you start showing a commitment to refraining from shitting up the thread with irrelevant tangents. Pretty telling that you would hold black support hostage to a petty squabble with a teamliquid forum moderator.
As if anyone will be like "oh thank god! It is so relieving to know we have your support and can get so much done now!"
|
On August 19 2017 01:16 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 01:15 Broetchenholer wrote:
It's also really strange to see huge groups of potentially dangerous and violent people with assault rifles protesting in the streets and the police keeps a respectful distance when african Americans are getting shot when mentioning they own guns. I would have loved to see an actual arrest of one of the neo-nazis out of that group. Arrested for doing what? If the speech is protected, and the carrying of the firearm is lawful in that circumstance (I believe it was), what are the grounds for the arrest?
Publicly bearing items with connotative value can figure as an act of speech, see the SC holding in Tinker relative to plain black armbands. Carrying guns while saying something can accordingly likely be regarded as its own sort of speech act.
|
On August 19 2017 01:16 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 01:01 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2017 00:57 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2017 00:47 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2017 00:33 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2017 00:24 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2017 00:15 Acrofales wrote:On August 19 2017 00:06 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 23:43 KwarK wrote:On August 18 2017 22:33 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Between denying civil rights and this newfound passion for destroying antiquities, we are getting our own little version of Taliban-lite in this country. And I'm highly amused by these arguments that police do not have an obligation to risk their lives or the appeals to the fact that the Nazis had guns. Whom, exactly, did the Nazis shoot? I haven't had enough coffee yet to tackle these mental gymnastics. Your passionate defence of civil rights would seem a whole lot more genuine if you showed up when people who weren't Nazis were getting their rights infringed upon. If you turn a blind eye when non Nazis are impacted then it gives the appearance that it was never actually about rights, it was just about Nazis. I never really have much of an opportunity to defend the leftist free speech rights because people on the right -- even the extreme right -- seem to be better at tolerating public discourse and don't try to start shit at lawful rallies. But when Ann Coulter shows up at Berkeley, that's a five-alarm fire for the various asshole factions of the left. Wasn't everybody protesting at Ferguson vermin? I remember you advocating they send in the national guard and didn't really care what happened to them if and when that happened. If BLM wants to demonstrate peaceably, I have no problem with that. I expressly referred to the rioters and looters as vermin. There is no constitutional protection to destroy the property of others. When that happens, regardless of who is doing it, I will always advocate sending in the authorities to clear the vermin out, whether it be BLM, Nazis, or the Girl Scouts of America. Getting away from the topic of rioting and free speech for a second, what about the constant violations of the civil rights of the black population of Ferguson that the investigation revealed? Where were you in defence of their rights? I've made it clear previously that I am on board with the idea that the police need reforming and that there's a problem regarding how black people are treated by the justice system. So I'm not sure what else you want. Thank you for that. So presumably you disagree with Sessions ending the justice department investigations into these police departments? Will you be marching peacefully alongside BLM when the time comes? I'll consider it when you start showing a commitment to refraining from shitting up the thread with irrelevant tangents. Pretty telling that you would hold black support hostage to a petty squabble with a teamliquid forum moderator.
It may tell something to the clueless, but I really have no interest in shitting up the thread with Kwark's mindless and endless whataboutisms. And I certainly am less inclined to indulge people who have a history of relentless strawmanning and misrepresentation.
|
On August 19 2017 01:21 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 01:16 NewSunshine wrote:On August 19 2017 01:01 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2017 00:57 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2017 00:47 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2017 00:33 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2017 00:24 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2017 00:15 Acrofales wrote:On August 19 2017 00:06 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 23:43 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Your passionate defence of civil rights would seem a whole lot more genuine if you showed up when people who weren't Nazis were getting their rights infringed upon. If you turn a blind eye when non Nazis are impacted then it gives the appearance that it was never actually about rights, it was just about Nazis. I never really have much of an opportunity to defend the leftist free speech rights because people on the right -- even the extreme right -- seem to be better at tolerating public discourse and don't try to start shit at lawful rallies. But when Ann Coulter shows up at Berkeley, that's a five-alarm fire for the various asshole factions of the left. Wasn't everybody protesting at Ferguson vermin? I remember you advocating they send in the national guard and didn't really care what happened to them if and when that happened. If BLM wants to demonstrate peaceably, I have no problem with that. I expressly referred to the rioters and looters as vermin. There is no constitutional protection to destroy the property of others. When that happens, regardless of who is doing it, I will always advocate sending in the authorities to clear the vermin out, whether it be BLM, Nazis, or the Girl Scouts of America. Getting away from the topic of rioting and free speech for a second, what about the constant violations of the civil rights of the black population of Ferguson that the investigation revealed? Where were you in defence of their rights? I've made it clear previously that I am on board with the idea that the police need reforming and that there's a problem regarding how black people are treated by the justice system. So I'm not sure what else you want. Thank you for that. So presumably you disagree with Sessions ending the justice department investigations into these police departments? Will you be marching peacefully alongside BLM when the time comes? I'll consider it when you start showing a commitment to refraining from shitting up the thread with irrelevant tangents. Pretty telling that you would hold black support hostage to a petty squabble with a teamliquid forum moderator. As if anyone will be like "oh thank god! It is so relieving to know we have your support and can get so much done now!"
What I said has very little to do with whether the BLM movement has that extra supporter and more to do with his views on race, which he apparently struggles to make clear.
|
United States44181 Posts
On August 19 2017 01:21 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 01:16 NewSunshine wrote:On August 19 2017 01:01 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2017 00:57 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2017 00:47 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2017 00:33 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2017 00:24 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2017 00:15 Acrofales wrote:On August 19 2017 00:06 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 23:43 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Your passionate defence of civil rights would seem a whole lot more genuine if you showed up when people who weren't Nazis were getting their rights infringed upon. If you turn a blind eye when non Nazis are impacted then it gives the appearance that it was never actually about rights, it was just about Nazis. I never really have much of an opportunity to defend the leftist free speech rights because people on the right -- even the extreme right -- seem to be better at tolerating public discourse and don't try to start shit at lawful rallies. But when Ann Coulter shows up at Berkeley, that's a five-alarm fire for the various asshole factions of the left. Wasn't everybody protesting at Ferguson vermin? I remember you advocating they send in the national guard and didn't really care what happened to them if and when that happened. If BLM wants to demonstrate peaceably, I have no problem with that. I expressly referred to the rioters and looters as vermin. There is no constitutional protection to destroy the property of others. When that happens, regardless of who is doing it, I will always advocate sending in the authorities to clear the vermin out, whether it be BLM, Nazis, or the Girl Scouts of America. Getting away from the topic of rioting and free speech for a second, what about the constant violations of the civil rights of the black population of Ferguson that the investigation revealed? Where were you in defence of their rights? I've made it clear previously that I am on board with the idea that the police need reforming and that there's a problem regarding how black people are treated by the justice system. So I'm not sure what else you want. Thank you for that. So presumably you disagree with Sessions ending the justice department investigations into these police departments? Will you be marching peacefully alongside BLM when the time comes? I'll consider it when you start showing a commitment to refraining from shitting up the thread with irrelevant tangents. Pretty telling that you would hold black support hostage to a petty squabble with a teamliquid forum moderator. As if anyone will be like "oh thank god! It is so relieving to know we have your support and can get so much done now!"
I mean it would defeat my point, which is that xDaunt's racially neutral "I just really care about the civil rights of all people" seems to only pop up when white people are concerned. There is a very, very glaring discrepancy between xDaunt's stated beliefs and the fights he chooses to pick based upon those beliefs. It's almost as if he's.... lying about his beliefs.
|
On August 19 2017 01:22 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 01:16 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2017 01:15 Broetchenholer wrote:
It's also really strange to see huge groups of potentially dangerous and violent people with assault rifles protesting in the streets and the police keeps a respectful distance when african Americans are getting shot when mentioning they own guns. I would have loved to see an actual arrest of one of the neo-nazis out of that group. Arrested for doing what? If the speech is protected, and the carrying of the firearm is lawful in that circumstance (I believe it was), what are the grounds for the arrest? Publicly bearing items with connotative value can figure as an act of speech, see the SC holding in Tinker relative to plain black armbands. Carrying guns while saying something can accordingly likely be regarded as its own sort of speech act.
Cute response. So what is the illegal act warranting arrest?
|
On August 19 2017 01:16 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 01:15 Broetchenholer wrote:
It's also really strange to see huge groups of potentially dangerous and violent people with assault rifles protesting in the streets and the police keeps a respectful distance when african Americans are getting shot when mentioning they own guns. I would have loved to see an actual arrest of one of the neo-nazis out of that group. Arrested for doing what? If the speech is protected, and the carrying of the firearm is lawful in that circumstance (I believe it was), what are the grounds for the arrest?
Throwing a stone at someone. It's hypothetical. I find it extremely weird that african americans are being shot from officers conducting traffic controls and a huge block of dangerous people carrying assault rifles over their shoulders is not a problem. There were voices here that stated that the police should wait till those people commit an actual crime and then arrest those that commited a crime. When stated that it would be...threatening... to the cops to arrest someone among his ar-15 carrying friends, the answer was, well, that's how it works. And what i see from how nervous american cops seem to be around minorities, i would have liked to see how they treat those nice, peaceful genocide-lovers.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On August 19 2017 01:16 Mohdoo wrote:
I can't help but think our weird free speech laws contribute to this "well, that's just another point of view" bullshit we hear people say about ethnic cleansing. It is sad how any thought of eliminating hate speech is immediately met with "whoa there, next thing you know it, the government will be jailing political opponents!"
I find it a healthier society that odious opinions and those who profess such odious opinions are openly known and identifiable. We know exactly who to watch out for. It's better to know the danger instead of having it creep up on you. And if such odious opinions are the majority or given audience in the political table, then society as a whole has a much bigger problem. It is here where President Trump shows how far US is from an open minded egalitarian society.
|
On August 19 2017 01:24 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 01:16 Mohdoo wrote:
I can't help but think our weird free speech laws contribute to this "well, that's just another point of view" bullshit we hear people say about ethnic cleansing. It is sad how any thought of eliminating hate speech is immediately met with "whoa there, next thing you know it, the government will be jailing political opponents!" I find it a healthier society that odious opinions and those who profess such odious opinions are openly known and identifiable. We know exactly who to watch out for. It's better to know the danger instead of having it creep up on you. And if such odious opinions are the majority or given audience in the political table, then society as a whole has a much bigger problem. It is here where President Trump shows how far US is from an open minded egalitarian society.
I think it's a very tough argument to say that the US is a current model of a healthy society.
|
On August 19 2017 01:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 01:22 farvacola wrote:On August 19 2017 01:16 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2017 01:15 Broetchenholer wrote:
It's also really strange to see huge groups of potentially dangerous and violent people with assault rifles protesting in the streets and the police keeps a respectful distance when african Americans are getting shot when mentioning they own guns. I would have loved to see an actual arrest of one of the neo-nazis out of that group. Arrested for doing what? If the speech is protected, and the carrying of the firearm is lawful in that circumstance (I believe it was), what are the grounds for the arrest? Publicly bearing items with connotative value can figure as an act of speech, see the SC holding in Tinker relative to plain black armbands. Carrying guns while saying something can accordingly likely be regarded as its own sort of speech act. Cute response. So what is the illegal act warranting arrest?
Do you know what incomplete self defense is?
|
On August 19 2017 01:23 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 01:16 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2017 01:15 Broetchenholer wrote:
It's also really strange to see huge groups of potentially dangerous and violent people with assault rifles protesting in the streets and the police keeps a respectful distance when african Americans are getting shot when mentioning they own guns. I would have loved to see an actual arrest of one of the neo-nazis out of that group. Arrested for doing what? If the speech is protected, and the carrying of the firearm is lawful in that circumstance (I believe it was), what are the grounds for the arrest? Throwing a stone at someone. It's hypothetical. I find it extremely weird that african americans are being shot from officers conducting traffic controls and a huge block of dangerous people carrying assault rifles over their shoulders is not a problem. There were voices here that stated that the police should wait till those people commit an actual crime and then arrest those that commited a crime. When stated that it would be...threatening... to the cops to arrest someone among his ar-15 carrying friends, the answer was, well, that's how it works. And what i see from how nervous american cops seem to be around minorities, i would have liked to see how they treat those nice, peaceful genocide-lovers.
The important lesson here is not to conflate problems. That the police are assholes to black people or anyone else has nothing to do with demonstration rights of Nazis. The law is often messy and cumbersome, but it should be universally adhered to. Society breaks down when it's not.
|
On August 19 2017 01:24 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 01:16 Mohdoo wrote:
I can't help but think our weird free speech laws contribute to this "well, that's just another point of view" bullshit we hear people say about ethnic cleansing. It is sad how any thought of eliminating hate speech is immediately met with "whoa there, next thing you know it, the government will be jailing political opponents!" I find it a healthier society that odious opinions and those who profess such odious opinions are openly known and identifiable. We know exactly who to watch out for. It's better to know the danger instead of having it creep up on you. And if such odious opinions are the majority or given audience in the political table, then society as a whole has a much bigger problem. It is here where President Trump shows how far US is from an open minded egalitarian society.
Why? It feels like you are defaulting to the idea that open knowledge has intrinsic value. I would be curious to hear you justify it in this context. I think you are using some broad strokes here.
|
On August 19 2017 01:03 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 00:45 Danglars wrote:On August 19 2017 00:36 Nebuchad wrote:On August 19 2017 00:23 Danglars wrote:On August 19 2017 00:13 Nebuchad wrote:On August 19 2017 00:04 Danglars wrote:On August 18 2017 23:56 Nebuchad wrote:On August 18 2017 23:54 Danglars wrote:On August 18 2017 23:44 Nebuchad wrote:On August 18 2017 23:39 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
You were perfectly clear at what you meant and I was perfectly clear about what I found objectionable. I never demanded you acknowledge my point, it's your right to note or not note our disagreement about the impact on civil society. Just don't try to skirt by it and pretend someone's zooming in on the word "mistake." That has a history of making conversations anything but conversations. No you weren't clear. Sorry if you thought you were. You stated the violence against Nazis were permissible and did not present a threat to society. You stated that your condemnation of Antifa was predicated on them making a mistake and not targeting Nazis. I think the protection of citizens against violence applies despite disagreeing with their words and opinions. I agree with you. Protection against violence applies despite disagreeing with their words and opinions. The problem with the nazis isn't that I disagree with their words and opinions. It's that they're nazis. I would never hold the position that I hold if the only problem with the nazis was that I disagreed with them politically. Obviously, you don't agree with me, because you're carving an exemption for Nazis that they don't deserve the ordinary protection of their persons against violence that other US citizens enjoy. What about their chosen ideology causes them to forfeit their constitutional rights and police protections? Since you don't accuse me of being unclear now, I won't re-quote the reason you omitted as to why I think your opinion is dangerous to society. You have portrayed my objection to the idea that nazism is deserving of free speech as being due to the fact that I disagree with them politically. That was incorrect. This is not why I don't think nazis deserve free speech. I agree with you however that people who disagree with me politically deserve free speech, so your objection to my position was unfounded. Ideologies don't have free speech, individuals have free speech. I'm having a dickens of a time learning on why grounds you permit violence against a US citizen professing nazism. I think they're deserving a protection against violence, and I'm going to need more than "It's that they're nazis," for your rationale. Since this is our fourth or fifth go-around, I'm leaning towards your unstated reason being that certain classes of citizens are just so sub-human that they're asking for it. So, for the last time, do you have a specific reason for your justification of violence against Nazis beyond "It's that they're nazis?" "It's that they're nazis" isn't a closed sentence. It's supposed to evoke in your mind how nazis are bad. You know, this whole "killing a bunch of people not by accident, not colaterally, but by design". This whole "belief in the superiority of a race over the others and wish to improve humanity's gene pool by eliminating the untermensch". There's also this whole problem with being completely opposed to free speech, and absolutely uninterested in rational discourse which makes it impossible to reason with them. You can also make the argument that they are inherently violent cause nobody who is peaceful looks at fucking Hitler and thinks "What a role model, I should probably adhere to a movement whose name is associated to this guy". Those are the few that came to my mind directly, I'm sure you can find a few more if you put your mind to it. So their beliefs cause them to forfeit their rights as citizens. Okay, that's all I wanted to learn at this point. Sorry for being unclear at the start. First of all I am extremely amused that you pretend to be offended at the idea that some beliefs can be so extreme that they are worthy of a self-defense argument. That's a rightwing idea if I've ever seen one, it's made against muslims invading western culture at least on a weekly basis. I hope I will see you attack that idea with the same scorn next time this happens. Second, I wasn't making a legal argument. "Forfeit their rights as citizen", yeah, okay, that's true. I don't think you should have those rights but you do, that's alright. I'm not advocating for the nazis to get arrested under your laws, am I. I'm just fine with them getting any reaction.
I was shocked you held those beliefs, for sure. Which is why I made sure you didn't base it on actual crimes, but on ideological beliefs of individuals. Trying to generalize this to "rightwing idea" or "muslims invading" shows you don't understand its importance to a liberal society. But since you didn't choose to engage/snipped out those arguments from quotes with clarifications, suit yourself.
|
On August 19 2017 01:26 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 01:23 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2017 01:22 farvacola wrote:On August 19 2017 01:16 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2017 01:15 Broetchenholer wrote:
It's also really strange to see huge groups of potentially dangerous and violent people with assault rifles protesting in the streets and the police keeps a respectful distance when african Americans are getting shot when mentioning they own guns. I would have loved to see an actual arrest of one of the neo-nazis out of that group. Arrested for doing what? If the speech is protected, and the carrying of the firearm is lawful in that circumstance (I believe it was), what are the grounds for the arrest? Publicly bearing items with connotative value can figure as an act of speech, see the SC holding in Tinker relative to plain black armbands. Carrying guns while saying something can accordingly likely be regarded as its own sort of speech act. Cute response. So what is the illegal act warranting arrest? Do you know what incomplete self defense is?
Sure, but again, where's the illegal act?
We all know where this line of questioning is going. You should just give up the ghost now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
