Continued: (Ed) Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

d4m10n said:
Let's review the elements of assault.



I don't think there is any doubt whatsoever that Victor intended to cause Paul apprehension by placing a foreign object on his person. I've no idea why you consider that sort of behaviour defensible, but it is clearly not. Even the proto-Pitters saw that, for the most part. It's a basic rule of civility that you don't lay hands on people without permission.
Click to expand...

As for the hilited, there is a lot of assumption packed into that one sentence. First, is "proto-Pitters" intended as some sort of slur? It reads that way to me, and as I participated in that discussion, does that make me a "proto-Pitter"? Further, going back and re-reading your link to verify my memory, most claimed it crossed a line, and was creepy*, but only Justicar felt it was assault.

*As I did at the time, and in this thread, as opposed to your claim that I am defending this.
 
wareyin said:
First, is "proto-Pitters" intended as some sort of slur? It reads that way to me, and as I participated in that discussion, does that make me a "proto-Pitter"?
Click to expand...

I meant only those commenting on ERV's threads back then, before it became what it eventually became.

wareyin said:
Further, going back and re-reading your link to verify my memory, most claimed it crossed a line, and was creepy*, but only Justicar felt it was assault.
Click to expand...

Surprisingly enough, Justicar was the only commenter with the relevant expertise. Victor threatened an unwanted touching of Paul's person. Had he been caught in the act, that would be an assault. Again, look at the elements of the tort.

wareyin said:
If someone places something in your coat pocket while you are not wearing it, have they "laid hands on you"?
Click to expand...

I don't recall Hoggle saying that he'd wait for PZ to remove his coat.

If someone reaches into the pocket of something that you are wearing, of course that can be an unwanted offensive touching.

The Central Scrutinizer said:
I was too. I, and a number of people around me, found it uncomfortable.
Click to expand...

Sure is lucky for PZ that none of them wrote it down at the time.
 
Last edited:
H'ethetheth said:
Perhaps, but when I imagine, say, Shermer saying something like this nowadays, I seriously doubt it would go over without comment from the Freethought Bloggers.
Click to expand...

If that happens, then they would be wrong, right here in 2014.

Rather than retroactively wrong way back in 2010.
 
d4m10n said:
I meant only those commenting on ERV's threads back then, before it became what it eventually became.



Surprisingly enough, Justicar was the only commenter with the relevant expertise. Victor threatened an unwanted touching of Paul's person. Had he been caught in the act, that would be an assault. Again, look at the elements of the tort.
Click to expand...

If by relevant expertise you mean "paranoid about being touched", then yes. Seriously, you are hitching your wagon to someone who claims that putting something in a pocket is violent assault. Does that not give you pause?

d4m10n said:
I don't recall Hoggle saying that he'd wait for PZ to remove his coat.
Click to expand...

Ok. Do you recall Hoggle saying that it would be a coat, or that PZ would be wearing whatever garment it was? I don't.

d4m10n said:
If someone reaches into the pocket of something that you are wearing, of course that can be an unwanted offensive touching.
Click to expand...

I don't recall Hoggle saying that PZ would be wearing whatever pocket containing garment.

It sure looks like you are reading a lot into what Hoggle threatened, then still having to stretch the law in order to make this fit your claim of assault.
 
Last edited:
wareyin said:
If by relevant expertise you mean "paranoid about being touched", then yes. Seriously, you are hitching your wagon to someone who claims that putting something in a pocket is violent assault.
Click to expand...

If you look at the elements of assault, you will not find apprehension of violence is among them. The apprehended contact need only be unwanted and offensive.

wareyin said:
It sure looks like you are reading a lot into what Hoggle threatened, then still having to stretch the law in order to make this fit your claim of assault.
Click to expand...

It sure looks like you are reading a lot out of what Hoggle threatened, then still having to stretch the law in order to absolve him of wrongdoing.

If you find the idea of someone touching your person offensive, and they threaten to put something on your person (in your pocket), and you see them coming towards you, then that would cause the reasonable apprehension of an immediate offensive contact. That's all there is to it, really.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
If you look at the elements of assault, you will not find apprehension of violence is among them. The apprehended contact need only be unwanted and offensive.
Click to expand...

The only person you have produced who agrees with your claim of assault thinks any unwanted touch, whether on person or on unworn garment, is violent assault. Yet you claim this is the only person with relevant expertise.


d4m10n said:
It sure looks like you are reading a lot out of what Hoggle threatened, then still having to stretch the law in order to absolve him of wrongdoing.

If you find the idea of someone touching your person offensive, and they threaten to put something on your person (in your pocket), and you see them coming towards you, then that would cause the reasonable apprehension of an immediate offensive contact. That's all there is to it, really.
Click to expand...

And one out of your three ifs applies, maybe. But, as I am going by what was actually threatened, rather than adding elements such as "touching your person", "see them coming towards you", or even "put something on your person", please explain what I am reading in or out of the threat.
 
wareyin said:
...please explain what I am reading in or out of the threat.
Click to expand...

The fact that Paul's pockets are on Paul's person, obviously.

Do you deny that all the elements of the tort would be present if Paul caught Victor in the act of attempting a reverse pickpocketing?

Do you think it likely that Victor is a master of stealth and would not be seen coming or detected in the act?

Do you think that Victor's threats against Paul were somehow justifiable?
 
d4m10n said:
The fact that Paul's pockets are on Paul's person, obviously.

Do you deny that all the elements of the tort would be present if Paul caught Victor in the act of attempting a reverse pickpocketing?

Do you think it likely that Victor is a master of stealth and would not be seen coming or detected in the act?
Click to expand...

You have yet to establish that PZ's pockets would have been on his person during the threatened action. Please explain how you have determined this, when "on person" was never in the threat, and without "on person" your claim of assault falls apart.

d4m10n said:
Do you think that Victor's threats against Paul were somehow justifiable?
Click to expand...

You seem quite keen on ignoring my actual stated opinion on Hoggle's threat, while repeatedly asking me what my opinion is. Why is that? If you honestly wanted to know, why did you ignore it the first 2 times I posted it here?
 
wareyin said:
You have yet to establish that PZ's pockets would have been on his person during the threatened action. Please explain how you have determined this, when "on person" was never in the threat, and without "on person" your claim of assault falls apart.



You seem quite keen on ignoring my actual stated opinion on Hoggle's threat, while repeatedly asking me what my opinion is. Why is that? If you honestly wanted to know, why did you ignore it the first 2 times I posted it here?
Click to expand...

Hair splitting at it's finest.

Apparently PZ is so evil that anything can be done to him.
 
tsig said:
Hair splitting at it's finest.

Apparently PZ is so evil that anything can be done to him.
Click to expand...

Another person who is unable to read my posted opinion on the threat. I have clearly stated the opposite of your claim. Its a shame that you and d4m10n must invent positions not held by your opponent in order to find a problem to be offended by.
 
wareyin said:
Another person who is unable to read my posted opinion on the threat. I have clearly stated the opposite of your claim. Its a shame that you and d4m10n must invent positions not held by your opponent in order to find a problem to be offended by.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes, the old "I've already posted it so if you can't tell what I mean by my disjointed ramblings that's your fault" ploy.

If you don't understand your position well enough to state it succinctly then I feel no obligation to do it for you.
 
tsig said:
Ah, yes, the old "I've already posted it so if you can't tell what I mean by my disjointed ramblings that's your fault" ploy.

If you don't understand your position well enough to state it succinctly then I feel no obligation to do it for you.
Click to expand...

You do not understand a simple sentence such as "It was creepy and crossed a line, but it is not assault"?

You are under no obligation to post my position, and given your malicious mischaracterization regarding what I said, I ask you to not state my position.
 
wareyin said:
You have yet to establish that PZ's pockets would have been on his person during the threatened action.
Click to expand...

Where are your pockets, usually?

wareyin said:
You do not understand a simple sentence such as "It was creepy and crossed a line, but it is not assault"?
Click to expand...

"It" being the act that was threatened or the post itself?

Obviously the post itself was not assault.

Obviously the act itself would have been.

No idea why this is even a controversy. If someone threatens to lay hands on someone else in an unwanted way, that is plainly wrong and indefensible. Victor crossed the line of morality and decency in making that threat. The fact that Paul is an unlikable fellow doesn't make that okay.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Where are your pockets, usually?



"It" being the act that was threatened or the post itself?

Obviously the post itself was not assault.

Obviously the act itself would have been.

No idea why this is even a controversy. If someone threatens to lay hands on someone else in an unwanted way, that is plainly wrong and indefensible. Victor crossed the line of morality and decency in making that threat. The fact that Paul is an unlikable fellow doesn't make that okay.
Click to expand...

What does he have in his pocketses? My precious, nasty Hobbits.
 
d4m10n said:
Where are your pockets, usually?
Click to expand...

On my clothing. Where do you think they would be? Do you wear every item of clothing you own at all times? Some of us own more than one pair of pants, leaving the extra in the dresser, or perhaps at the dry-cleaners(I wonder what kind of security you imagine a dry cleaner uses?). Some of us get warm and take off jackets. Some of us even own more than one shirt with a pocket.

d4m10n said:
"It" being the act that was threatened or the post itself?

Obviously the post itself was not assault.

Obviously the act itself would have been.
Click to expand...

The only way to interpret the act itself as assault requires you to add in things Hoggle did not state in the threat. You cannot possibly interpret putting something harmless into a pocket as assault, unless the victim was wearing the clothing. As it is rather common to check coats in winter environments, or leave a jacket on a chair, assuming that PZ would be wearing whatever garment is not automatic. The obvious fact is that such an assumption on your part is the only way to claim assault.

d4m10n said:
No idea why this is even a controversy. If someone threatens to lay hands on someone else in an unwanted way, that is plainly wrong and indefensible. Victor crossed the line of morality and decency in making that threat. The fact that Paul is an unlikable fellow doesn't make that okay.
Click to expand...

You and tsig are really on a tizzy with dishonestly misrepresenting those with whom you disagree, aren't you? Please point out where anyone said this was ok.
 
Last edited:
Out of curiosity, wareyin, have you ever been to an avocational conference with a coat check booth? Is that the custom in Australia in early autumn?
 
d4m10n said:
Out of curiosity, wareyin, have you ever been to an avocational conference with a coat check booth? Is that the custom in Australia in early autumn?
Click to expand...

Do you commonly wear every item of clothing you have at the same time? Do you think Myers does?

ETA: Are you that unfamiliar with coat check booths, dry cleaners, or draping a jacket over a chair back? Is there some reason you can only consider Hoggle's threat to be wrong if you can find some way to call it assault?
 
Last edited:
wareyin said:
Indeed, a threat to put something harmless in a pocket, years ago, that never happened. Creepy, but irrelevant unless one has a fainting couch to hand.
Click to expand...

Fainting with the proper panache and timing is a gift.

I hear there is a creepy old man who will put something in your socks it's not an assault unless it explodes.
 
devnull said:
My god, so much time spent on irrelevancies.

Ill be over there.
Click to expand...

I'll simplify:

SP: PZ don't want us getting any. (demonization follows)

Others: No PZ wants women treated with respect.

SP: See, we said he doesn't want us to get any (full on abuse follows)


SP=slymePitter
 
tsig said:
Fainting with the proper panache and timing is a gift.
Click to expand...

I will take your word for that. Apparently some people practice fainting often enough that they may actually think they have a gift for it, at least.

tsig said:
I hear there is a creepy old man who will put something in your socks it's not an assault unless it explodes.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Is the creepy old man supposed to be Myers?

tsig said:
I'll simplify:

SP: PZ don't want us getting any. (demonization follows)

Others: No PZ wants women treated with respect.

SP: See, we said he doesn't want us to get any (full on abuse follows)


SP=slymePitter
Click to expand...

Yes, the "respectful" way PZ has treated women such as Skep Tickle and Abbie Smith is quite legendary. I think "full on abuse" pretty accurately describes it.
 
wareyin said:
Indeed, a threat to put something harmless in a pocket, years ago, that never happened. Creepy, but irrelevant unless one has a fainting couch to hand.
Click to expand...

Totes irrelevant, unless you're trying to explain why the largest draw at FtB displays a certain degree of paranoia towards designated out-group members and assorted folk demons.

Somewhat incidentally, PZ threatened to throw up on me at Skepticon. Where is my fainting couch? And smelling salts!
 
Last edited:
I... what in the world are we talking about? I leave for, like, a month and suddenly we're throwing up in people's pockets or something. Kids these days...
 
d4m10n said:
Somewhat incidentally, PZ threatened to throw up on me at Skepticon. Where is my fainting couch? And smelling salts!
Click to expand...

I trust you charged him with assault, as this is clearly offensive contact!

ETA: To be clear, I was being sarcastic. However, there actually is precedent for charging a person with assault for spitting on another, which gives me reason to believe intentional vomiting on someone is also legally criminal assault. Still no evidence that anyone has ever been tried for the tort of assault for putting something harmless in a pocket, that I can find.
 
Last edited:
The only thing I can think of that explains all this pocket-obsession is that PZ et al are thinking of "Night of the Demon": someone is trying to get him to, without his knowing, take some piece of parchment, that will end up summoning some demon-from-beyond that will come for him in 3 days time.

"I know what almost happened to Dana Andrews!"
 
bignickel said:
The only thing I can think of that explains all this pocket-obsession is that PZ et al are thinking of "Night of the Demon": someone is trying to get him to, without his knowing, take some piece of parchment, that will end up summoning some demon-from-beyond that will come for him in 3 days time.

"I know what almost happened to Dana Andrews!"
Click to expand...

I don't read PZ's blog, so perhaps he brought out the fainting couch and I missed it. So far, only d4m10n and one other have tried to frame the pocket threat as assault, to my knowledge. It is really throwing me that PZ actually threatened to commit something that legally is, and has been charged and convicted of, criminal assault against d4m10n. Yet d4m10n is laughing that off, while reaching for the fainting couch on PZ's behalf, for something that has never even been charged, much less successfully prosecuted, as assault.
 
wareyin said:
Yet d4m10n is laughing that off, while reaching for the fainting couch on PZ's behalf, for something that has never even been charged, much less successfully prosecuted, as assault.
Click to expand...

I'm laughing it off because I don't believe PZ was being serious about puking on me and Chas for asking the wrong questions in "ally training." If he seriously meant to throw up on me I'd be all over Skepticon for allowing people like that into the building, much less the speaker's lounge, given their stated anti-harassment policies.

ETA: Of course, there is only one way to be sure.
 
d4m10n said:
I'm laughing it off because I don't believe PZ was being serious about puking on me and Chas for asking the wrong questions in "ally training." If he seriously meant to throw up on me I'd be all over Skepticon for allowing people like that into the building, much less the speaker's lounge, given their stated anti-harassment policies.

ETA: Of course, there is only one way to be sure.
Click to expand...

It would make for a nice t-shirt:


PZ puked on me.

In some circles that would be worth a free drink.
 
d4m10n said:
I'm laughing it off because I don't believe PZ was being serious about puking on me and Chas for asking the wrong questions in "ally training." If he seriously meant to throw up on me I'd be all over Skepticon for allowing people like that into the building, much less the speaker's lounge, given their stated anti-harassment policies.

ETA: Of course, there is only one way to be sure.
Click to expand...

So this is another example of PZ doing the same as a "Pitter", yet in your opinion the "Pitter" is wrong and PZ is right. Ok.
 
wareyin said:
So this is another example of PZ doing the same as a "Pitter", yet in your opinion the "Pitter" is wrong and PZ is right. Ok.
Click to expand...

No, they are both clearly wrong.

It was wrong for Victor to threaten Paul with an unwanted offensive touching.

It was wrong for Paul to (jokingly) threaten to vomit on people like Damion and Chas because they don't toe the party line.

Neither of these men have covered themselves in glory, both of them are actively alienating potential allies.
 
d4m10n said:
I'm laughing it off because I don't believe PZ was being serious about puking on me and Chas for asking the wrong questions in "ally training." If he seriously meant to throw up on me I'd be all over Skepticon for allowing people like that into the building, much less the speaker's lounge, given their stated anti-harassment policies.

ETA: Of course, there is only one way to be sure.
Click to expand...

You should have reported it, just to watch SJW heads explode.
 
wareyin said:
On my clothing. Where do you think they would be? Do you wear every item of clothing you own at all times? Some of us own more than one pair of pants, leaving the extra in the dresser, or perhaps at the dry-cleaners(I wonder what kind of security you imagine a dry cleaner uses?). Some of us get warm and take off jackets. Some of us even own more than one shirt with a pocket.
Click to expand...

Weirdo.
 
d4m10n said:
No, they are both clearly wrong.

It was wrong for Victor to threaten Paul with an unwanted offensive touching.

It was wrong for Paul to (jokingly) threaten to vomit on people like Damion and Chas because they don't toe the party line.

Neither of these men have covered themselves in glory, both of them are actively alienating potential allies.
Click to expand...

I am glad you can admit they were both wrong. Can you explain what makes you conclude that every time PZ threatens someone or propositions someone it is a joke, but when someone else does the same act it is not a joke? Why do you not apply the same standards?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom