ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 19th August 2020, 01:40 PM   #241
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 6,093
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
*checks forum description*

This is a critical thinking forum, isn't it?

Or have I fallen down some sort of rabbit hole?
It is. Feel free to contribute beyond just clutching your pearls and gasping in shock.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2020, 01:43 PM   #242
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 15,891
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
To be fair, the type of community defense I'm talking about here isn't really a broader social movement. It's a single issue thing, punching racists and fash that are a danger to the community. Antifa isn't advocating for any specific political theory other than the idea that Nazis are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to organize uninhibited.


"To be fair, the type of community defense I'm talking about here isn't really a broader social movement. It's a single issue thing, punching communists and deviants that are a danger to the community. The SA Brown Shirts aren't advocating for any specific political theory other than the idea that Communists are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to organize uninhibited."

- A Nazi Brown Shirt, 1934


(I assume the irony will escape some.......)
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2020, 01:45 PM   #243
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 15,891
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
It is. Feel free to contribute beyond just clutching your pearls and gasping in shock.


Oh, right. I was just expecting to see critical thinking in a critical thinking forum. My bad.

(And you must have passed over my fairly lengthy constructive contributions over the past several threads or so. I suggest you scroll back and actually read them. Might be educative, y'know...)

Last edited by LondonJohn; 19th August 2020 at 01:47 PM.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2020, 01:48 PM   #244
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 12,494
Originally Posted by dann View Post
Thank you. You make it clear where you are coming from with your "real question": It wasn't so bad when "the Nazis only beat up communists, left-wing social democrats, Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals." However, it would have become intolerable if they had started beating up good people: conservatives, Christians, patriots ...
Umm... no, that's not at all what I meant, and not at all where I'm coming from. Given my posts in this thread and others, I'm at a loss as to how you concluded that's what I meant. I thought I was pretty clearly on the "don't punch people" side of this argument.

The argument put forth by some of the posters here is that certain groups (nazis and fascists) are so bad that physically assaulting them is not only laudable, but should be considered an imperative. That view has been challenged. Not only because it's an abhorrent view, but because even if it weren't abhorrent on its face, there's no good reason to think that it's actually limited to nazis and fascists. It seems to be a principle applied to a much more broad segment of people, more closely categorized as "people they disagree with".

You're the one who brought up the nazis being explicit about who they were okay with abusing. To me, it seemed as if you were saying that it was less bad than "whoever you disagree with" because it was so explicit.

My point was that even if it *is* very explicit in claim (which I still don't think makes it acceptable), that claim is frequently not supported by reality. The nazis *claimed* that it was only those groups being persecuted (which is already horrendous in my view), but they didn't actually limit it to those groups, but effectively applied it to anyone who was accused of being part of those groups regardless of whether there was reasonable evidence to that or not.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2020, 01:50 PM   #245
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 12,494
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Auto contraire: I am generally generally not willing to do so. Because I value people, even reprehensible ones, who can at least in theory turn their lives around. Rehabilitation and all. So I don't personally advocate playing games where death is a likely card to pull.

But I also am perfectly fine with criminal activity. Sort of. The Law is not my God and whatnot. If morally justified, have at it. But you should acknowledge openly that you are not on the moral high ground. Moral gutter maybe.
Fair point. I think the last two sentences were more of what I was trying to stress. Some others seem to believe that they ARE on the moral high ground.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2020, 01:52 PM   #246
Elaedith
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,311
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
*checks forum description*

This is a critical thinking forum, isn't it?

Or have I fallen down some sort of rabbit hole?
Well, it appears that all the enlightenment principles that used to be key to critical thinking don't apply anymore. But apparently it's just a minor change.
Elaedith is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2020, 01:52 PM   #247
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 12,494
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
I'm not holding my breath for the people decrying the violence to get off their couches to do anything, non-violent or otherwise.
Hmm. What is it that you've done? And what makes you so certain that nobody else has done anything?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2020, 01:55 PM   #248
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 12,494
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Having just picked up on this thread, I find it hard to believe that certain posters appear not to understand that punching someone in the face so hard that you knock them out, when it's not in self defence*, is a serious criminal offence in every westernised jurisdiction, usually resulting in improsonment upon conviction, And there are very sound legal and ethical reasons why this should be the case.

Frankly, I'm astonished (and somewhat disgusted) by the views of those who argue that the guy on the tube "had it coming" on acount of the words - and the marginally threatening body language - that he'd used. The guy on the tube appears to have committed a criminal offence through what he said. If a good film of him had found its way to the police, he should have been (and should be) prosecuted accordingly. But what that guy did IN NO WAY justifies, excuses or is deserving of getting punched into unconsciousness. The talk on here about "community payback" is even more shocking, and is arguably worthy of law enforcement notice in and of itself.

What should happen in this case is perfectly simple: the guy should be charged with a public order offence (based on his words and actions), and the man who punched him out should be charged with either assault or ABH. And as others have already pointed out, had that guy died of a brain haemorrhage (either from the punch itself or from hitting his head on the way down), the man who punched him should have found himself charged with murder.


* For the avoidance of doubt, "self-defence" here does not apply to someone haraguing you or others with words (no matter how vile or obscene), and nor does it apply to someone squaring up to you. In colloquial terms, the act of punching somebody out could really only be viewed as self-defence (or a judicial defence in general) if the other person had either a) started a physical assault upon you without other weapons, b) was committing a serious crime (eg rape) upon another person, c) was coming at you or another person with a deadly weapon such as a knife, or d) brandished a firearm in such a way as you reasonably thought was going to be used on you or another person. None of these apply in the situation under discussion.
Well said.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2020, 01:55 PM   #249
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,533
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Oh, right. I was just expecting to see critical thinking in a critical thinking forum. My bad.
You did, and the answer is still: If you can't convince a fascist, acquaint his head with the pavement.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2020, 01:56 PM   #250
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 12,494
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
*checks forum description*

This is a critical thinking forum, isn't it?

Or have I fallen down some sort of rabbit hole?
The forum is. Not all members are. That said, 2020 is pretty much a rabbit hole year. Welcome to Wonderland.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2020, 01:58 PM   #251
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 11,669
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
I'm not holding my breath for the people decrying the violence to get off their couches to do anything, non-violent or otherwise.
Maybe we could take a stop at some of the other points between couch tut-tutting and smashing skulls? Must we only land on the extremes?
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2020, 01:58 PM   #252
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 12,494
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
You did, and the answer is still: If you can't convince a fascist, acquaint his head with the pavement.
Translation: thoughtcrime merits extrajudicial corporal punishment.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2020, 02:00 PM   #253
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,754
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
You did, and the answer is still: If you can't convince a fascist, acquaint his head with the pavement.
Honestly isn't this what every civilized society does with people who refuse to play by the rules? I mean yeah, sometimes the pavement includes bars sticking up out of it as well.

ETA: I'm assuming that the typical fascist acts on the belief that it is good to initiate force.

ETA2: What else can really you do w/ ppl who initiate force?
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin

Last edited by d4m10n; 19th August 2020 at 02:03 PM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2020, 02:03 PM   #254
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,533
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Translation: thoughtcrime merits extrajudicial corporal punishment.
Are you saying people can read other people's thoughts? Wooooow, pass the bong!
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2020, 02:06 PM   #255
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 15,891
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Hmm. What is it that you've done? And what makes you so certain that nobody else has done anything?

I might be wrong, but his POV appears to be along the lines of "Fascists/racists/etc are bad, and something must be done about them, and WE are doing something about them, while you lot are just sitting there and letting them get away with it"

But if that IS close to the mark, then it's a classic false equivalence. Because it's entirely possible to believe that the likes of fascists and racists are abhorrent and should be confronted. As I do. But the confrontation I support - and indeed the confrontation that society as a group supports - is through law enforcement and the courts.

There's a strong (though inarguably sometimes somewhat unaligned) link between a society's ethics and its laws. And the nature and strength of laws are meant to reflect the degree of outtage that society at large feels about any given deviant act/behaviour. That's why, for example, driving at 40mph in a 30mph zone is only deemed a driving offence and not even a criminal offence, while driving drunk is a low/mid-level criminal offence, and killing someone while driving drunk is a very serious criminal offence.

And it's why punching someone hard in the face and knocking them out, in the absence of a legal defence, is either a mid-level or serious criminal offence (depending on the outcome for the victim).

The likes of fascists and racists should be dealt with by the police and the courts. If we think the laws against such behaviours/acts are not sufficiently harsh, then we should require that our legislators (our parliamentarians) change the laws acordingly. And if we think that the laws are not being applied or investigated sufficiently thorougly, we should complain to our legislators and to our law enforcement commissioners.

That's how a....ummmm..... civilised society goes about these sorts of things.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2020, 02:12 PM   #256
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 15,891
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
You did, and the answer is still: If you can't convince a fascist, acquaint his head with the pavement.

Erm no.

The answer is always: it's not your job to "convince" a fascist, and it's most certainly not your job to acquaint his head with the pavement; rather it's your job to assist law enforcement officers in gathering evidence of the person's criminal behaviour, so that the person can be properly prosecuted, convicted and sentenced in accordance with the legislation in place for these sorts of offences.


Not as pithy as your version, I'll admit. But then my version is right, while yours is wrong.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2020, 02:13 PM   #257
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,533
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Honestly isn't this what every civilized society does with people who refuse to play by the rules?
I'm not really all that interested in what supposedly civilized societies are or are not supposed to do. I'm interested in what works though, and besides, it's not like they haven't given the answer clearly enough themselves:
Originally Posted by Hitler
Only one thing could have broken our movement if the adversary had understood its principle and from the first day had smashed, with the most extreme brutality, the nucleus of our new movement.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2020, 02:14 PM   #258
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,533
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Erm no.

The answer is always: it's not your job to "convince" a fascist, and it's most certainly not your job to acquaint his head with the pavement; rather it's your job to assist law enforcement officers in gathering evidence of the person's criminal behaviour, so that the person can be properly prosecuted, convicted and sentenced in accordance with the legislation in place for these sorts of offences.


Not as pithy as your version, I'll admit. But then my version is right, while yours is wrong.
You call this critical thinking?
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2020, 02:16 PM   #259
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,660
Originally Posted by RolandRat View Post
It's very hard to feel any sympathy for this kind of scumbag. He was looking for a confrontation and he got it. Might even teach him to keep his mouth shut next time.
You don't need to feel sympathy for the bloke to recognise the action of committing violence against him is wrong.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2020, 02:16 PM   #260
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 15,891
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
You call this critical thinking?


Maybe you'll explain to me exactly how and why it's not. I'll be interested in hearing.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2020, 02:17 PM   #261
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 46,298
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
It is. Feel free to contribute beyond just clutching your pearls and gasping in shock.
You mean like standing on the sidelines cheering a violent criminal assault and hoping the victim is brain damaged?
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2020, 02:17 PM   #262
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,754
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
I'm not really all that interested in what supposedly civilized societies are or are not supposed to do. I'm interested in what works though, and besides, it's not like they haven't given the answer clearly enough themselves:
I'm not about to take advice from Hitler.
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2020, 02:18 PM   #263
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 4,910
Originally Posted by rockinkt View Post
What should be the punishment for a guy that leads a gang in a home invasion and shoves a gun into a woman's stomach and screams that he will kill her if money is not produced?
Death by voluntary fentanyl overdose, obviously.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2020, 02:25 PM   #264
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 15,891
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
You don't need to feel sympathy for the bloke to recognise the action of committing violence against him is wrong.

This exactly. The false equivalences are coming thick and fast today, huh?


But to spell it out:

1) It is absolutely correct to feel disgusted and outraged at someone shouting extreme racist abuse

2) It is never correct to respond to such behaviour with physical violence, even if the person is "looking for a confrontation" (unless the person has initiated a physical assault upon you)

3) It is always correct to a) alert law enforcement*, explain what you've heard, and give your details as a witness, and/or b) make a recording of the offending behaviour on a smartphone if you can, and pass it on to law enforcement.


* On the London Tube for example, you can pull the emergency cord (there are a number in every carriage) as the train approaches a station platform, and the doors will remain closed while either a member of staff or a member of British Transport Police attends the scene.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2020, 02:25 PM   #265
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,533
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Maybe you'll explain to me exactly how and why it's not. I'll be interested in hearing.
Easy enough:

Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Erm no.

The answer is always: it's not your job to "convince" a fascist, and it's most certainly not your job to acquaint his head with the pavement; rather it's your job to assist law enforcement officers in gathering evidence of the person's criminal behaviour, so that the person can be properly prosecuted, convicted and sentenced in accordance with the legislation in place for these sorts of offences.
Irrelevant, we aren't talking about people's jobs and it is furthermore false. For example in my job description as train driver it did not say anything about "assisting law enforcement officers in gathering evidence" of anything. Granted, it also didn't say anything about "convincing a fascist" but then nobody claimed that it did, that's just your strawman.

Quote:
Not as pithy as your version, I'll admit. But then my version is right, while yours is wrong.
And this is just you asserting that you are right and that I am wrong.

In short, one irrelevant strawman and one mere assertion of "I'm right and you're wrong." So whatever thinking went on here, it wasn't of the critical kind. The whole thing's also a non-sequitur, so it's debatable whether any kind of thinking actually took place here, since even if something isn't your job then it still might be a good idea to do so. For example my job description as traindriver did not explicitly say that I should keep myself fed, yet I still do so anyway.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

Last edited by caveman1917; 19th August 2020 at 02:31 PM.
caveman1917 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2020, 02:25 PM   #266
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 46,298
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
You did, and the answer is still: If you can't convince a fascist, acquaint his head with the pavement.
The internet-tough-guy quotient of this thread has just reached critical mass. I thought it had peaked when I was called a nazi sympathiser for calling on police action rather than vigilante violence, but no.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2020, 02:30 PM   #267
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,533
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I'm not about to take advice from Hitler.
Why not? He is an expert on that subject.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2020, 02:30 PM   #268
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 4,910
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Having just picked up on this thread, I find it hard to believe that certain posters appear not to understand that punching someone in the face so hard that you knock them out, when it's not in self defence*, is a serious criminal offence in every westernised jurisdiction, usually resulting in improsonment upon conviction, And there are very sound legal and ethical reasons why this should be the case.

Frankly, I'm astonished (and somewhat disgusted) by the views of those who argue that the guy on the tube "had it coming" on acount of the words - and the marginally threatening body language - that he'd used. The guy on the tube appears to have committed a criminal offence through what he said. If a good film of him had found its way to the police, he should have been (and should be) prosecuted accordingly. But what that guy did IN NO WAY justifies, excuses or is deserving of getting punched into unconsciousness. The talk on here about "community payback" is even more shocking, and is arguably worthy of law enforcement notice in and of itself.

What should happen in this case is perfectly simple: the guy should be charged with a public order offence (based on his words and actions), and the man who punched him out should be charged with either assault or ABH. And as others have already pointed out, had that guy died of a brain haemorrhage (either from the punch itself or from hitting his head on the way down), the man who punched him should have found himself charged with murder.


* For the avoidance of doubt, "self-defence" here does not apply to someone haraguing you or others with words (no matter how vile or obscene), and nor does it apply to someone squaring up to you. In colloquial terms, the act of punching somebody out could really only be viewed as self-defence (or a judicial defence in general) if the other person had either a) started a physical assault upon you without other weapons, b) was committing a serious crime (eg rape) upon another person, c) was coming at you or another person with a deadly weapon such as a knife, or d) brandished a firearm in such a way as you reasonably thought was going to be used on you or another person. None of these apply in the situation under discussion.
In th US, there is a principle of "fighting words" which can be used in defense of an assault charge.

http://topping-adv.com/2016/05/23/ca...ation-defense/
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2020, 02:38 PM   #269
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 15,891
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Easy enough:

Irrelevant, we aren't talking about people's jobs and it is furthermore false. For example in my job description as train driver it did not say anything about "assisting law enforcement officers in gathering evidence" of anything. Granted, it also didn't say anything about "convincing a fascist" but then nobody claimed that it did, that's just your strawman.


Well firstly, you seriously didn't realise that I was using the word "job" in the sense of "responsibility", and not in the sense of "occupation"?

And secondly, in your job (occupation) as train driver, did it say anything about whether, upon encountering someone shouting racist abuse on your train, you should go up to him and punch him in the face? What do you think would have happened to your job as a train driver if you had done so?



Quote:
And this is just you asserting that you are right and the I am wrong.

It is indeed. Because I am. And you are.



Quote:
In short, one irrelevant strawman and one mere assertion of "I'm right and you're wrong." So whatever thinking went on here, it wasn't of the critical kind. The whole thing's also a non-sequitur, so it's debatable whether any kind of thinking actually took place here, since even if something isn't your job then it still might be a good idea to do so. For example my job description as traindriver did not explicitly say that I should keep myself fed, yet I still do so anyway.


From what you've written, I'm not sure you understand what a strawman or a non sequitur are. Amusingly though, you almost immediately went on to exhibit both in your strange sentence about keeping yourself fed. But that aside, you appear to have completely missed the point of that post of mine. I'll try to decode it by explaining that I was stating that private individuals (or groups) are not supposed to "confront" groups such as fascists or racists, and the are explicity not allowed to carry out (non-self-defence) physical assaults upon them; rather, private individuals - if they should want to help to address groups such as fascists or racists (and they should, of course) - should assist law enforcement and the courts to prosecute them in the proper and proportionate way.

Hope that's clearer now.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2020, 02:46 PM   #270
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 11,669
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
You do realise that any punch (when not in a justified defence as I outlined a few posts upthread) is a criminal offence? Yes, some may result in a more serious criminal offence being committed. But every punch has serious consequences in any modern liberal democracy, given that the charge can be proven.
Yes, and I said as much. Also said I don't much give a **** what the law says I may or may not do. Not clear on what you are asking?
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2020, 02:47 PM   #271
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 15,891
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
In th US, there is a principle of "fighting words" which can be used in defense of an assault charge.

http://topping-adv.com/2016/05/23/ca...ation-defense/


I believe that, in respect of (for example) a physical assault charge, they're a mitigation rather than a defence to the charge. And even then, the definition of "fighting words" has progressively narrowed in the US since the SC ruling.

In England/Wales courts, it's a certainty that if a black person assaulted a white person who was using extreme racist language towards him, this would count as significant mitigation. But that would have no bearing on the charge or the trying of the charge - only in sentencing.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2020, 02:49 PM   #272
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 15,891
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Yes, and I said as much. Also said I don't much give a **** what the law says I may or may not do. Not clear on what you are asking?


It's this which I'm asking about really. Because I certainly do give a **** about what the law says I may or may not do, if it's likely to result in a criminal record and possibly a prison sentence. Those are pretty significant potential personal consequences.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2020, 02:54 PM   #273
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,533
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Well firstly, you seriously didn't realise that I was using the word "job" in the sense of "responsibility", and not in the sense of "occupation"?
That's even stupider, I have no such responsibilities whatsoever, neither to you nor to anyone else.

Quote:
I'll try to decode it by explaining that I was stating that private individuals (or groups) are not supposed to "confront" groups such as fascists or racists, and the are explicity not allowed to carry out (non-self-defence) physical assaults upon them; rather, private individuals - if they should want to help to address groups such as fascists or racists (and they should, of course) - should assist law enforcement and the courts to prosecute them in the proper and proportionate way.

Hope that's clearer now.
Yes, some random person (you) has decided to declare that individuals are not "supposed to" do something or "not allowed to" do something or "should" do something. So what? Some other random people have decided to declare something else about that. Indeed, this thread contains examples of both. You've yet to give any actual argument as to why your declaration should be preferred over other ones, all you do is just assert you're right and others wrong.

Others, on the other hand, have given an argument as to why theirs should be preferred, in the form of Hitler himself testifying as to its effectiveness. Sure, you can think that's a bad argument or a good one, but at least they tried giving one as opposed to just asserting they're right ad nauseam.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2020, 02:55 PM   #274
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,754
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Why not? He is an expert on that subject.
On the subject of how to destroy a fascist movement?

Um...no.

ETA: He dd eventually help run his own movement into the ground, of course, but that was well after the advice quoted above.
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2020, 03:00 PM   #275
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 4,910
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
I believe that, in respect of (for example) a physical assault charge, they're a mitigation rather than a defence to the charge. And even then, the definition of "fighting words" has progressively narrowed in the US since the SC ruling.

In England/Wales courts, it's a certainty that if a black person assaulted a white person who was using extreme racist language towards him, this would count as significant mitigation. But that would have no bearing on the charge or the trying of the charge - only in sentencing.
They mitigate because it is recognized by reasonable people that it is entirely possible for anyone up to and including Mother Theresa, Ghandi, Albert Schweitzer, or Mr. Spock to be goaded into assaulting someone if the instigators tone and language is sufficiently inflammatory.

I have read that Mr. Steele is declining to peruse charges against the individual who hit him. Is the State going to peruse them? If not, why not? Possibly because both Mr. Steele and the State recognize that the outcome was pretty much the inevitable one, and that that outcome was brought on by the "victim"?

He knows it was his own damn fault.

Maybe he won't be walking around thinking he is King Kong next time he gets loaded. And we can all have a little more civility in our lives.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2020, 03:01 PM   #276
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 15,891
Incidentally, and on a more metaphysical but related point:

Many people in society tend to view the laws of their society as things which are somehow divorced from society, things which somehow "appear" in this big list of rules, out of nowhere, as if there's some sort of elite set of overlords "telling us what to do".

But that emphatically is NOT how laws come about in any modern liberalised democracy. Instead, laws - in a very real sense - reflect the mores and ethics of the society in which they apply. That's why, for example, it was illegal to be a gay man in England in 1950 but of course it's no longer a crime to be a gay man in England. Public attitudes to homosexuality changed (thankfully) during the 20th Century in the UK, and this change in attitude ultimately resulted in decriminalisation. Likewise, new laws appear when society develops certain attitudes (eg in respect of terrorism). Law are made (and unmade, and strengthened, and weakened) by legislators, and we elect our legislators as members of our parliaments.

So the laws of the land are actually OUR laws. Our society, in the majority, believes that the laws are correct and proportionate. Otherwise they would (and will, and have) change. It's not a perfect system of government of course, but it's probably the least-bad one possible.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2020, 03:01 PM   #277
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,533
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
On the subject of how to destroy a fascist movement?

Um...no.
Um...yes.

If you don't want to take it from the NSDAP leadership themselves, then take it from their adversaries who did end up destroying them, the communists:

"If you cannot convince a fascist, acquaint his head with the pavement."

- paraphrazed from Leon Trotsky, 1934
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2020, 03:02 PM   #278
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 4,910
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Incidentally, and on a more metaphysical but related point:

Many people in society tend to view the laws of their society as things which are somehow divorced from society, things which somehow "appear" in this big list of rules, out of nowhere, as if there's some sort of elite set of overlords "telling us what to do".

But that emphatically is NOT how laws come about in any modern liberalised democracy. Instead, laws - in a very real sense - reflect the mores and ethics of the society in which they apply. That's why, for example, it was illegal to be a gay man in England in 1950 but of course it's no longer a crime to be a gay man in England. Public attitudes to homosexuality changed (thankfully) during the 20th Century in the UK, and this change in attitude ultimately resulted in decriminalisation. Likewise, new laws appear when society develops certain attitudes (eg in respect of terrorism). Law are made (and unmade, and strengthened, and weakened) by legislators, and we elect our legislators as members of our parliaments.

So the laws of the land are actually OUR laws. Our society, in the majority, believes that the laws are correct and proportionate. Otherwise they would (and will, and have) change. It's not a perfect system of government of course, but it's probably the least-bad one possible.
Which is why the principle of "fighting words" even exists.
Recognition that laws are for humans, and humans act like humans.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2020, 03:03 PM   #279
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,754
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Um...yes.

If you don't want to take it from the NSDAP leadership themselves, then take it from their adversaries who did end up destroying them, the communists:

"If you cannot convince a fascist, acquaint his head with the pavement."

- paraphrazed from Leon Trotsky, 1934
Not about to take advice from the communists, either. LOL.
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2020, 03:06 PM   #280
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,754
Take advice from this murderous regime! LOL no.

How about this other murderous regime? LOL also no.
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:25 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.