|
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. |
20th March 2017, 08:53 PM | #1681 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
|
I have no unusual interpretation. Fighting...on the street. As opposed to, say, in a ring.
Quote:
Quote:
Does that make my position any clearer? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words |
20th March 2017, 10:23 PM | #1682 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
|
21st March 2017, 04:26 AM | #1683 |
High Priest of Ed
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
|
|
__________________
Hamilton 68: Tracking Russian internet propaganda |
|
21st March 2017, 05:04 AM | #1684 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
You mean the state?
Quote:
Quote:
|
21st March 2017, 07:41 AM | #1685 |
High Priest of Ed
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
|
No, but how clever of you to turn our paradigms inside out and reveal this unique and surprising alternative perspective!
Oh wait, did I say clever? I meant tedious. It's also a tu quoque argument. Go ahead and what? And comes the obligatory knee jerk tu quoque deflection. Do you receive training in that? Does someone tell you that you're never to discuss criticism of your methods and ideology, but always instead to turn that criticism to something else? Well, clearly not to you or anyone else who supports a state, let alone the Israeli one, for starters. The real question is: why is it suddenly a problem now, especially when having obviously OOM less impact?[/quote] |
__________________
Hamilton 68: Tracking Russian internet propaganda |
|
21st March 2017, 07:53 AM | #1686 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,425
|
|
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
21st March 2017, 09:48 AM | #1687 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
It seems to me that Richard Spencer has taken great pains to voice his opinions in a legal, peaceable fashion that avoids incitement. You are condoning violence against him not because he has actually incited violence, but because you believe his ideas give you license to indulge in violence against him.
Do you disagree? Cite one occasion on which you believe Spencer has incited violence. Don't cite his beliefs generally: Cite a specific time and place where he uttered speech or otherwise expressed his ideas in a way that you believe was clearly inciteful. |
21st March 2017, 11:00 AM | #1688 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,694
|
|
21st March 2017, 12:35 PM | #1689 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 60,375
|
Spencer is generally very careful to avoid fighting words or inflammatory language, that does not make the crap he is peddling any more acceptable.
Problem is that Spencer's ideas have violence inherent in them;violence has to be employed in carrying them out. Look, I think Spencer has a right to spout his garbage but let's not try to portray him as some sort of reasonable man. He is still a reprehensible bigot. Or do you find reprehensible bigots acceptable so long as they irritate the "Progs"... |
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein. |
|
21st March 2017, 01:18 PM | #1690 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,624
|
|
__________________
Why bother? |
|
21st March 2017, 02:53 PM | #1691 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
Go ahead and tell us what you think the problem is with the article by the CCF you quoted. At first one might think that you have some sort of problem with what you call "using fear and intimidation to get your way"[*] but clearly, based on your earlier positions re Israel, you don't have an inherent problem with that even if it's OOM worse on the measure of "using fear and intimidation to get your way" than the CCF could be accused of.
So go ahead, Mycroft, explain in full what you consider to be the problem with that CCF statement you quoted. * and even that language and framework of understanding is pure propaganda on your part, but let's ignore that. See, that's how bad your arguments are, we can even ignore most of what's problematic about them and they still immediately fall apart. |
21st March 2017, 03:01 PM | #1692 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
|
21st March 2017, 03:23 PM | #1693 |
High Priest of Ed
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
|
|
__________________
Hamilton 68: Tracking Russian internet propaganda |
|
21st March 2017, 03:28 PM | #1694 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
Clearly not, from earlier claims you've promoted you do not hold such a position. Hence your argument is rejected.
Quote:
|
21st March 2017, 03:54 PM | #1695 |
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
|
Acceptable?
I don't approve of nor support his viewpoints. My "acceptance" isn't required no matter how I look at it. But my lack of approval and support certainly don't justify violence in response to words. And it most assuredly doesn't lead me to approve of someone else's violence against someone whose beliefs I find reprehensible. |
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian |
|
21st March 2017, 03:55 PM | #1696 |
High Priest of Ed
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
|
|
__________________
Hamilton 68: Tracking Russian internet propaganda |
|
21st March 2017, 08:08 PM | #1697 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
|
Rhetorical demand for citation? You say yourself Spencer does not deliver deliberately inflammatory rhetoric designed to rouse the rabble. He is also a cowardly liar (in his famous 'getting punched' video, he is asked if he likes black people. He nonchalantly responds 'Sure, why not?' I don't believe it needs to be demonstrated that this is a bald-faced lie). His infamous 'Hail Victory' following President Trump's inauguration and tweets such as 'The [New England] Patriots even call their Blacks 'White' [referring to running back James White]' tend to create verbal or physical confrontations, even if unintentional, per the Wikipedia definition of fighting words. So yes, I think his publicly declared beliefs suffice to be fighting words.
|
21st March 2017, 08:45 PM | #1698 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,694
|
All those things are dick moves, none are worthy of violence. None are even worthy of condoning violence against him. I always considered myself on the low end of normal as to how high my bar is for responding with violence or condoning others committing it. I have a bit of a survivalist streak , I believe in putting your money where your mouth is if you are going to threaten someone, and in general that being able and willing to defend yourself to the best of your ability is more responsibility than right.
Check any post I have made in threads involving weapons, self defense, or any similar topic (hell I'd say a decent chunk of threads I have started could be classified as such. ) and I believe the general consensus is that I'm a bit liberal to say the least writh my views on how easily one should resort to force. I want to say this, because I would like to underline my point of reference when I say, if your bar for violence is set at these examples, it is much too low. Absurdly low, so much so that a team of trained dwarves have been mining for the last 5 years to set it. Seriously, if those are examples, even moderate ones of what you consider worthy of violence or even condoning violence, you should seriously think about a more peaceful philosophy. This is coming from a user whos only thread worth mentioning is about knives. Let that sink in. |
21st March 2017, 10:35 PM | #1699 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
I'm not going to bother looking it up again, so let's quickly do a rerun of the important bit:
Are you opposed to the state? If no, do you concede that "using fear and intimidation to get what you want" is (part of) the modus operandi of the state?
Quote:
|
22nd March 2017, 08:47 AM | #1700 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
|
Agreed on self-defense. I have spent the better part of my adult life in sparring gear, and have had the opportunity to test its effectiveness, like many have. Upthread, you made comments on what you thought my beliefs were, I asked you to clarify because they were way off (you didn't). For clarity, because you don't seem to get it: I don't personally attack anyone. But I understand that others can have a whole different way of seeing things, and are entitled to their different worldview. A white supremacist is mostly just a cowardly douche to me, but I can empathize with someone for whom it cuts closer to the bone. That's when an 'opinion' can become fighting words. Try to picture being black, and hearing Spencer say that the N.E Pats call their blacks White. Oh, yeah. Them's fighting words.
Quote:
Quote:
|
22nd March 2017, 09:20 AM | #1701 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,694
|
|
22nd March 2017, 09:33 AM | #1702 | ||
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
|
How so, sadhatter? I say responding to fighting words with fighting can be acceptable, but that those involved are still subject to rule of law and the possibility of either punishment or jury nullification. What is wrong or cowardly about that?
ETA: and I am peaceful, no matter what you project on me. I say with no small amount of pride that I have not even tried to hit anyone in anger for over a quarter century, despite a few assaults and breaking up fights.
|
||
22nd March 2017, 09:36 AM | #1703 |
High Priest of Ed
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
|
Because you know it's not there to find, and have a peculiar inability to admit to being wrong when you overstep.
Are you kidding? You blow off every question I put to you but somehow think you can interrogate me? I'll tell you what, answer a few questions of mine and I'll answer yours. We can put the "di" back in "dialog". Do you think getting your way by fear and intimidation is wrong? I hope you realize that my being consistent or not has nothing to do with whether breaking windows, burning cars and sending letter bombs is using fear and intimidation to get your way. Correct? |
__________________
Hamilton 68: Tracking Russian internet propaganda |
|
22nd March 2017, 09:52 AM | #1704 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,694
|
I seem to have hit a nerve, you have resorted to literal name calling and trying to prove yourself manly.
But fact remains your bar for condoning violence is lower than someone who is seen as heavy handed in regards to self defense. Objectively you are a more violent person than I, if this bothers you, which is obvious it does, I can't change that, only you can. Get on that, if ya could. |
22nd March 2017, 12:43 PM | #1705 |
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
|
I disagree with your assessment.
First, I don't believe that your assessment of what constitutes "fighting words" is in keeping with current legal interpretations. For consideration: https://www.thefire.org/misconceptio...rds-exception/ Secondly, I think your application of "fighting words" is flawed. Fighting words aren't protected free speech - which means that they are allowed to be censored by law. That doesn't mean that they are accepted justification for violence. At the end of the day, regardless of whether you think they constitute fighting words or not, those words neither justify nor excuse acts of violence in response. |
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian |
|
22nd March 2017, 01:11 PM | #1706 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
It's only rhetorical if empty rhetoric is all you have.
Quote:
Quote:
Cowardice does not justify violence. Lying does not justify violence. Even the two things together do not justify violence. Also, cowardice and lying are not the same as fascism, Nazism, or any other -ism that you have so far listed as justifying a violent response. This is either special pleading, or else horrific antisocial madness on your part. Okay, now to unpack. "Cowardly liar"? Think about this. He could have answered the question in an inflammatory way, but he didn't. Instead he gave an answer that was much less aggravating. It may be a lie, but it's totally reasonable. People lie about their beliefs all the time, to avoid confrontation. In many situations, it's the polite thing to do. Discretion is the better part of valor, but to you it's an excuse to beat them up. Punching someone because you think they're lying is the bully's art. Punching someone because you think they're lying is the wife-beater's art. Punching someone because you think they're lying is the torturer's art. That's where we're at, now: You say it's okay to punch Spencer for lying about what he really believes. Of course, if he told you the truth about what he believes, you'd say it was okay to punch him for that, too. So it's not really about punching him for being a liar. It's about punching him for what he really believes. Or rather, it's about punching him for what you imagine he really believes. Not only can you not give any real examples of incitement to violence, you can't even cite his actual beliefs. Punch him for lying about what he believes? That you can condone, even though you have no idea what those beliefs are.
Quote:
Again, to be clear: none of these are fascism. If offensive jokes on Twitter are the bar for violence, there should be a lot more people in the ER with concussions from well-earned elbows to the head. There should be a lot of comedians, pundits, and incontinent corporate spokespeople walking around with richly-deserved broken noses and black eyes. Finally, "tend to create verbal confrontations"? That's how low your bar is? If you'd said he deserved to be heckled for lying about his beliefs, or for his tasteless tweets, that would be one thing. But you're saying he deserves to be beaten. Not for actually inciting violence, not even for actually advocating a racially segregated fascist state (does he even do that? do you even know?) but for lying about his beliefs (you think) and for telling bad jokes on twitter. At this point, you have done more to promote violence and undermine civil society than Richard Spencer. |
22nd March 2017, 07:39 PM | #1707 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
|
|
22nd March 2017, 08:07 PM | #1708 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
|
Agreed, but I already said as much (and thank you for the link):
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat
Quote:
|
22nd March 2017, 09:19 PM | #1709 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
|
Agreed, but that is not remotely being argued. You demanded a citation where Spencer specifically incites violence. I pointed out that Spencer lies about his views out of convenience, so his speech will not always be a reliable indicator of his position. His more private speaking and website publishing I think are more revealing than what he has the courage (or lack thereof) to say in public. No justifications regarding lying or cowardice.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
23rd March 2017, 04:58 AM | #1710 |
High Priest of Ed
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
|
|
__________________
Hamilton 68: Tracking Russian internet propaganda |
|
23rd March 2017, 08:29 AM | #1711 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
|
Forgot to reply to this while responding to the larger red herring argument:
You say Spencer was prudent to publicly lie for fear of being aggravating, inflammatory, and confrontational. Does that not rather clearly suggest that his words would otherwise have incited a violent reaction? That they might be...you guessed it...fighting words? You also seem to suggest that lying was the polite thing to do. No. His comments about minorities are delivered without regard for politeness. It was simply cowardice- to start firing off his racist tripe on a public street would likely get him more than a rebuking punch. To repeat, though, his lying and cowardice have nothing to do with anything but his credibility as a speaker.
Quote:
|
23rd March 2017, 01:03 PM | #1712 |
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
|
Glad it was useful
I cant' think of a situation where I would consider violence in response to "fighting words" to be self-defense... Fighting words don't qualify as credible threats. I wouldn't condone juries nullifying clear violations of a just and fair law just because they think someone else's beliefs deserve such a response. I would find that to be more a threat to a just society than any words could be, and to stand against the foundations of the US. |
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian |
|
23rd March 2017, 02:02 PM | #1713 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,726
|
Whatever. Get used to it. The Liberals have changed. from now on, there we be less holding hands about the campfire while singing "Kumbaya", and more punching conservatives and Tea Partiers and Alt right and such in the mouth until they learn to keep their mouth closed.
|
23rd March 2017, 05:06 PM | #1714 |
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
|
|
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian |
|
23rd March 2017, 06:26 PM | #1715 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
|
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division. |
|
23rd March 2017, 06:38 PM | #1716 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,726
|
|
23rd March 2017, 07:34 PM | #1717 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,694
|
|
23rd March 2017, 07:54 PM | #1718 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,726
|
You mean the same adults who elected Trump?
I don't think so....and it's not my mess. Anyways, I figure the people who elected Trump are Power junkies - unlike the better people, brute force impresses them. So, I figure the Liberals have come to the conclusion that a "Punch in the Mouth" works better with guys like these than a respectful, well-reasoned argument. I figure the Libs have concluded that Trump Supporters are just dumb animals, and they should be dealt with as such. In the future...I advise you to stop taking everything so personally. |
23rd March 2017, 08:27 PM | #1719 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
|
Ok, that's fair. Self-defense is admittedly a stretch. In most (all?) U.S. States, the idea of provocation is still a mitigating factor when considering guilt and sentencing. The courts do consider whether one was provoked into violence; I think my POV is only a small step beyond the current legal views (Imma have to dig in my heels about being a threat to civilized society). Do you agree that provocation is a mitigating factor? If so, is it possible that publicly voicing hateful views could constitute a form of preemptive provocation? At least possibly?
Quote:
|
23rd March 2017, 08:42 PM | #1720 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,726
|
No they don't but, they can easily negate the self-defense "Defense". For example, if some guy talks to a Mexican or a Biker about his Gonads on his Mother's Chin, then whatever happens next may not be determined "self defense". Self-Defense, would be conflict de-escalation...and no provocation! Many people lose sight of this and end up on the wrong side of the law too often. Lots of guys in Prison for this. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|