IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


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 27th March 2017, 03:12 PM   #1761
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,624
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Untrue, unfair, and a blatant strawman. I assert outright that the measures they took were likely in preparation for being attacked by the marchers, as Trump supporters are known to be violent towards those with whom they disagree.
Bull.

Well, judging from past protests (like the one this thread is based on) I would say that the anti-Trumpers are far more likely to be violent than the Trump supporters.

Masked anti-Trumpers used pepper spray and carried baseball bats to the Berkeley riot, as well as other events. Some of these people want violence so that they can show everyone how bad Trump supporters are.

If others out there feel the same way you do about violence then it's really not surprising is it?
__________________
Why bother?

Last edited by mgidm86; 27th March 2017 at 03:13 PM.
mgidm86 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 27th March 2017, 07:43 PM   #1762
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
You wrote "forming a human wall." And then claimed that the Pro-Trump marchers "closed in on them."

Meaning, of course, the "human wall" which they had constructed. That is what we call the "they were coming right for me!" defense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt6kKhlX8vU
Getting a little slippery with the quoting. I wrote 'the protesters claimed they were forming a human wall.' The full quote from varwoche's link:

Quote:
Counter-protesters said before the march began that they planned to try to stop the march's progress with a "human wall."
They evidently had not done so, as seen in the videos and photos. But even so, is joining hands to form a human wall not a legitimate form of protest? Is a sit-in then also 'asking for it'? More to the point, there were 20-30 counter protesters, and two thousand or so marchers. They could literally walk around a human wall so small, even if it had been formed. By 'closing in', I obviously refer to the violence that the Trump supporters demonstrably instigated: in case you missed it, pro-Trumps attacked the media for the opening move.
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 27th March 2017, 08:47 PM   #1763
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
Bull.

Well, judging from past protests (like the one this thread is based on) I would say that the anti-Trumpers are far more likely to be violent than the Trump supporters.

Masked anti-Trumpers used pepper spray and carried baseball bats to the Berkeley riot, as well as other events. Some of these people want violence so that they can show everyone how bad Trump supporters are.
I would disagree that the masked crew was specifically anti-Trumpers. From your OP article:

Quote:
The protest turned violent around 6 p.m. when dozens of masked anarchists, dressed in black and wearing backpacks, emerged from the otherwise peaceful crowd.
Sounds like the actual protesters were peaceful, and the hell-raisers had assimilated into them. From another article covering Berkeley (linked below):

Quote:
“We had a controlled environment up until the moment when the black bloc arrived,” Bennett said. Black bloc protesters, who dress in all black and keep their faces covered with bandannas, have become a fixture of Bay Area demonstrations in the past decade, particularly in Oakland. They tend to attach themselves to peaceful protests before breaking out to start shattering windows and vandalizing property.
I think the posters here who assume the Berkeley rioters were anti-Milo/Trump have it all wrong. They may be anti-Trump, but they are just as anti-Clinton (a corporatist) They...just...want...to...bust...****...up.


Quote:
If others out there feel the same way you do about violence then it's really not surprising is it?
The way I feel about violence? You mean how I avoid it, and do not use it against others? Or do you mean how I don't buy into the canned narrative that the poor 'lil Trump supporters are being beaten up on by the bad ol' Left? Don't forget, the Orange County 'scuffle' was reported to have been started by pro-Trumpers attacking the media.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...201-story.html
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 27th March 2017, 09:15 PM   #1764
Jules Galen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,726
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Who gets to decide when specific words mean you're guilty of the other guy punching you out?
If you purposevely contribute to violence through words, the you can not wholly claim self defense.

For example, if some guy where I live walks up to a huge bike and starts bad-mouthing his mother, and then a fight begins where Biker is "shot in self defense", then guy who shot the Biker can't really claim "self defense" and hope to get away with it.

I mean, if you let this kind of baloney slide (i.e, read above), then you set up situations where someone can provoke another attack with the sole purpose of killing them in self defense.

For this reason, I was very upset at the charges that were pressed against George Zimmerman, considering he did everything he could to provoke Trayvon to attack....and then killed Trayvon in "self defense".
Jules Galen 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 27th March 2017, 09:23 PM   #1765
Meadmaker
Guest
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
. But even so, is joining hands to form a human wall not a legitimate form of protest?
Legitimate? What an interesting question. As if some sorts of protest could be legitimate, while others not.

On the other hand, there's the question of legality. Generally, forming a barrier and preventing people from using public space would be illegal. The right to peaceably assemble is guaranteed in the constitution, but by forming a human chain to restrict movement, they've moved beyond peaceable, into the realm of physical force. The Trump supporters themselves would probably need a permit, or they would be, at the very least, required to allow free access to the areas on which they were assembling.

I'm sure there is a lot of case law deciding when a group can or cannot get together in public spaces, but my guess is that any action which deliberately blocks either vehicle or foot traffic would be illegal. Any action where such restriction would be an inevitable consequence, i.e. because you are having a horde of marchers in the street and they will block traffic due to the sheer number of people, will require a permit.


Quote:
Is a sit-in then also 'asking for it'?
Uhhh....yeah. Is this a trick question? Most sit ins are illegal. They are generally conducted on someone else's property. The point of them is generally to do something that forces someone to either take you seriously, possibly giving in to your demands, or arrest you, creating really bad publicity.
Meadmaker 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 27th March 2017, 10:58 PM   #1766
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Could you clarify this? It could mean a couple different things (or nothing at all).
If the anti-fascist protesters wouldn't be there, would that stop the fascists from being violent? No. If the fascists wouldn't be there, would that stop the anti-fascists from being violent? Yes. Heck, would that stop the anti-fascists from even showing up in the first place? Yes.

You presenting this as a brawl likely whenever the "two sides meet" ignores that the presence of the other side is only a decisive factor for one side.

Quote:
Yes, but the expose` was mostly posting the personal information of individuals, exactly the kind of thing the good guys tend not to do.
Apparently there was some comparative propaganda film study which found that US films portrayed the Soviets as the "bad guys" and themselves as the "good guys" whereas Soviet films portrayed Americans as naive and misled by their leaders.

Quote:
Protesting and demonstrating for ideology is one thing
Which ideology exactly are we talking about here?

Quote:
and posting the equivalent of online Wanted Posters is another
What equivalent of online wanted posters?
caveman1917 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 27th March 2017, 11:53 PM   #1767
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Legitimate? What an interesting question. As if some sorts of protest could be legitimate, while others not.
Of course some could be legitimate and others not. Why does this seem odd? For example, if someone robbed a marijuana dispensary claiming that they were protesting a gasoline tax, I would opine that that was not a legitimate form of protest.

Quote:
On the other hand, there's the question of legality.
The primary definition of 'legitimate' (linked below) is: according to law; lawful. Isn't it odd that you make such a strong distinction between that and 'legality'?

Quote:
Generally, forming a barrier and preventing people from using public space would be illegal. The right to peaceably assemble is guaranteed in the constitution, but by forming a human chain to restrict movement, they've moved beyond peaceable, into the realm of physical force. The Trump supporters themselves would probably need a permit, or they would be, at the very least, required to allow free access to the areas on which they were assembling.
I'm sure there is a lot of case law deciding when a group can or cannot get together in public spaces, but my guess is that any action which deliberately blocks either vehicle or foot traffic would be illegal. Any action where such restriction would be an inevitable consequence, i.e. because you are having a horde of marchers in the street and they will block traffic due to the sheer number of people, will require a permit.
In an article linked below, Berkeley students form a human wall to prevent only white students access to a bridge leading to campus, forcing many to hop from rock to rock across a stream to cross. In the included video, you may note that police were on scene throughout. While I am not familiar with Cali law, it would seem that restricting freedom of movement as a form of protest is in perfectly legal...even in this case where it was racially motivated (although the protesters were in fact protesting which floor their groups 'safe space' was on. You can't make this stuff up).

Quote:
Uhhh....yeah. Is this a trick question? Most sit ins are illegal. They are generally conducted on someone else's property. The point of them is generally to do something that forces someone to either take you seriously, possibly giving in to your demands, or arrest you, creating really bad publicity.
Not a trick question, but I think you missed it's point. TBD said you cannot claim self-defense if you are attacked when you have knowingly exposed yourself to a 'threat'. I disagree with this, and a sit-in serves as a good illustration: just because you engage in protest, it does not give others the right to assault you or negate your ability to claim self-defense against an assault.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/legitimate

http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/26/vi...rs-built-a-hum
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 28th March 2017, 12:20 AM   #1768
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
If the anti-fascist protesters wouldn't be there, would that stop the fascists from being violent? No. If the fascists wouldn't be there, would that stop the anti-fascists from being violent? Yes. Heck, would that stop the anti-fascists from even showing up in the first place? Yes.

You presenting this as a brawl likely whenever the "two sides meet" ignores that the presence of the other side is only a decisive factor for one side.
I disagree that those who you call the anti-fascists would stop being violent. I think they would develop a more serious concern with the corporatist Left. Or the apathetic Center. Or the paperboy.

Quote:
Apparently there was some comparative propaganda film study which found that US films portrayed the Soviets as the "bad guys" and themselves as the "good guys" whereas Soviet films portrayed Americans as naive and misled by their leaders.
...uh...good to know...

Quote:
Which ideology exactly are we talking about here?
In context, pretty much any.

Quote:
What equivalent of online wanted posters?
If you forgot, please reread. If you are playing that weird game where you feign having no idea what is being discussed, then nevermind.
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 28th March 2017, 12:41 AM   #1769
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
I disagree that those who you call the anti-fascists would stop being violent.
Your disagreement is meaningless. If, on the other hand, you have evidence then feel free to share it.

Quote:
...uh...good to know...
And hence so much for empty appeals to what purportedly "good guys" would do - if even the official Soviet propaganda machine can beat you on that kind of "argument" then that is quite telling as to its strength.

Quote:
In context, pretty much any.
In context there is so far only fascism. Feel free to point out these "pretty much any" ideologies for which was purportedly being protested.

Quote:
If you forgot, please reread.
I didn't forget, I'm calling BS on it.
caveman1917 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 28th March 2017, 03:05 AM   #1770
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
At least berkeley is better than University of Kentucky. More violence after the poor performance of their team

http://www.kentucky.com/news/local/c...140926328.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/co...icle-1.3009991

When will colleges crack down on these violent sportspeople?

When will the violence of these sportsers be address and ruthlessly suppressed as it should be?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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 28th March 2017, 03:30 AM   #1771
applecorped
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 20,145
applecorped 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 28th March 2017, 06:21 AM   #1772
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Getting a little slippery with the quoting. I wrote 'the protesters claimed they were forming a human wall.' The full quote from varwoche's link:



They evidently had not done so, as seen in the videos and photos. But even so, is joining hands to form a human wall not a legitimate form of protest? Is a sit-in then also 'asking for it'? More to the point, there were 20-30 counter protesters, and two thousand or so marchers. They could literally walk around a human wall so small, even if it had been formed. By 'closing in', I obviously refer to the violence that the Trump supporters demonstrably instigated: in case you missed it, pro-Trumps attacked the media for the opening move.
Physically stopping a protest by creating a wall is not a legitimate form of protest.

It is a physical confrontation, of course.
The Big Dog 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 28th March 2017, 08:22 AM   #1773
Stout
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,449
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
If the anti-fascist protesters wouldn't be there, would that stop the fascists from being violent? No. If the fascists wouldn't be there, would that stop the anti-fascists from being violent? Yes. Heck, would that stop the anti-fascists from even showing up in the first place? Yes.

You presenting this as a brawl likely whenever the "two sides meet" ignores that the presence of the other side is only a decisive factor for one side.
This reads just plain weird.

Are you trying to say that it's somehow the MAGA marchers fault that antifa terrorists showed up with chemical weapons ? That had the MAGA marchers just stayed home then none of this would have happened ?
Stout 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 28th March 2017, 08:32 AM   #1774
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
Originally Posted by Jules Galen View Post
That's not how it works at all. See, ya' punch a loud-mouthed right-winger in the mouth and he goes home, and stays home. He quits talking and he doesn't vote. Because he ashamed of being whipped. That's why Liberals punch right-wingers in the mouth.

And it's going to happen more and more as Liberals figure oout that they can not reason with the right-wing hate.

If ya' don't like it...if ya' find it shocking...then, what can I say, It's just the way things are going to happen.

Yeah, there are a lot of derogatory terms the Right uses: Pinko, Libtard, Tree-hugger, bleeding-heart, Moonbat...but those days are coming to a close, with a punch-in-the-mouth.
See, ya' punch a loud-mouthed woman in the mouth and she goes home, and stays home. She quits talking and she doesn't vote. Because she intimidated by being whipped. That's why Men punch women in the mouth.

And it's going to happen more and more as Men figure out that they can not reason with women.

If ya' don't like it...if ya' find it shocking...then, what can I say, It's just the way things are going to happen.

Yeah, there are a lot of derogatory terms women uses: Patriarchal society, male-dominated, mansplaining...but those days are coming to a close, with a punch-in-the-mouth.


Way to argue zealously for conformity through intimidation! You'd have made an excellent inquisitor.
__________________
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

Last edited by Emily's Cat; 28th March 2017 at 08:38 AM.
Emily's Cat 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 28th March 2017, 08:33 AM   #1775
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 17,528
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Of course they did, that's what neo-nazis do during and surrounding their rallies. I even provided a fairly in-depth exposé of these particular so-called "Trump supporters" just a couple of posts ago.
BS of a high order. I followed your highly diffuse link. It informed me of precisely nothing as relating to the events in Orange County (or anything else for that matter).

Sharpen your pencil please.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche 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 28th March 2017, 08:43 AM   #1776
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by Jules Galen View Post
If you purposevely contribute to violence through words, the you can not wholly claim self defense.
The biker example you give is easy, and I've used it myself, but how about more subtle things? How about a situation where someone argues in favour of economic protectionism, and it really, really offends a second person. The first person knew that, and talked about it anyway. Would that purposely contribute to violence if person #2 were to punch person #1?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 28th March 2017, 08:46 AM   #1777
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Your disagreement is meaningless. If, on the other hand, you have evidence then feel free to share it.
Shifting the burden of proof, I see. Ok: I have no reason to think that all those who claim to be anti-fascist have identical goals and motivations, nor do I have any reason to believe that they are solely motivated to action based on marches, nor do I have reason to believe that they act in worldwide unison. Your comments suggest that this is the case. 'Feel free to present your evidence' to support your claim.

Quote:
And hence so much for empty appeals to what purportedly "good guys" would do - if even the official Soviet propaganda machine can beat you on that kind of "argument" then that is quite telling as to its strength.
Non-sequitur. We are not discussing respective propaganda presentation. We are discussing the purpose of posting personal information of protestors, complete with bios, employment, and pictures. You seem to claim that antifa are maintaining a 'Who's Who' socialite gossip page. Do you have another reason to post the personal information of specific protestors? 'Feel free to present your evidence' of what legitimate service these postings provide.

Quote:
In context there is so far only fascism. Feel free to point out these "pretty much any" ideologies for which was purportedly being protested.
The context of the comment you replied to was general. Protesting and demonstrating for your political and social beliefs are a cherished right for many of us. Posting detailed personal information about opposition members (not even public leader type figures) serves no reasonable purpose other than to target them. 'Feel free to present evidence' that it serves some legitimate purpose.

Quote:
I didn't forget, I'm calling BS on it.
No, you said 'What Wanted posters?' when I specifically addressed what I was referring to. Just present your argument bro, stop with the rhetorical pretense of innocence/ignorance.
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 28th March 2017, 08:56 AM   #1778
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Physically stopping a protest by creating a wall is not a legitimate form of protest.

It is a physical confrontation, of course.
I'm not so sure. Did you note the link to the Berkeley human wall posted above in post #1767? The police were even on site throughout to make sure there was no violence, which would be odd if the protest method was illegal, as you say.

But all a red herring anyway. The Orange County counter-protestors only claimed that they were going to form a wall to a journalist. They evidently did not, so going back to your original comment: the protestors certainly could claim self-defense, as they had not assaulted the marchers, contrary to your claim.
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 28th March 2017, 08:58 AM   #1779
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
Originally Posted by Stout View Post
This reads just plain weird.

Are you trying to say that it's somehow the MAGA marchers fault that antifa terrorists showed up with chemical weapons ? That had the MAGA marchers just stayed home then none of this would have happened ?
I think that caveman1917 is saying that fascists are the raison d'etre for antifas, and the latter would have no reason to exist without the former.
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 28th March 2017, 09:01 AM   #1780
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
How about this:

The counter protesters claimed they were forming a human wall in a legal protest, abt 30 counter-protesters against 2000 marchers. Based on the link, sounds like only a few of the counter-protesters had spray, and used it when the 2000 Trupmeters had closed in on them, possibly with enough menace as to pose a credible threat to the safety of the few opposers. Then the Trumpeters apparently beat one to the ground, kicking and punching him. Sounds like a violent mob attacking some civil counter-protesters (who were prepared for self-defense by bringing spray) to me. Anything in the link to rule out this scenario?
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
I'm not so sure. Did you note the link to the Berkeley human wall posted above in post #1767? The police were even on site throughout to make sure there was no violence, which would be odd if the protest method was illegal, as you say.

But all a red herring anyway. The Orange County counter-protestors only claimed that they were going to form a wall to a journalist. They evidently did not, so going back to your original comment: the protestors certainly could claim self-defense, as they had not assaulted the marchers, contrary to your claim.
I was simply referring to your hypothetical. Are you now asserting that they did not form a wall? Then why did you say it was a "legal protest"?
The Big Dog 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 28th March 2017, 09:20 AM   #1781
Stout
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,449
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post

But all a red herring anyway. The Orange County counter-protestors only claimed that they were going to form a wall to a journalist. They evidently did not, so going back to your original comment: the protestors certainly could claim self-defense, as they had not assaulted the marchers, contrary to your claim.
Here's a news article that says the protesters actually did block the march.

Originally Posted by Reuters
The fights appeared to start in the early afternoon when around a dozen anti-Trump protesters dressed in all black refused to move from a bike path to allow a larger group of pro-Trump supporters taking part in the Make America Great Again rally to pass. The confrontation escalated into a fight with more skirmishes quickly breaking out.
Stout 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 28th March 2017, 09:32 AM   #1782
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I was simply referring to your hypothetical. Are you now asserting that they did not form a wall? Then why did you say it was a "legal protest"?
I think this part is the confusion. The Orange Co article reports that 'the protestors claimed that they were forming a human wall'. I shortened this to 'the protesters were going to form a human wall'. I am not claiming they did so one way or the other, but that the on-site reporting suggested they did not.

A small counter protest would be legit one way or the other though, wouldn't it?
Why would the counter-protestors not be able to claim self-defense against an assault by the marchers, as you originally claimed?

Last edited by Thermal; 28th March 2017 at 09:47 AM. Reason: wrong wordy things
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 28th March 2017, 09:43 AM   #1783
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
Originally Posted by Stout View Post
Fair enough, I had seen the Reuters article too. But I cited the LA Times article because it had first hand reporting from eyewitness journalists on the scene. Reuters makes no such claim, and is worded as if it is second-hand reporting. Is it reasonable to give more weight to the on-site journalists?
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 28th March 2017, 09:46 AM   #1784
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
I think this part is the confusion. The Orange Co article reports that 'the protestors claimed that they were going to form a human wall'. I shortened this to 'the protesters were going to form a human wall'. I am not claiming they did so one way or the other, but that the on-site reporting suggested they did not.

A small counter protest would be legit one way or the other though, wouldn't it?
Why would the counter-protestors not be able to claim self-defense against an assault by the marchers, as you originally claimed?
well it has been established that they did indeed physically block the march.
The Big Dog 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 28th March 2017, 09:50 AM   #1785
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
well it has been established that they did indeed physically block the march.
By second-hand reporting. Still, your original comment was that you cannot claim self defense if you are assaulted when you put yourself in a possibly confrontational situation. Am I reading that correctly?
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 28th March 2017, 09:55 AM   #1786
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Fair enough, I had seen the Reuters article too. But I cited the LA Times article because it had first hand reporting from eyewitness journalists on the scene. Reuters makes no such claim, and is worded as if it is second-hand reporting. Is it reasonable to give more weight to the on-site journalists?
In fact the author of the Reuters piece is credited as the photographer as well and thus was, as you say, on-site.
The Big Dog 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 28th March 2017, 09:56 AM   #1787
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
By second-hand reporting. Still, your original comment was that you cannot claim self defense if you are assaulted when you put yourself in a possibly confrontational situation. Am I reading that correctly?
Your second hand reporting claim is false.

You are not reading my claim correctly.

The counter-protesters initiated the physical confrontation by physically blocking the march.
The Big Dog 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 28th March 2017, 10:00 AM   #1788
Stout
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,449
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
I think that caveman1917 is saying that fascists are the raison d'etre for antifas, and the latter would have no reason to exist without the former.
Yea, maybe. Like I said the quote reads weird and that would be a very generous interpretation.

We could also look at one of the antifa's claims for the reason behind their being there, which was to crush the conservative "revolution"

Quote:
“We aren’t going to start fights, but we are going to try to stop them from completing their march,” said Byron Lopez, a counter rally organizer who expects 100 to 200 supporters from an array of groups.

<snip>

Lopez said if there are any violent clashes his group would try to “de-escalate” the conflict.

“We’re not looking to start anything,” he said.

Asked about the reason for the counter rally, Lopez said, “Because this is where the conservative revolution came from. With the rise of Trump has come the rise of hyper-nationalism and we aren’t just going to let that happen.”
Building a human wall to try to stop a patriotic celebration isn't trying to start something ? Blasting off chemical weapons is deescalating ? Interesting use of language that is.
Stout 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 28th March 2017, 10:05 AM   #1789
Meadmaker
Guest
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Of course some could be legitimate and others not. Why does this seem odd? For example, if someone robbed a marijuana dispensary claiming that they were protesting a gasoline tax, I would opine that that was not a legitimate form of protest.



The primary definition of 'legitimate' (linked below) is: according to law; lawful. Isn't it odd that you make such a strong distinction between that and 'legality'?
Interesting. I tend to think of that definition as somewhat archaic, except in specific contexts. However, I will gladly defer to dictionary.com on this matter.

In which case, forming a "human wall" is not a legitimate form of protest, because it prevents people from accessing public property which they have a right to access. If I don't want you to use a park, I do not have the right to stop you from using a park. The same goes for a bike path, a road, whatever.





Quote:
In an article linked below, Berkeley students form a human wall to prevent only white students access to a bridge leading to campus, forcing many to hop from rock to rock across a stream to cross. In the included video, you may note that police were on scene throughout. While I am not familiar with Cali law, it would seem that restricting freedom of movement as a form of protest is in perfectly legal...
What is legal and what the cops will enforce in a particular situation are two different things. More often than not, if no one is getting hurt, the cops won't stop a protest, even if it happens to be illegal, because it could escalate to a riot and all sorts of bad things can happen. So if you block the streets to whine about your favorite pet cause, the cops will probably let you do it because busting up your protest might lead to greater injury or property damage. However, if you do it often enough, or are enough of a nuisance, and there are few enough of you that they can dispose of you without too much grief, you are breaking the law and are subject to arrest as a result.

Quote:
Not a trick question, but I think you missed it's point. TBD said you cannot claim self-defense if you are attacked when you have knowingly exposed yourself to a 'threat'. I disagree with this, and a sit-in serves as a good illustration: just because you engage in protest, it does not give others the right to assault you or negate your ability to claim self-defense against an assault.

Got it. You are correct. The "he was asking for it" defense against an assault charge pretty much never works anymore. It might convince a prosecutor or the police to ignore you, but if it gets to court, the assaulter will lose.

Applying this to sit ins, if you assault some sitters, you will lose. On the other hand, if you call the police, and the police arrest the sitters, possibly using violent force against resisting sitters, the sitters will lose.

If there are enough sitters, though, and they aren't causing too much trouble, the police and prosecutors will probably just let you hang out for a while to make your point, as long as no one gets hurt.



Where it gets really tricky is when people have a right to be where they are, but then a fight breaks out. Now exactly who do you blame, and possibly arrest, for the violence? In this case, I have insufficient data to say who ought to be charged. However, if one side has a parade permit, and the other side has masks and pepper spray, I'm going to be immediately suspicious of the masked folks.
Meadmaker 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 28th March 2017, 10:08 AM   #1790
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
In fact the author of the Reuters piece is credited as the photographer as well and thus was, as you say, on-site.
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Your second hand reporting claim is false.

You are not reading my claim correctly.

The counter-protesters initiated the physical confrontation by physically blocking the march.
Good catch, I stand corrected. What is not clear is whether the bike path was blocked by 'a dozen or so' protestors first (it would seem that there would be photos of this), or if the Times is correct in reporting that the pro-Trump supporters were the aggressors. If the marchers were the aggressors, as reported, then you suggest that non-violent standing in a bike path warrants assault?
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 28th March 2017, 10:11 AM   #1791
Meadmaker
Guest
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
I think the point about the threat is all about the idea of preemptive self defense.

In colloquial terms, there are times when you can throw the fist punch, but claim it was self defense. If you can convince the jury that you had reasonable fear of a pending assault, the fact that the assault has not yet occurred does not prevent you from claiming you were defending yourself.

If your claim is that you felt threatened because you were surrounded by scary people, and therefore had a right to whip out the pepper spray in self defense, you will likely lose if you deliberately surrounded yourself with scary people. In order to win the case of preemptive self defense, you would have to say that you were present and conducting yourself in a civilized manner, when a mob started threatening you. If you were engaging in any sort of aggression yourself, you are not likely to be able to claim the right of preemptive self defense.
Meadmaker 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 28th March 2017, 10:15 AM   #1792
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
If the marchers were the aggressors, as reported, then you suggest that non-violent standing in a bike path warrants assault?
Non-violent standing in the bike path?

You know, there comes a point where spinning the facts to make one side seem innocent really becomes a waste of time, doesn't it?

They were not non-violently standing in the path, they were, as the organizer said they intended to do, physically blocking the path and as such, asserting that they could reasonably claim self defense where they intentionally initiated the physical confrontation is specious.
The Big Dog 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 28th March 2017, 10:48 AM   #1793
Stout
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,449
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
By second-hand reporting. Still, your original comment was that you cannot claim self defense if you are assaulted when you put yourself in a possibly confrontational situation. Am I reading that correctly?
Maybe you would prefer something first hand then, OK, how about something from the 21 year old intern at the OC weekly , someone who was actually there.

Quote:
As it headed south, counter-protesters formed a wall along the bike trail, holding a banner and trying to block the coming crowd. Trump supporters began pushing through gaps, and a struggle ensued.
Interesting use of language in that article as well. It goes on and on about the bad breath of some woman at the march ( three mentions ) "tokens", fat people, middle aged, white people. It's almost like it was written by an SJWs who hate Trumpers so much they let their professionalism get away from them and if that's the case, no wonder yourn Tristan got himself involved in the fracas.

ETA....Forgot the funniest part of that article, the one where the antifa chant "All the walls have to go, Palestine to Mexico." and then they go and build their own wall.

Last edited by Stout; 28th March 2017 at 11:08 AM.
Stout 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 28th March 2017, 11:13 AM   #1794
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
The counter-protesters initiated the physical confrontation by physically blocking the march.
If I stand somewhere on the sidewalk then anyone can assault me, because I am blocking their access to the bit of sidewalk right under my feet? Nice legal system you got there
caveman1917 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 28th March 2017, 11:15 AM   #1795
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,425
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
If I stand somewhere on the sidewalk then anyone can assault me, because I am blocking their access to the bit of sidewalk right under my feet? Nice legal system you got there
Oh, the irony of an anarchist trying to appeal to the legal system for his protection.
__________________
"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
Ziggurat 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 28th March 2017, 11:19 AM   #1796
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,694
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
If the anti-fascist protesters wouldn't be there, would that stop the fascists from being violent? No. If the fascists wouldn't be there, would that stop the anti-fascists from being violent? Yes. Heck, would that stop the anti-fascists from even showing up in the first place? Yes.

You presenting this as a brawl likely whenever the "two sides meet" ignores that the presence of the other side is only a decisive factor for one side.



Apparently there was some comparative propaganda film study which found that US films portrayed the Soviets as the "bad guys" and themselves as the "good guys" whereas Soviet films portrayed Americans as naive and misled by their leaders.



Which ideology exactly are we talking about here?



What equivalent of online wanted posters?
If only group a didn't exist group b wouldn't have to be so violent.

Where have I heard that before?
sadhatter 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 28th March 2017, 11:22 AM   #1797
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Shifting the burden of proof, I see.
It's not shifted, it was your burden all along.

Quote:
Non-sequitur. We are not discussing respective propaganda presentation. We are discussing the purpose of posting personal information of protestors, complete with bios, employment, and pictures. You seem to claim that antifa are maintaining a 'Who's Who' socialite gossip page. Do you have another reason to post the personal information of specific protestors? 'Feel free to present your evidence' of what legitimate service these postings provide.

The context of the comment you replied to was general. Protesting and demonstrating for your political and social beliefs are a cherished right for many of us. Posting detailed personal information about opposition members (not even public leader type figures) serves no reasonable purpose other than to target them. 'Feel free to present evidence' that it serves some legitimate purpose.
Well a couple of pages ago in this thread someone expressed concern about their protest being disturbed by so-called "Trump supporters" and asked about whether pepper-spray would be a good deterrent. Then knowing what your local fascist clubs tend to be up to, and who they are, is useful information. Whether they just stand across the street shouting at you, or are well-armed and tend to stab their opponents with knives is useful information if you are responsible for the safety of the people at your protest.

Want to have your privacy, and not have your information compiled and made publically available? Don't be a nazi who goes around assaulting and stabbing people.

Quote:
No, you said 'What Wanted posters?' when I specifically addressed what I was referring to. Just present your argument bro, stop with the rhetorical pretense of innocence/ignorance.
Yeah I call BS on your determination that these constitute "Wanted Posters" hence...what wanted posters?
caveman1917 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 28th March 2017, 11:27 AM   #1798
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,694
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
If I stand somewhere on the sidewalk then anyone can assault me, because I am blocking their access to the bit of sidewalk right under my feet? Nice legal system you got there
A legal system that does not let someone bar someone else from doing something legal is pretty Ace in my book.

The alternative of letting the biggest ******** control what people do would not be something I support.
sadhatter 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 28th March 2017, 11:36 AM   #1799
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
A legal system that does not let someone bar someone else from doing something legal is pretty Ace in my book.
Good to know then, if you stand somewhere on a sidewalk you think it's pretty Ace for people to assault you because you are blocking their access to the bit of sidewalk under your feet. After all, it's not like the counter-protesters were blocking more than the bit of sidewalk under their feet, the marchers could've easily just gone around them to wherever they were heading.

Last edited by caveman1917; 28th March 2017 at 11:39 AM.
caveman1917 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 28th March 2017, 11:46 AM   #1800
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
If I stand somewhere on the sidewalk then anyone can assault me, because I am blocking their access to the bit of sidewalk right under my feet? Nice legal system you got there
what an utterly insipid analogy.

Quote:
Organizers plan to rally near Warner Avenue and PCH, then walk along a roughly two-mile stretch of the bike path.

Organizers of a counter rally said they plan to create a “human wall” to prevent that.

“We aren’t going to start fights, but we are going to try to stop them from completing their march,”

Last edited by The Big Dog; 28th March 2017 at 11:49 AM.
The Big Dog 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 » USA Politics

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 04:36 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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.