ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events 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 15th March 2017, 08:38 AM   #1641
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
 
dasmiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 5,706
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Agreed. But...wait for it...we are in the 21st century. Are you suggesting that a 16th century mindset is comparable to this discussion? Perhaps we could compare the political musings of cavemen while we're at it?
First, it's an ongoing problem in Africa to this day, so I'm not so quick to dismiss it as a 16th century problem.

Quote:
I don't recall supporting forcible suppression of anyone by anyone else. Or suppressing speech. Or any other words put in my mouth.
The 'forcible suppression' thing came from your quoted definition of fascism. But I think it does represent your view. For the 'forcible' part, you certainly seem willing to tolerate violence against fascists:

Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
the battle lines are drawn and there is basically nothing left to discuss rationally, hence the ordinarily unwarranted jump to...a more visceral show of disagreement.
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
They are against basic humanity, IMO. Their extreme position warrants extreme response.
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
And I have no objection to taking a step or so outside of decency with them. I'm not proud.

Originally Posted by Joe Random View Post
4) Who gave you (again, generic) to right to decide when someone's speech has crossed the line into 'no point in talking, time to burn stuff'?
Natural Law, IMHO.
"a more visceral show of disagreement?" "extreme response?" "A step or so outside decency?" Were you not implying the use of force?

As for 'suppression,' if the intent isn't suppression, then what is it? Catharsis?

Quote:
ETA: witches- I would opine that that was a different issue altogether, what with the accused not actually having done what they were being accused of. You know, witches not actually existing and all.
Then I'm not sure what you're advocating here. Very few fascists have actually done all those terrible fascist things, either, so if witches get a pass for not actually doing the deeds, so should most fascists. But if it's based on their beliefs, some of the witches really did believe they were witches, so should they be given an "extreme response" too?

IMO, the whole witch thing is actually a good example of how things can go terribly wrong if this "Natural Law" attitude is accepted.

Quote:
ETA again: You assert more than once that I support forcible suppression of speech and/or people. May I ask what you are talking about?
See above.

ETA: or what Emily's Cat said.
__________________
"In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt

Last edited by dasmiller; 15th March 2017 at 08:39 AM.
dasmiller 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 15th March 2017, 08:56 AM   #1642
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 21,723
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Their extreme position warrants extreme response.
What, exactly, is the "extreme position" of the fascist? When you are warranting your "extreme response", what exactly are you responding to?

And what exactly is the "extreme response" you are warranting, anyway?

This thread was started to discuss a violent protest of a speaker at UC Berkeley. Your recent posts suggest that you are confused about the topic, or at least equivocating about your position.

Can you take a moment to answer my questions?
theprestige 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 15th March 2017, 09:57 AM   #1643
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,036
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
I...uh...hm...
Thank god autocorrect changed one letter or else you might have had to reply.

The word was our, so are you going to reply or did I miss an Oxford coma?
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 15th March 2017, 12:18 PM   #1644
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,238
MostlyDead,

It seems (to me) as though you don't support attacking fascists, but because of their odious nature would not be upset if/when it happens?

Which is how I feel about Richard Spencer being punched. That guy, whoever he is, should be prosecuted for assault if caught, but since it was Richard Spencer I still giggle a little bit when I think about it.
__________________
Palestinian Refugees
Mycroft 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 15th March 2017, 01:10 PM   #1645
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,730
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I'm not seeing it, but given that I made the argument, I'm probably inclined to be blind to it. Please clue me in on what fallacy you believe I've fallen prey to?
Putting things you have no choice about..being born into a specific ethnic group...with things you choose to be..embrace a specific political philosophy.
IE;equating being Black or Chinese with being a Communist or Nazi. One you have no choice about, the other you choose to be.
__________________
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.
dudalb 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 15th March 2017, 02:10 PM   #1646
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 5,492
Rare event, do not miss!

I agree the violent protesters on the left in the OP case are asshats, and that anyone should be allowed to speak, unless violating those few prohibitions against inciting to riot or similar. Moreover, I think universities are a place for debate, not a safe zone (not to countenance harassment, or forceful verbal challenge outside formal debate areas/classrooms). By the accounts I've read about (not a reliable sample, admittedly), the PC movement at many schools is beyond the pale. Yes, I'll go so far as to say what I've seen from time to time so far is intellectual cowardice and a public trouser drop denying the democratic credentials of those so acting.

That said, as for some of those allowed to speak, may the allowable ridicule of ideas be withering, merciless and give no quarter. But stamping feet and plugging ears is ugly no matter who does it.

/rare agreement event
Hlafordlaes 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 15th March 2017, 02:16 PM   #1647
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 21,723
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
MostlyDead,

It seems (to me) as though you don't support attacking fascists, but because of their odious nature would not be upset if/when it happens?

Which is how I feel about Richard Spencer being punched. That guy, whoever he is, should be prosecuted for assault if caught, but since it was Richard Spencer I still giggle a little bit when I think about it.
Giggling is fine. I think this is more than just giggling, though. What I read MD saying, both in this thread and that one, is that they are happy to give away a little rule of law, if it means seeing a little violence done to "fascists"; and that they don't mind seeing violence used to suppress speech, if it's "fascist" speech.

Seeing a deserving jerk slip on a banana peel is satisfying. Seeing a deserving jerk punched in the face by a masked vigilante is even more satisfying--in a comic book. Seeing a jerk, no matter how "deserving", punched in the face by a masked vigilante in real life, and seeing that act of violence praised and defended by my fellow citizens, is far more disturbing to me than it is satisfying.

I have fantasies about being Batman. But I know they are fantasies. I enjoy seeing fictional Batman carrying out fictional vigilante justice. I know that's not reality. MD and others seem to view the violence in Berkeley, and the violence against Richard Spencer, as if they were just another form of fantasy-fulfillment. As if they were not actually real things being done by real people in our real life society.

Richard Spencer is not Adolf Hitler. Not even close. Milos Yiannopolous is not the Joker. These vigilantes are not Batman. This violence is not cathartic fantasy.

Last edited by theprestige; 15th March 2017 at 02:23 PM.
theprestige 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 15th March 2017, 02:33 PM   #1648
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,165
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Putting things you have no choice about..being born into a specific ethnic group...with things you choose to be..embrace a specific political philosophy.
IE;equating being Black or Chinese with being a Communist or Nazi. One you have no choice about, the other you choose to be.
I see what you're saying. I'm not sure I see it as a fallacy in this particular case, but it's also not particularly material to the point I was trying to make. If it pleases you, go ahead and remove the "no choice" bits. So we're left with religion and politics at least. I can probably come up with others given a moment.

So then... Does casting a particular religion as being "universally" abhorrent justify physical assault and violence toward those people on the basis of what they believe?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

Last edited by Emily's Cat; 15th March 2017 at 02:38 PM.
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 15th March 2017, 02:34 PM   #1649
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,165
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
Rare event, do not miss!

I agree the violent protesters on the left in the OP case are asshats, and that anyone should be allowed to speak, unless violating those few prohibitions against inciting to riot or similar. Moreover, I think universities are a place for debate, not a safe zone (not to countenance harassment, or forceful verbal challenge outside formal debate areas/classrooms). By the accounts I've read about (not a reliable sample, admittedly), the PC movement at many schools is beyond the pale. Yes, I'll go so far as to say what I've seen from time to time so far is intellectual cowardice and a public trouser drop denying the democratic credentials of those so acting.

That said, as for some of those allowed to speak, may the allowable ridicule of ideas be withering, merciless and give no quarter. But stamping feet and plugging ears is ugly no matter who does it.

/rare agreement event
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
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 15th March 2017, 05:35 PM   #1650
Joe Random
Graduate Poster
 
Joe Random's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,641
I'd be curious to hear which of Milo's views move him into the category where it's acceptable to use violence/intimidation to silence him. Not 'keep him from enacting his ideas', but to actually silence him from expressing them. Since it's apparently a given for some in this thread that ideas/speech alone (and not action) are sufficient grounds to make sucker punches/Starbucks torchings acceptable responses, which specific ideas move him into the 'have at him' category, just so everyone knows where acceptable thoughts begin and end.

I'm genuinely curious : if some opinions sans action are odious enough to justify silencing, physical assault, and/or vandalism, which specific opinions of Milo (or any other 'Nazi/fascist/BadThink Person') are those which so justify?
Joe Random 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 15th March 2017, 06:02 PM   #1651
Joe Random
Graduate Poster
 
Joe Random's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,641
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
<...>
Could you clarify this one? Think I understand but I can read it a couple different ways.
<...>

Returning to the thread late and it has moved on, but wanted to answer the above.

In saying that there are beliefs so offensive/damaging/whatever that it is appropriate to abandon the rule of law in expressing opposition to them you [generic] have empowered any group to use those same extra-legal tactics against views you and I would both support.

Examples I've used before in the 'punch a Nazi' thread:

Trump was duly elected according to the Constitution and laws of this country. Those saying his presidency is illegitimate and who protest him are attacking the fundamental roots of our Democracy (the non-violet transition of power based on the expressed will of the people). Therefore we are justified in punching people in pussy hats, or setting fire to cars near a 'He Will Not Divide Us' installation (for the record, HWNDU is silly beyond words, IMO), because they're attacking not just [bloviating gassbag dickhead] Trump, they're attacking the very fundamentals of our democratic society!

Pro-choice activists want to make it legal, and to a varying degree sponsored by the state, to MURDER UNBORN CHILDREN! No one in their right mind could possible support the murder of unborn children. Hell, I don't think even Hitler thought it would be okay to murder unborn babies! Ergo any and all means to shut down a pro-choice rally is justified. Punch a Planned Parenthood worker if you love little babies.

This is the important bit : if some of the views of these purported 'fascists' were put into action, I'd be right there with others opposing them, even risking my personal physical safety. I've had ... colorful run-ins with anti-abortion activists in the past, and will gladly continue to do so where needed, for instance. But while the views are still just words and rhetoric, the rule of law serves we who would see people treated fairly and not sent off into camps or thrown off buildings for having WrongThink. Abandoning the rule of law merely because it feels so damned good to punch a neo-fascist or aim our car at an anti-abortion protester (yes, I can speak from experience here, I'm ashamed to say) only weakens the protections against those views we support, since we've now said there are times when <Southern Comfort> "You have to abandon principles and do what's right!" </Southern Comfort>.

There are many civil rights which don't apply to me, but for which I'd be willing to risk physical safety to guarantee for others should they become outlawed. But while the rights we seek to uphold still fall within the remit of the rule of law to protect, stepping outside that rule because we feel "it's justified in this case" only serves to weaken the defenses provided against all those other things we want to protect. Carried to its extreme and it's nothing more than 'might makes right' (since the rule of law is now subject to the "but I really want to hit him" test), which has never worked out well in the end for anyone. Not even Lord Humungus.

Last edited by Joe Random; 15th March 2017 at 06:36 PM.
Joe Random 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 15th March 2017, 08:18 PM   #1652
MostlyDead
Graduate Poster
 
MostlyDead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,566
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I don't think your argument holds any water. It's special pleading.
Special pleading is citing something as an exception to the rule, without justification. I am taking time to provide justification, although you clearly do not agree or understand (I think the latter- you are reading too much in and assuming elements I do not assert).

Quote:
You've decided that "fascism" is such a threat to what you view as the US way of life, that you feel preemptive violence against US citizens is justifiable and excusable. Then all you have to do is proclaim that a person is a "fascist" and you feel that attacking them with violence is A-Okay.
Please show where I say a damn thing about preemptive violence, or retract. No reading in, quote 'preemptive' or any synonymous meaning, specifically. Also, I do not declare others to be fascists. I have only argued where they declare themselves to be so.

Quote:
No matter how you church it up, you've taken a stance that *some* US citizens should be denied their rights as US citizens, and that violence should be enacted against them because of their beliefs.
Bull. I never said anyone should be denied rights, and I never said violence should be enacted against someone for any reason. Simply untrue. You're making a strawman by changing a word here and there to distort the meaning.

Quote:
YOU are a threat to the US way of life.
Tossing in a rule 12 violation for the road?
MostlyDead 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 15th March 2017, 08:32 PM   #1653
MostlyDead
Graduate Poster
 
MostlyDead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,566
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
You've supported the use of preemptive violence against people that you've decided are fascists. Not based on what they've done, but on what they've said. You have supported and lauded aggression and assault as an appropriate response to speech in order to stop "those people" from engaging in "that sort of" speech.
Again with 'preemptive', strawmanning the argument. And pretending that I decided anyone to be anything.

Quote:
What do you think your stance is? Please clarify.
Sure. After you support the 'preemptive' claim you make. It adds on a very different element, so I'm not inclined to let it slide.

Quote:
ETA: I'm basing my responses on these posts of yours:

All of these boil down to "Attacking people is wrong, unless you're attacking a 'fascist', then it's ok".
Only if you are predisposed to a conclusion. There are others you could reach with the same quotes, should you read without bias.
MostlyDead 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 15th March 2017, 09:25 PM   #1654
MostlyDead
Graduate Poster
 
MostlyDead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,566
Originally Posted by dasmiller View Post
First, it's an ongoing problem in Africa to this day, so I'm not so quick to dismiss it as a 16th century problem.
Fair point. But I don't dismiss the problem, I suggest that it is a different one than the thread topic. No one is accusing fascists of supernatural alliances that do not exist. I am charging them with un-American political philosophies that they acknowledge (and per definition posted earlier, racial superiority and authoritarian control over citizens).

Quote:
The 'forcible suppression' thing came from your quoted definition of fascism. But I think it does represent your view. For the 'forcible' part, you certainly seem willing to tolerate violence against fascists:
I am admittedly asking for it now, but I do tolerate violence to differing degrees. In context of the OP, I see this more as a street fight between rivals, with the anarchists hopping in for the lulz, and I do tolerate this more if not outright condoning. An earlier post contained an eyewitness account, describing mutual aggression, not just Milo protesters. In fact, I didn't see anything Milo-specific going down; it looked more like an 'us v them' clash.

Quote:
"a more visceral show of disagreement?" "extreme response?" "A step or so outside decency?" Were you not implying the use of force?
Mutually, yes. I don't have extreme objections to 'taking it outside', unless one party does not want to.

Quote:
As for 'suppression,' if the intent isn't suppression, then what is it? Catharsis?
No, but to drop my junk on the block again: the intent is showing a natural reaction. A fascist/neo-nazi is, IMO, giving a solid 'F.Y.' to American ideals, and often to blacks, Muslims...often non-male-WASPs in general. There comes a point where it is antagonizing, then inciting, and that is where I can see some justifiable violence entering the picture. It has no guarantee of being legally protected...but depending on the circumstances, it may.

Quote:
Then I'm not sure what you're advocating here. Very few fascists have actually done all those terrible fascist things, either, so if witches get a pass for not actually doing the deeds, so should most fascists. But if it's based on their beliefs, some of the witches really did believe they were witches, so should they be given an "extreme response" too?
Then those witches would be what we call 'nuts' (generally). The 'not real' element of witch hunts is not analogous here. Fascists really do want to take away the Constitution, it's what fascism is all about (democracy is obsolete, per Wikipedia).

Quote:
IMO, the whole witch thing is actually a good example of how things can go terribly wrong if this "Natural Law" attitude is accepted.
Agreed. It can go horribly wrong. Or work for the best. Natural Law arguments are not an ace-in-the-hole, those involved would still face the music if charged. Then a jury gets to consider nullification, which is kind of where I'm at.

Quote:
See above.

ETA: or what Emily's Cat said.
Perhaps you agree with the 'preemptive' violence claim and could show me where I claim that? If I said that, I offer a retraction. If not, I await one.
MostlyDead 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 15th March 2017, 10:03 PM   #1655
MostlyDead
Graduate Poster
 
MostlyDead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,566
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Can you take a moment to answer my questions?
Of course, always have and always will.

Quote:
What, exactly, is the "extreme position" of the fascist? When you are warranting your "extreme response", what exactly are you responding to?
The extreme position, in the context of being an American fascist, is that the concept of authoritarian rule and that democracy is obsolete, per definitions upthread, fundamentally undermine our Constitution, and would effectively toss our hard-fought system of self-government out the window and replace it with exactly what we revolted against. Overturning our entire system of government is pretty extreme, IMHO. I respond to this declared objective, whenever it is championed, specifically that authoritarian rule with it's attendant racial superiority and direct power to control its citizens (per definition) is extremely adversarial to one who values civil rights and the rights of the individual as legislated by consent.

Quote:
And what exactly is the "extreme response" you are warranting, anyway?
That would vary with specifics, wouldn't it? Hence the vague phrasing. But if a fascist wants essentially to dismantle Constitutional principles (pretty honking extreme), a proportional response is called for. What exactly that would be can be all over the map. A garden-variety neo-nazi (I prefer this term to fascist, but fascist was already in use ITT) may focus on white supremacy, or relegating Muslims or gays to second-class citizenry. That is hate speech IMO. And fighting words.

Quote:
This thread was started to discuss a violent protest of a speaker at UC Berkeley. Your recent posts suggest that you are confused about the topic, or at least equivocating about your position.
I don't think so, although I am pretty sure others are equivocating the hell out of my position. I have said repeatedly that I do not consider the OP a suppression of speech so much as a street fight. Yet I am asked why I support the suppression of free speech.

A question for you, if you don't mind: How, specifically, am I equivocating? What double meanings am I using, and where?
MostlyDead 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 15th March 2017, 10:13 PM   #1656
MostlyDead
Graduate Poster
 
MostlyDead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,566
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
Thank god autocorrect changed one letter or else you might have had to reply.

The word was our, so are you going to reply or did I miss an Oxford coma?
You've got to be kidding. What sense of entitlement are you under that you ignore questions posed to you but make catty comments about not repying? I have answered your questions; how about you show the same freaking courtesy starting with post #1612?
MostlyDead 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 15th March 2017, 10:22 PM   #1657
MostlyDead
Graduate Poster
 
MostlyDead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,566
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
MostlyDead,

It seems (to me) as though you don't support attacking fascists, but because of their odious nature would not be upset if/when it happens?

Which is how I feel about Richard Spencer being punched. That guy, whoever he is, should be prosecuted for assault if caught, but since it was Richard Spencer I still giggle a little bit when I think about it.
Agreed, 100%. I hope I would have tried to stop the Spencer-puncher, but I would not help or hinder him being brought to justice, beyond my legal requirements.

ITT, though, I see it as a clash of ideologies, gang-style, more than a suppression of speech issue. I am more inclined to accept the violence in this OP because I don't see it as people protesting Milo, but as rival political/social factions squaring off together.
MostlyDead 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 15th March 2017, 10:42 PM   #1658
MostlyDead
Graduate Poster
 
MostlyDead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,566
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Giggling is fine. I think this is more than just giggling, though. What I read MD saying, both in this thread and that one, is that they are happy to give away a little rule of law, if it means seeing a little violence done to "fascists"; and that they don't mind seeing violence used to suppress speech, if it's "fascist" speech.
Can you really not understand that from another point of view, this is simply not about speech? Their speech is understood, and they are given free reign to proclaim it. Actions taken are a response, not a desire to suppress. While you clearly don't agree, can you not even understand this?

Quote:
Seeing a deserving jerk slip on a banana peel is satisfying. Seeing a deserving jerk punched in the face by a masked vigilante is even more satisfying--in a comic book. Seeing a jerk, no matter how "deserving", punched in the face by a masked vigilante in real life, and seeing that act of violence praised and defended by my fellow citizens, is far more disturbing to me than it is satisfying.

I have fantasies about being Batman. But I know they are fantasies. I enjoy seeing fictional Batman carrying out fictional vigilante justice. I know that's not reality. MD and others seem to view the violence in Berkeley, and the violence against Richard Spencer, as if they were just another form of fantasy-fulfillment. As if they were not actually real things being done by real people in our real life society.

Richard Spencer is not Adolf Hitler. Not even close. Milos Yiannopolous is not the Joker. These vigilantes are not Batman. This violence is not cathartic fantasy.
All well and good. But please don't project these fantasies on others. Some of us are practical-minded and offering an apparently unpopular POV honestly. Having nothing to do with batman fantasies.
MostlyDead 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 15th March 2017, 10:52 PM   #1659
MostlyDead
Graduate Poster
 
MostlyDead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,566
Originally Posted by Joe Random View Post
I'd be curious to hear which of Milo's views move him into the category where it's acceptable to use violence/intimidation to silence him. Not 'keep him from enacting his ideas', but to actually silence him from expressing them. Since it's apparently a given for some in this thread that ideas/speech alone (and not action) are sufficient grounds to make sucker punches/Starbucks torchings acceptable responses, which specific ideas move him into the 'have at him' category, just so everyone knows where acceptable thoughts begin and end.

I'm genuinely curious : if some opinions sans action are odious enough to justify silencing, physical assault, and/or vandalism, which specific opinions of Milo (or any other 'Nazi/fascist/BadThink Person') are those which so justify?
To wit: I just checked back to the OP, and it says that the rioting continued and spilled out even hours after Milo's event was cancelled. Does this not seem like it was never about Milo per se? (my contention all along)

And you say opinions that justify silencing...who is suggesting that? I see a bunch of posts baldly asserting it, but why, oh why, is it assumed that anyone is actually trying to shut him up? As opposed to, say, offering a dissenting counterpoint?
MostlyDead 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 16th March 2017, 04:50 PM   #1660
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,165
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Only if you are predisposed to a conclusion. There are others you could reach with the same quotes, should you read without bias.
This might be an excellent opportunity for you to step back, take a moment, and just restate your position and beliefs in their entirety. If I were alone in reading your positions this way, what you say regarding bias might have merit. But I'm not. Several people in this thread have interpreted your arguments in exactly the same way I have. If you feel that ALL of these interpretations are incorrect, then it appears that you are failing to communicate effectively. Please try again.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
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 16th March 2017, 05:07 PM   #1661
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,036
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
You've got to be kidding. What sense of entitlement are you under that you ignore questions posed to you but make catty comments about not repying? I have answered your questions; how about you show the same freaking courtesy starting with post #1612?
So no reply then?
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 16th March 2017, 08:33 PM   #1662
MostlyDead
Graduate Poster
 
MostlyDead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,566
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
This might be an excellent opportunity for you to step back, take a moment, and just restate your position and beliefs in their entirety.
Ok. Please narrow down what position and beliefs you want me to restate in their entirety. The events of the OP, something broader, what?

Quote:
If I were alone in reading your positions this way, what you say regarding bias might have merit. But I'm not. Several people in this thread have interpreted your arguments in exactly the same way I have.
Oh, I get it. You are saying that your interpretation is accurate because others interpret it that way, too. Or that an idea is true because it is widely held? I hear there is a logical fallacy with that definition.

Quote:
If you feel that ALL of these interpretations are incorrect, then it appears that you are failing to communicate effectively. Please try again.
Oh, no you don't. You (and others) put words in my mouth. That is not my failure to communicate. For example, I have asked you clearly and repeatedly to quote where I have advocated preemptive violence, as you repeatedly claim. Please do so. That might help to establish whether the problem is my communicating or your bias. If you in fact just made it up, a really great question would be: why?
MostlyDead 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 16th March 2017, 08:59 PM   #1663
MostlyDead
Graduate Poster
 
MostlyDead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,566
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
So no reply then?
Guess you think this one is some kind of stumper. Happy to oblige:

I post in #1615:
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
True enough. But gays are not universally abhorred; they are only so to homophobes. And the gay agenda does not include openly acknowledging taking rights away from others. So maybe still a little special.
And you post in #1620:
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
But some believe it does, so when ou(r) yardstick is belief how do you differentiate? Other than " I'm right because you are wrong" which is nothing more than a school yard squabble.
Since gays are not universally abhorred and do not advocate taking others' rights away, but fascists do, what 'yardstick of belief' are you talking about? It is about a person/group's declared philosophy. To answer your question as best I can: I differentiate based on what they declare themselves to be and whether it poses a naked threat and challenge to those who value the principles that the Constitution protects . Gays do not desire to take my freedoms away, and fascists unabashedly do.

Does that suffice in explaining how I differentiate?
MostlyDead 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 17th March 2017, 05:36 AM   #1664
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,036
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Guess you think this one is some kind of stumper. Happy to oblige:

I post in #1615:

And you post in #1620:

Since gays are not universally abhorred and do not advocate taking others' rights away, but fascists do, what 'yardstick of belief' are you talking about? It is about a person/group's declared philosophy. To answer your question as best I can: I differentiate based on what they declare themselves to be and whether it poses a naked threat and challenge to those who value the principles that the Constitution protects . Gays do not desire to take my freedoms away, and fascists unabashedly do.

Does that suffice in explaining how I differentiate?
Not at all. Fanatics on the opposite side of the political spectrum state the exact same thing. If you both have your way it becomes a night makes right scenario, and despite your delusions we lose if that happens.

Your stance is hypocritical and tactical garbage.
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 17th March 2017, 05:45 AM   #1665
MostlyDead
Graduate Poster
 
MostlyDead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,566
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
Not at all. Fanatics on the opposite side of the political spectrum state the exact same thing. If you both have your way it becomes a night makes right scenario, and despite your delusions we lose if that happens.

Your stance is hypocritical and tactical garbage.
Can you explain how? I am curious how you can be misunderstanding what I am saying so dramatically.

ETA: For clarity: the short version of my stance is that I think street fighting, if both concede, is ok although illegal. Further, I think that if fascists are basically telling others that they deserve to have their rights taken away, they are provoking/inciting a conflict to some degree. Don't add-on a bunch of baggage you carry to the argument.

You say hypocritical. How so? Specifically. It sounds like you are just lobbing random criticism.
You say tactical garbage. That phrase doesn't actually mean anything, and I have not talked about tactics at all.

Last edited by MostlyDead; 17th March 2017 at 06:12 AM.
MostlyDead 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 17th March 2017, 06:32 AM   #1666
caveman1917
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,801
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
I am charging them with un-American political philosophies that they acknowledge (and per definition posted earlier, racial superiority and authoritarian control over citizens).
Genocide, slavery, apartheid, imperialism and a love for right-wing dictatorships...how is that un-American? We are talking about the same America here, right?
__________________
"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 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 17th March 2017, 06:43 AM   #1667
MostlyDead
Graduate Poster
 
MostlyDead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,566
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Genocide, slavery, apartheid, imperialism and a love for right-wing dictatorships...how is that un-American? We are talking about the same America here, right?
Yes we are. America has done disgraceful things, like many have. Some of us love her anyway, and trust that we can steer her away from wrongdoing by piping up when she is wrong.
MostlyDead 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 17th March 2017, 08:18 AM   #1668
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,238
I want televised cage matches where proponents of extremist ideologies can battle it out for glory and valuable prizes. That way anarchists and neo Nazis can have an outlet for their aggression that doesn't bother the rest of us, and also provides entertainment.
__________________
Palestinian Refugees
Mycroft 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 17th March 2017, 10:38 AM   #1669
Joe Random
Graduate Poster
 
Joe Random's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,641
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
I want televised cage matches where proponents of extremist ideologies can battle it out for glory and valuable prizes. That way anarchists and neo Nazis can have an outlet for their aggression that doesn't bother the rest of us, and also provides entertainment.





... and nor a window nor Starbucks were harm'd that day
Joe Random 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 17th March 2017, 11:08 AM   #1670
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 21,723
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Yes we are. America has done disgraceful things, like many have. Some of us love her anyway, and trust that we can steer her away from wrongdoing by piping up when she is wrong.
Seems reasonable enough. Broadly speaking, the question being debated in this thread is whether it is beneficial to our society when the "piping up" takes the form of violent outbursts in response to "fascist" speech.

You seem to be equivocating a lot on this point. You seem to approve of using violence to steer expression, but when pressed on this you insist that you mean simply that you forgive violence as a response to expression.

Which is it? Do you trust that America can be steered away from fascism by piping up with violence whenever fascists speak?
theprestige 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 17th March 2017, 12:58 PM   #1671
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,238
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Genocide, slavery, apartheid, imperialism and a love for right-wing dictatorships...how is that un-American? We are talking about the same America here, right?
Things that are only bad when associated with the United States. When socialist nations do it, it's not so bad.
__________________
Palestinian Refugees
Mycroft 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 17th March 2017, 09:11 PM   #1672
MostlyDead
Graduate Poster
 
MostlyDead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,566
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Seems reasonable enough. Broadly speaking, the question being debated in this thread is whether it is beneficial to our society when the "piping up" takes the form of violent outbursts in response to "fascist" speech.
'Beneficial' is a bit slippery. It is certainly not the ideal, so not directly beneficial. But it is certainly instructive/informative, so a benefit is gained. There were end benefits to the violence of the civil rights movement in 1960's America, would you agree? Even though it would have been ideal for things to have gone down more peacefully.

Quote:
You seem to be equivocating a lot on this point. You seem to approve of using violence to steer expression, but when pressed on this you insist that you mean simply that you forgive violence as a response to expression.
Approve and forgive I think are overly judgemental terms; I prefer 'accept', if that makes it clearer. I don't think it's a good idea to get rowdy (and have said that I generally wouldn't do so myself), but I accept (a shade of difference from approving) that others may do so and in some circumstances excuse it (a shade of difference from 'forgiving'). also, I look at relevant law as more of an academic point, rather than the guiding principle of behavior, if that helps to clarify why my POV is not so absolute in terms of right and wrong.

Quote:
Which is it? Do you trust that America can be steered away from fascism by piping up with violence whenever fascists speak?
America sometimes needs to be loud to be heard, and ideally, words would be enough. In the OP, I really don't think the events had anything to do with Milo's individual speech. An article posted earlier by an eyewitness writer said that Red Hats were out in force, taunting and rolling out a Pepe banner. This seems to me an Us v Them clash, not thugs trying to silence Milo. So fascists can certainly speak, it is a guaranteed freedom they have. Protesters can bark back. Another freedom. Ideally, it should end there. But I accept that sometimes it doesn't, and that the two sides are stepping onto a figurative (literal?) battlefield in a situation like this. Both sides had (or should have had) a reasonable expectation of hostilities, hence my opinion that this was closer to a street brawl than a suppression of poor Milo's freedoms.
MostlyDead 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 18th March 2017, 01:25 PM   #1673
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 54,561
Originally Posted by Joe Random View Post
Returning to the thread late and it has moved on, but wanted to answer the above.

In saying that there are beliefs so offensive/damaging/whatever that it is appropriate to abandon the rule of law in expressing opposition to them you [generic] have empowered any group to use those same extra-legal tactics against views you and I would both support.

Examples I've used before in the 'punch a Nazi' thread:

Trump was duly elected according to the Constitution and laws of this country. Those saying his presidency is illegitimate and who protest him are attacking the fundamental roots of our Democracy (the non-violet (noted for comment on post, best, fuelair) transition of power based on the expressed will of the people). Therefore we are justified in punching people in pussy hats, or setting fire to cars near a 'He Will Not Divide Us' installation (for the record, HWNDU is silly beyond words, IMO), because they're attacking not just [bloviating gassbag dickhead] Trump, they're attacking the very fundamentals of our democratic society!

Pro-choice activists want to make it legal, and to a varying degree sponsored by the state, to MURDER UNBORN CHILDREN! No one in their right mind could possible support the murder of unborn children. Hell, I don't think even Hitler thought it would be okay to murder unborn babies! Ergo any and all means to shut down a pro-choice rally is justified. Punch a Planned Parenthood worker if you love little babies.

This is the important bit : if some of the views of these purported 'fascists' were put into action, I'd be right there with others opposing them, even risking my personal physical safety. I've had ... colorful run-ins with anti-abortion activists in the past, and will gladly continue to do so where needed, for instance. But while the views are still just words and rhetoric, the rule of law serves we who would see people treated fairly and not sent off into camps or thrown off buildings for having WrongThink. Abandoning the rule of law merely because it feels so damned good to punch a neo-fascist or aim our car at an anti-abortion protester (yes, I can speak from experience here, I'm ashamed to say) only weakens the protections against those views we support, since we've now said there are times when <Southern Comfort> "You have to abandon principles and do what's right!" </Southern Comfort>.

There are many civil rights which don't apply to me, but for which I'd be willing to risk physical safety to guarantee for others should they become outlawed. But while the rights we seek to uphold still fall within the remit of the rule of law to protect, stepping outside that rule because we feel "it's justified in this case" only serves to weaken the defenses provided against all those other things we want to protect. Carried to its extreme and it's nothing more than 'might makes right' (since the rule of law is now subject to the "but I really want to hit him" test), which has never worked out well in the end for anyone. Not even Lord Humungus.
Bill Maher dug into liberal colleges and their problems with free speech last night!!!!! Well done Bill!!! And, no it doesn't justify the attacks in all cases - but it does show it is past time to break the power of the Electoral College and comparatively empty states!!!!! re: my FTFY above where author meant violent!!!!!
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

Last edited by fuelair; 18th March 2017 at 01:27 PM.
fuelair 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 March 2017, 12:46 PM   #1674
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,238
Something I found that applies to this discussion, a quote from actual anarchists:

"Instead of attacking impersonal symbols of justice, we think that it is very important to transpose our hostilities to the personal environment of the enemy, their homes, offices, hangouts and vehicles. We know that to authority ”nobody is irreplaceable” but we also know that a personal hit against one of them would instill fear in another 100. "

https://insurrectionnewsworldwide.co...open-proposal/

Hooboy! Doesn't that just make you ache to live in a world of their creation?
__________________
Palestinian Refugees
Mycroft 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 March 2017, 03:23 PM   #1675
Eddie Dane
Philosopher
 
Eddie Dane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,830
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
I want televised cage matches where proponents of extremist ideologies can battle it out for glory and valuable prizes. That way anarchists and neo Nazis can have an outlet for their aggression that doesn't bother the rest of us, and also provides entertainment.
Same with soccer hooligans.

They want a piece of each other and reality TV is a thing. Not sure why it hasn't happened yet.
__________________
Kanye for president!
Eddie Dane 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 March 2017, 03:28 PM   #1676
Eddie Dane
Philosopher
 
Eddie Dane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,830
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Something I found that applies to this discussion, a quote from actual anarchists:

"Instead of attacking impersonal symbols of justice, we think that it is very important to transpose our hostilities to the personal environment of the enemy, their homes, offices, hangouts and vehicles. We know that to authority ”nobody is irreplaceable” but we also know that a personal hit against one of them would instill fear in another 100. "

https://insurrectionnewsworldwide.co...open-proposal/

Hooboy! Doesn't that just make you ache to live in a world of their creation?
They must be completely deluded about what backlash that would bring.

Some of these Neo-nazi groups are stockpiling automatic weapons. The German secret service is busy disarming about 700 of them that have legal guns.

Once these guys start doxing Antifa members, they'll have to move to Argentina. Which is Ironic, really.
__________________
Kanye for president!
Eddie Dane 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 20th March 2017, 06:39 AM   #1677
MostlyDead
Graduate Poster
 
MostlyDead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,566
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Something I found that applies to this discussion, a quote from actual anarchists:

"Instead of attacking impersonal symbols of justice, we think that it is very important to transpose our hostilities to the personal environment of the enemy, their homes, offices, hangouts and vehicles. We know that to authority ”nobody is irreplaceable” but we also know that a personal hit against one of them would instill fear in another 100. "

https://insurrectionnewsworldwide.co...open-proposal/

Hooboy! Doesn't that just make you ache to live in a world of their creation?
Yikes. I think these guys may be anarchists in the sense that the Islamic State are Muslims or the Klan is Christian, though. They seem more like extremist terrorists than Starbucks window-rearrangers.
MostlyDead 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 20th March 2017, 03:19 PM   #1678
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,165
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Ok. Please narrow down what position and beliefs you want me to restate in their entirety. The events of the OP, something broader, what?



Oh, I get it. You are saying that your interpretation is accurate because others interpret it that way, too. Or that an idea is true because it is widely held? I hear there is a logical fallacy with that definition.



Oh, no you don't. You (and others) put words in my mouth. That is not my failure to communicate. For example, I have asked you clearly and repeatedly to quote where I have advocated preemptive violence, as you repeatedly claim. Please do so. That might help to establish whether the problem is my communicating or your bias. If you in fact just made it up, a really great question would be: why?
MD, I started with a pile of quotes from you on which I was basing my inference. Those quotes appear to imply the position that I have interpreted. I'm not putting words in your mouth - I'm telling you what I am interpreting your words to mean.

If you think that I (and several other people) are misinterpreting, fine. Acknowledge that you aren't being clear, and take advantage of this opportunity to restate what it is you are trying to say.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
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 20th March 2017, 03:22 PM   #1679
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,165
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
ETA: For clarity: the short version of my stance is that I think street fighting, if both concede, is ok although illegal. Further, I think that if fascists are basically telling others that they deserve to have their rights taken away, they are provoking/inciting a conflict to some degree. Don't add-on a bunch of baggage you carry to the argument.
With respect to this restatement...

1) What do you think constitutes street-fighting?

2) Do you think that someone using words alone and expressing an opinion is considered "provoking" to an extent that you believe justifies using violence against them?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
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 20th March 2017, 08:28 PM   #1680
MostlyDead
Graduate Poster
 
MostlyDead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,566
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
MD, I started with a pile of quotes from you on which I was basing my inference. Those quotes appear to imply the position that I have interpreted. I'm not putting words in your mouth - I'm telling you what I am interpreting your words to mean.

If you think that I (and several other people) are misinterpreting, fine. Acknowledge that you aren't being clear, and take advantage of this opportunity to restate what it is you are trying to say.
A few others posed questions, I responded and they seemed satisfied (or at least questioned no further). I think it's just you that interprets that I 'advocate denying rights of *some* American citizens' among other things that I absolutely do not say. Although there's an excellent chance that they don't give a fat rat's patootie one way or the other.
MostlyDead 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

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 10:46 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.