Is Punching A Nazi OK?

To: DaveC, Dr Toad, Truck Captain Stumpy

re: Basic definitions​

​

Quite simply, Truck Captain Stumpy compared transgender to Nazis. As I reminded↗:

• No, it is not okay to punch someone because they're a Nazi

↳ just like it is not OK to punch someone if they're ....​

Now, then, please see ... a dictionary↗:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Click for Merrriam-Webster.​

Here:

: a figure of speech comparing two unlike things that is often introduced by like or as (as in cheeks like roses)​

Your turn: You have anything resembling evidence to support anything resembling an argument, or are we stuck redefining words to accommodate your needs?

Something about, "What the hell is wrong with you?" goes here.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Right. But note the operative word "expressions". That implies action.
It is wrong to punch someone for their ideology. But it is less wrong to punch someone for certain expressions of their ideology. Such as hate speech or verbalt threats, etc.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have pointed out several times now that putting many otherwise unrelated things in a group is not a comparison.

Unicorns are white. Skeletons are white. They fit in a broad group of white things.

This does not mean that unicorns are comparable to scary things that frighten childen.

TCS made a broad category of people with personal traits (Nazis, Republicans, Christians, Transexuals). Anything in that category (no matter what flavor) is not to be punched.

Stop tilting at windmills.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Welcome to the club.

So what are your criteria for "ok" nazi punching?

 

So ... redefining stuff to accommodate your needs, then.

I have pointed out a dictionary definition. Apparently you need pseudo-literacy (or is it #AltDef?) in order to support your crackpottery.

 

But making a comparison between everything in a group and one other thing is.

We're talking about when it's ok to punch a "nazi". If somebody draws a parallel between that and a discussion of punching someone because they are - say - transgender, there are two ways of taking that: the immediate and literate take, from the structure, is that they are offering the opinion that it might be ok to punch a "nazi" if the nazi is transgender. Clearly that is not what was meant. The other take is that they are positing an equivalence between being a "nazi" and being transgender, and arguing that any circumstances justifying punching the one would also justify punching the other.

Do you see anything a little odd about that?

 

You are applying the act of comparison to the wrong object. See the unicorn/skeleton example.

 

it's your argument. you brought it up
or did you miss that in the above?

Right back at ya!
don't you think it's fair?
When I post something like that argument, I say different things than when I post something else, such as observations of what just happened. It's called "language" and "meaning" - look into it. start here: http://www.readingbear.org/

if you're going to argue the syntax of the legal document then i suggest you also include precedent to validate your argument with something other than your opinion
otherwise you're talking about what you, personally, think the law should state, while not actually comprehending what the law states
thanks

this is called a subjective interpretation of events and as such is not considered anything but your opinion
moreover, this does not in any way change the argument of the legality of shooting blacks, or even the legality of using race as a justification for feeling threatened
it is still illegal per 18 U.S. Code § 249
it's not a debate, nor is it a matter of interpretation
unless, and only unless, you can provide precedent and supporting evidence from not only case history and the law, but also from studies of the statistics freely available from various government agencies covering crime and the census

please show the requisite physical evidence... you know, where it stated in the review as well as the investigation
you're making a claim about the situation, now i will ask for the evidence that specifically demonstrates your claim
if you're referring to the Brown/Wilson DOJ document, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that substantiates your claim
if you're referring to Martin/Zimmerman then you still haven't presented evidence that is not subjective, like the DOJ document

therefore you're wasting your time and everyone else too

blatantly false claim and big fat lie
if you utilise race or any of the others mentioned per 18 U.S. Code § 249 as a justification for threat or even violence, it is against the law and prosecutable under multiple statutes, including but not limited to 18 U.S. Code § 249
get that through your skull... it's not rocket surgery. it's really simple.
if you attempt to justify it with race, you're commiting a hate crime
period
full stop

as i told Tiassa, take it to any prosecutor and get them on the record. they will state the same thing.
I will bet money on it
care to take me up?

again: it doesn't matter.
if your justification is due to race, color, religion, or national origin, actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, then you are committing a hate crime and prosecutable under the law

only to a sufficiently trained and well paid lawyer with experience that you don't have... and that is debatable too

then get a prosecutor to go on the record and prove it to me
please
make sure it is in writing so that you can get the idiot debarred

it is if your justification is due to: race, color, religion, or national origin, actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability

then prove it to me with something other than your opinion

and again: if your justification is due to race, color, religion, or national origin, actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, then you are committing a hate crime and prosecutable under the law
period
full stop

why can't you understand that?
it's not like i haven't already proven it to you... all you have is 3 examples that you are interpreting
and one of those examples you are misinterpreting intentionally

fighting words are not the same thing as a threat due to race, and it's not my argument, nor is it the argument i've continually posted about
don't change the goalposts again

 

Let's not lose sight of the actual list:

How many possible states-of-being for a human would have to be listed with you insisting he thinks they're all repugnant?

 

Hey Truck Captain Stumpy: do you think transsexuals are comparable to Nazis on the scale of agreeable vs. repugnant?

 

Tiassa
AKA i-MOD

quote simply, you're a liar. a big fat liar.

for starters, i did not in any way use a similie. i made a list based upon this list: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/249
Transgender is listed with the following

since you can't read well, let me explain that list to you: transgender is listed with religion.

as such, listing transgender with "christian; republican; democrat; moonie" is the exact same thing as the list on the federal statute.
see it here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/249
i just quoted it - i just proved, again, that you're a blatant lying POS troll redefining stuff to accommodate your needs

the try reading the law and quit blatantly lying
more importantly, the only one equating or comparing transgenders to nazi's is you!
- and you're attempting to bait/troll into a flame war

just because you can't read doesn't mean you should not try to learn - try this link: http://www.readingbear.org/

.

to both you illiterates: if ya don't like it, file a complaint with the federal statute
maybe you can get a class action lawsuit
why? because i took the list directly from them


AAAAaaaahahahahahahaha

had you taken the three seconds to even peruse the link i provided you would be able to see that for yourselves!

so either yall can't read or you're ... let me quote @i-MOD... "redefining stuff to accommodate your needs"

 

nope

 

What you quoted, verbatim there, was not my argument. You said it was, apparently because you have no idea what I - or anybody here - is talking about. Why that still is, after all this repetition, I can only speculate.

Already done - three or four examples of precedent, actual decisions by legal authority.

Except for certain circumstances in which you felt threatened or otherwise perceived the situation differently largely because someone was black. As we see in the selection of examples, drawn from the many hundreds available in the newspapers.

The OP is about punching "nazis". I use my posting here to address the OP. If you don't like that, too bad.

To join the chorus: What is wrong with you?

 

wait... so, you are now equating actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin with nazi's?

for starters: a literate person would be able to spot the above is a quote directly from
18 U.S. Code § 249

for two: the only equating being done is Tiassa . then there is the other other blatant lie about similie. it is not a similie to produce a list and use a specific in said list instead of a general description, as i did above with
18 U.S. Code § 249

why am i making sure it is bold and large?
to get your attention

there is no equating
there is no similie
there is a list taken from 18 U.S. Code § 249 where i used a specific name (transgender, christian, republican, democrat, moonie) instead of religion and gender, sexual orientation, gender identity.

yall are the ones attempting to make this about your delusions now... and it's very telling as to your biases and neurosis

 

From nowhere in my posting did you get that.
You get dropped on your head, or what happened?

 

No. Quite the opposite.

You did. Explicitly. Hence my point, above.

You guys all get dropped on your heads? This jackass routine is getting dumber by the minute.

 

gonna answer this first:

you made a statement
i quoted you verbatim
anyone can check that by simply using CTRL+F and the quote
i showed you the list
it's the same list i've used from the beginning... it's a federal statute that proved you lied about the legality of shooting blacks
it aint changed

.

now to the rest of your lies

now you're intentionally blatantly lying becuase i took it verbatim from the following: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is-punching-a-nazi-ok.158810/page-6#post-3435694

so, per your request: you're a "dumbass and I deny it"
and you can't deny it because i quoted you, you can follow the quote to your own post, and you can't state with any evidence that it is not what you said

no, i used your words, so it is your own argument
by all means - follow the link and actually read your own post!
i dare ya - because it's all there linked
even an illiterate could do that much - it's just a mouse click away
per your request: "dumbass and I deny it"

one DOJ document from me
you have no evidence that isn't your opinion
otherwise you would have linked it
per your request: "dumbass and I deny it"

the law specifically states that if you use actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin then you are committing a hate crime
it is in black and white here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/249
so you're lying
again
per your request: "dumbass and I deny it"

sigh... are you stupid?
and again: the law specifically states that if you use actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin then you are committing a hate crime
fighting words are different in that they give extenuating circumstances for the violence
not always an excuse, mind you, as they still may be prosecuted for assault and battery, and the fighting words, if they are regarding "actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin" then they, too, are classed as a hate crime

deal with it.

did you two get dropped on your heads? This jackass routine is getting dumber by the minute.

 

at this point it's about bullying, really

they want us to capitulate
i won't
Tiassa (i-MOD) lied, iceaura lied, they're attempting to flood with stupidity at this point, or attempting to get people riled to file reports based upon their delusional beliefs
and yet, if anyone actually read this link ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/249 ) they would see that i took that "list" directly from 18 U.S. Code § 249
it's not a similie
it's not a comparrison
it's a list from 18 U.S. Code § 249

why is that so hard for them to understand, i wonder?
but then i remember: this is a crusade for Tiassa and her echo chamber cronies
it doesn't matter if it's fact - only that we get "put in our place" for daring to challenge the great, high and mighty i-MOD

 

Done.

The confusion has been eradicated via explicit clarification.


( Asking someone what they meant. That's just crazy.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

Time to move on.

 

you do know they will not drop it, right?