Is Punching A Nazi OK?

No, Dave, the simile includes the existential function of being "Nazi" or "transgender", because the simile is part of a justification.

Let us try a removed example:

• Some years ago, we had a police shooting in Seattle that was an unfortunate string of incidents by which SPD really cemented its dubious reputation. And the thing is, I don't use the colloquialism that goes there because I reject it; to the other, there are few insults that strike so deep, and they all suffer similar problems. But, yeah, it a period that really projected an image of police as a whining bunch of frightened sacks of something or other. (At one point, they sued the estate of a dead bank robber for the emotional damage of denying them an arrest; it wasn't dignified, to say the least.)

A developmentally disrupted man known in the neighborhood apparently jacked a convenience store with a kitchen knife. And, look, it's easy enough to do the re-enactment. Stand twenty-five feet away from someone, with your back to them. Turn quickly and then start running toward them. The police shot when he turned around. It's easy to say that was way early, and yet another example of just how terrified these police are, but in the end, yeah, it's a guy with a knife turning around suddenly. Regardless of what critics say, that's usually enough to do it, and it passes muster. And, honestly, maybe I don't like that particular shoot, but we're right up against the threshold; I probably don't get "beyond a reasonable doubt", and maybe I can do enough math to have clear preponderence of evidence but even then I'm not winning a jury.

I raise this example because, still, to this day I say that by the description we got from the police, they shot early. So I say: "You don't kill a guy for that."

Okay, so says me.

What if I say, "You don't kill a guy for that, just like you don't kill dude over there."

Okay, so ... maybe you and I can argue all day about whether or not turning around, or making a sudden move, while holding a knife at a minimum range of twenty-five feet, is reasonable cause to kill.

And ... maybe you are going to look at me just a bit askance and wonder why the question of killing dude over there or not is even on the table; seriously, maybe guy had a knife but, seriously, what the hell did dude over there do?

They're separate questions.​

My reasons for not punching the Nazi are on record in this thread. In truth, I can't imagine how that argument would apply to why one doesn't just go around clocking transgender. Seriously, they're completely separate questions. They are not "like" at all.

I can say a lot on behalf of Christanity, too, in this context; I might well disdain its public discourse representation in my society, and such influences and impacts as those elements can have on my own and other people's qualities of life, but I'm not ready to indict the ministry of Christ that way. Say what you will about the Pauline evangelism; I don't trust it. But, seriously, Nazis to the one, and Jesus freaking Christ to the other; something is amiss in this aspect of the simile. And in observing the difference between "Christianity" and the legendary personage of Christ we must account for the diversity of individual "Christians"; in truth, the "Christians" causing the most damage (and thus subject to accusations of being Nazis, fascists, or American Taliban) are Xinos―Christianists. So, no. To assert that, it is not okay to punch a Nazi just like it is not okay to punch a Christian, is likewise denigrating.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The confusion has been clarified by asking the poster.

Time to move on to more productive discussion about the topic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah, that sounds about right.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Says the guy who is calling me liar over and over and over, filling the thread with posting in red caps, and doing things like carefully editing so he can repost this ten times as if it were an honest quote: "per your request: "dumbass and I deny it".

You should realize that self-hatred is not a sufficient excuse for that.

It doesn't prove any fucking thing. It doesn't even indicate, let alone prove, that I was even wrong, let alone lying. And this has been explained to you now, what, five or six times. Quite plainly, btw - your odd mistake there has become a central issue in the thread, perforce and tiresomely addressed in my argument and posting multiple times.

And then you said that statement was my argument (forestalling your incoming bs: not the actual quote of my argument, the other verbatim quotes, especially the one you are referring to right now).

Then you reworded my posting (cluelessly, missing the entire issue), called your rewording my argument as well (different from the verbatim quote and different from my argument), several times. And then you called me a liar many times, because laws exist, and threw tantrums, because that's who you are.

Pay attention now: That's not a posting of my argument. I clearly labeled my argument, every time I posted it. I said "here is my argument". I said "here is my argument, short summary". I said "here is my argument again". Several times. You can't possibly have missed them all. When you go to quote my argument verbatim, there are several postings of it to choose from - one you've already quoted, in big red caps. You yourself, presumably via introspection, chose big red caps as inevitable attention-getters - wrong, in my case (I skip), but hardly in yours.

Meanwhile, in the absence of any other offerings remaining (one or two withdrawn), we have my "fighting words" criterion as the only substantive response to the question of when it's ok to punch a "nazi".

That's fine by me - I like it - but not much of a result for all of this.

 

I'm quite sure it's just my carelessness Ice, but I went through the thread (all 14 f**king pages) and searched for "here is my argument", "here is my argument, short summary" and "here is my argument again" - couldn't find a single one (in your posts at least, just for clarity). The only reason I did that is I got lost hitting the little up arrows from post to post between you and TCS. I honestly just want to know what, exactly, your argument is.

When I read this post I thought - "that should be easy enough" - and went page by page, hitting F2 and entering your quoted search terms. That you claim you used to highlight your argument, over and over. No luck...

So, please... Pretty please - how about a direct link to any one of your posts that contains any one of these phrases: "here is my argument", "here is my argument, short summary" and "here is my argument again".

I'm not taking sides, - I just want to read "your argument" for myself. Pretty please?

 

211 and 214 came up quick, because I remembered where I left them. There's a couple more, slightly different wording, prior to, in, and around the red cap tantrums, and one or two somewhere before that. Sorry about the "it" instead of "argument" - no idea anyone was going to search. It's not like it's some kind of complicated or complex argument, though - obvious to anyone arguing in good faith, I would have thought.

The reason it's called a "summary" is that no reference to the various examples and evidence appears, as in earlier versions - it's just the legally-legally two-step, the layout without the attempts to get TCS to read his own links and the like.

And I'm not scrolling any more. Fuck all trolling.

 

man, i called that one on the nose!
ROTFLMFAO

ok, Tiassa i-MOD the super-genius who can see connections where there are none

so lets look at some other "definitions" from a dictionary. I'll use your own blessed holy book of Merriam Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/list
(i am skipping the ship, wood and archaic references as they're not relevant)
LIST:

can ya read that?
do you want me to type it slower for ya?
why is that relevant?
lets look at why - i took a "list" that was already created... let me quote it to you

this list was taken, verbatim, from here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/249
the list is found by combining the following:

and

now, i know that is hard for you to understand, so that is why i told you this exact same thing here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is-punching-a-nazi-ok.158810/page-13#post-3437376

now lets look at another definition:
it's relevant and i've just proven you to be one: LIAR https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liar

lets use this in a sentence:
"i've just demonstrated you are a liar."
"your credibility is shot because you're a liar"
"continuing to post a lie that is proven to be false makes you a liar."

get it yet?

 

That is exactly why I started hunting it - I figured there must be more to the argument than that, something I had missed. Thanks though, much appreciated.

So this whole thing is over the obvious...

It is functionally "legal" (with scare quotes) to shoot black people - in some cases, under some circumstances. I thought maybe you were arguing that it is statutorily legal somehow and I wanted to read that.

Move along, nothing to see...

 

you have posted lies. i proved it, moron

because you're ignoring the relevant evidence for the sake of your own personal biased delusional beliefs

careful editing? WTF?
you mean where i posted your own words verbatim and caught you blatantly lying about it?
ROTFLMFAO
that "careful editing"?

your self hatred is your own business - i think it's funny that you think you can lie about your own comments when i posted them verbatim
you even said i didn't, to which i proved you a lying POS troll!
LOL
wanna try that again?
maybe you can use evidence and ... oh wait! there is none to support your claim!
LOL

actually, it does. because you lied about the legality of shooting blacks
had you said people got away with shooting them over race, this wouldn't be an argument... however, you chose to support the "legality", which is blatantly false, making you a liar.
liar. not posting misinformation, because you would be able to correct that.
but a liar, because you keep reiterating it when i demonstrated it is not legal due to the hate crimes act.
NOT LEGAL means illegal, therefore you can't state it is legal.

you mean YOUR mistake. it is neither odd nor central. it is now and still will be illegal, therefore you're a liar
you can say they got away with it.
you can say it's a crap thing
you can say a lot of things, but the one thing you can't say is that it's "legal" to shoot blacks - because there is a law stating it is not
get it yet?
how stupid are ya to keep harping on your "correctness" about this?

it's your argument. you brought it up
or did you miss that in the above?
how many times to i have to quote you verbatim before you realise that one?
i didn't make up your post, hack your account, post the quote and then leave... you wrote and posted it
deal with it, idjit!

because you are a liar
I just proved you a liar, many times!
i just now - again- proved you a liar.
it's not like i am making sh*t up - you said you didn't say something, so i quoted it and referred you to the post
you said [blah blah blah] i went back and proved you lied - by quoting your post, linking it and showing the evidence
what you're doing is posting your "thoughts" becuae you think your infallible, and requesting that everyone accept them as correct - except that i just proved them a lie
and as such, that means, by definition, you're a liar
someone who repeats lies
i actually listed the definition above for Tiassa - feel free to read it

now you want to argue semantics... lets examine that a bit:
when i state: "here is your argument"
and then i post a verbatim quote from your post where you make a statement that is incorrect
in this case incorrect means: blatantly false lie
and you then attempt to defend said blatantly false claim with evidence from "your argument"
then it becomes your argument
you're attempting to justify the legality of shooting blacks in the US, which i proved was illegal - hence your "argument" is defending that original false claim
it doesn't matter if your argument is about the "list" or the wording of Margaret Thatchers secret lovers underwear label... when you argue a point to defend another point... or when you use "a coherent series of reasons, statements, or facts intended to support or establish a point of view" (see: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/argument ) to defend a point that is relevant to a known false claim, then it is part of the "argument"


if you didn't want to list it as part of the argument, then why did you defend the point in the first place?
i mean, it's not like i "reworded" your post. it is verbatim. and false. still there. still a point of contention. still not true. whatever you want to call it, it is still a blatantly false claim, AKA a LIE, and as such i am in my right to point out your digression from the facts and your false claim

so... you intentionally ignored relevant evidence because it didn't suit your biased perspective and it directly refuted your delusional claims
gotcha!

whatever

 

a brief interlude


he gets a bit redundant during the build

 

if i may interject... with respect

i can see how that would make sense to some, but i must point out that the word "legal" has a specific definition, which is essentially: of or relating to law
let me show it: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/legal

so it is not "legal" as the word relates specifically to the law,
and it can't be said to be "functionally legal" as that would mean "of, connected with, or being a function relating to law"

i know that some would state that "functionally legal" is just a semantic rewording that demonstrates some have gotten away with the crime in the past, and that is how i see you using it per the above posts and examples.

but it is also not correct per the definition of legal - which was and is my point

sorry

 

sculptor
well then it fits right in with this thread - redundant redundant redundant redundant redundant
LOL

 

coupla things
karelia suite is relaxing and uplifting
and
he goes somewhere worth going with it
..............................
..............................
If every time you hit the horse a cloud of flies fills the air, and the stench seems to be growing
maybe
just maybe
you are flogging a dead horse

 

agreed - i'm enjoying it now, but had to restart it when i refreshed the page
grrr

yep
i know

but i am also tired of Tiassa (and the echo chamber) bullying people with bullshit that is unsubstantiated and factually incorrect
especially with regard to his delusional beliefs

is it redundant? yep
is it worth my time? probably not, because it will not change a thing.

it hasn't yet (WRT to i-MOD), nor will anyone actually start changing i-MOD just because the facts show them wrong
he is far to heavily invested in this delusion and ideology

but it also serves another purpose: it exposed their delusion (important)
it also demonstrates to what lengths they will go to protect their delusion (important)
it also gives a road map to their thought process (important)
it is something that i can use to show how fanaticism will blind others to facts (important)
i can use it as a demonstration of the willingness to ignore facts for a delusional belief (important)

it's actually very helpful in many ways, including, but not limited to, my activities (not related to this site), of which i've mentioned many, many times here on this site and others
so it's a good thing in many ways
annoying, but good

 

I'm sure you think you have a point, Stumpy, but why not save your effort until you actually know how to express it?

Oh, right. Trolling.

Seriously, though: You keep pointing to 18 U.S.C. § 249 as if it's somehow important, yet you can't explain why.

So, the list was taken, verbatim, from the Legal Information Institute.

Okay, now here's the tricky part: And?

I mean, really, if you're going to go around calling people out, at least have something to say.

 

<------------Not a lawyer.
<------------Doesn't think the aforementioned law covers a punch.

Accurate?

 

Tiassa, I know you aren't stupid, but this ridiculous, off-point squawking isn't helping me to retain that opinion.

It is not legal to punch a Nazi or to kill someone because you imagine them to be a threat because of skin color or religion.

It couldn't be more plain. Unless that's not what you are talking about. Continuing to promote an unsupportable argument sounds like stupid to me.

 

so, what you're saying is: because i can prove my point with evidence that my list comes directly from a federal statute, then i am trolling you?
or is it: because i can prove my point with evidence and i showed how you're a blatant liar then i am wrong because you're the high-and-mighty i-MOD?
perhaps it's just that you are incapable of admitting it?
of course, i can't rule out literacy issues, or your fanaticism ....

and?
really? REALLY?
to use your own words against you: "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."

i will explain:
your claim is

this is not a debate, as this is a direct quote from your post here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is-punching-a-nazi-ok.158810/page-13#post-3437350
you've made the claim multiple times
every time it was a lie
LIE
not a mistake - a lie
it is a lie because i took that list directly from the federal statute
now, a normal person would say: "but Captain, that list says "religion" not "Christian" "... or something similar
to that, i would state: "and i simply replaced a very general term with a specific one that is classed under the general description"

of course, you likely didn't take the time to actually note the list, even though i quoted it multiple times in my posts to ice.
so that is the "and"

you're a blatant liar
and i just proved it - again

you mean like i have been doing this whole time?

let me repeat it - and i'll type it slowly so you can read it:
it is not legal in any way, shape or form to shoot blacks in the US, nor is it legal in any way to use the justification of "actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin, actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability" to justify battery, assault or violence in any way as it is against the hate crimes act (18 U.S. Code § 249 )

you made the claim that it was legal
it is not
you continued to make the claim
it still is not

that is just one of the "something i have to say"
get it yet?

 

I agree - in fact, this is one of the points I'm trying to build consensus on. Whilst others have not yet weighed in on my observation that there is no statutory authority for asserting that "it is legal to kill somebody because they are black" I think it fair to say no one will even try to make that argument. We shall see...

OTH, there is merit in pointing out that the judicial system, whose function is certainly "relating to law", seems to batting 1000 in support. Their interpretation of various statutes (such as "stand your ground") is implicitly affirming the legality of killing people because they are "threatening" – especially if you are a LEO. One of many, many examples:

A judge on Wednesday dismissed a manslaughter charge against a Florida deputy who claimed self-defense in the 2014 fatal shooting of a 33-year-old black man carrying what turned out to be an air rifle.
Circuit Judge Michael Usan ruled in favor of suspended Deputy Peter Peraza of the Broward Sheriff's Office, who sought dismissal of the case under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" self-defense law that eliminates a requirement to retreat when facing a dire threat.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/07/2...uty-in-shooting-death-man-with-air-rifle.html
​

A disproportionate number of said people are black:

“When in fact, as we know … more white people have been shot by police officers this year than minorities,” he said.

Huckabee is not, factually, incorrect.

In 2015, The Washington Post launched a real-time database to track fatal police shootings, and the project continues this year. As of Sunday, 1,502 people have been shot and killed by on-duty police officers since Jan. 1, 2015. Of them, 732 were white, and 381 were black (and 382 were of another or unknown race).

…

As The Post noted in a new analysis published last week, that means black Americans are 2.5 times as likely as white Americans to be shot and killed by police officers.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-by-police-yes-but-no/?utm_term=.d3bbbd940ec8
​

Does this necessarily lead to "it is legal to kill somebody because they are black"? I don’t think so – but, I can see how someone could arrive at that conclusion. In fact, I can’t recall a single case where a court has convicted a member of law enforcement for illegally killing a black person – as it relates to the law, of course.

Perhaps these convictions are just not reported on by the press… (Kind of like the Bowling Green Massacre

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) I still hold out hope in the Corey Jones case:

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/c...-corey-jones-shooting/Mql2g1xE1xcvRSpfy6GXQJ/
​

Semantic rewording or not we need a label - "getting away with it" doesn’t do the phenomenon justice. (pardon the pun) Do you have a suggestion?

Something is very, very wrong and I don’t think it just started – rather, it just started becoming verifiable with everyone having a video camera in their pocket. If we don’t acknowledge the problem’s existence we can’t address it – similar to “Radical Islamic Terrorism”. (I was on the fence about that label but have landed on the side for calling it like is – but being sure to include the “Radical”)

Which I don’t dispute – sorry if I gave the impression that I did. I don’t even think the Ice-T duo dispute it in the way that you are defending against. I suspect a misunderstanding and differing definitions… However, I will leave it for them to speak for themselves.

No need to be…

 

So says you. What does that have to do with anything?

You compared transgender to being a Nazi. That is disgusting. And this useless digression is apparently your ... what, defense? ... excuse?

• • •​

Try addressing my posts instead of making shit up, maybe? I mean, that's the thing, you already know my position.

• #26↑ ― No, really, you already know what's in this one.

• #42↑ ― A discussion of principle and function that you might be interested in or not.

• #63↑ ― Reflection on practical implications of the topic question.​

So why don't you go back to the part you already know about, because when I say, "you might actually get away with it", I'm presuming it's, you know, not "legal" to just up and punch a Nazi. Until you can convince a prosecutor to not file charges, or a jury to not convict you, that is. The question isn't, in an American context, whether fighting words doctrine is in effect, but, rather, what are its boundaries. We tried to banish communism for less. Remember, these are Nazis; this isn't some mysterious potential―there are literary and historical records. The point at which promoting this ideology becomes a manner of threat or fighting words occurs in a far different context than evangelizing Christ the Savior, or demanding equal rights per the constitution.

Something about function goes here, but it's also well enough to note that you need not make up my position; it's on the record.