thebeardslastcall Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 An elbow to the face is a step up from shooting a hostile invader. Progress? He invaded in a hostile fashion because he thought they were more pacified towards retaliatory violence and in some ways, if their aim was to trash Trump or his supporters, may have actually liked that he got elbowed due to the potentially bad press after the fact. Not judging the situation, but just saying if we were in a free society he wouldn't have had the state created gray area to pull off something like that without high fear of a serious and possibly fatal response. The denial of free association created by the state's fuzzy rules make creating proper rules impossible and thus make such situations much harder to judge. If you go onto someone else's property with intent to harm I'd generally be inclined to default against the invader.
Mister Mister Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 Isn't it more like "treat the protesters the way they are treating everyone else"? Welcome everyone, but if they are jerks, there's no need to be nice to them. I didn't say you should be nice to them, but that doesn't mean you elbow them in the back of the head.
shirgall Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 I didn't say you should be nice to them, but that doesn't mean you elbow them in the back of the head. You are right, Trump is probably spinning it to appear reactive in nature.
neeeel Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 my reply to valheeb disappeared, it got modded I guess.
vahleeb Posted March 19, 2016 Posted March 19, 2016 Im not sure where I changed your example? Perhaps I am being dumb but can you point it out to me? You are saying that he could walk away in the opposite direction, but the opposite direction was replete with other people, not to mention that in the story I put forward, if his wife and children were there, it didn't matter if he were shepherding them all in the opposite direction because a voice carries farther than you can walk within the observed period for notice. I notice that you didnt address any of the points I brought up in my previous post You're right, but I didn't address them because I felt that you have changed my example to fit with your view of the event. My example, which I invited you to read again, is specifically designed so that you do not have the option of walking away. In the end, the option of walking away is something that we end up preferring because of the relatively small cost that it implies than doubling down and escalating force, but, in case this cost of walking away is not small, but in fact rather large, the situation changes. This is what I was trying to explain with my example, but your point of view seemed to be in your reply that you can ALWAYS walk away as though you don't see that there could be any costs associated with this action. I know you keep saying that verbal aggression is initiation of force. Your example didnt show that, it was just you asserting that it was. How does that work? Who decides what is verbal aggression and what isnt?You have still to define "verbal aggression" in any way. Currently its very vague as to what you mean by it. I'd say that common sense decides. My example goes even farther than simple verbal aggression. If you really feel that a definition is required just so we can talk about the same thing here goes: verbal aggression is a manifestation of speech either directed at or performed in the presence of people who might take offence to the contents of the speech. (why do I feel that you're gonna focus on this definition more than on the following reply? prove me wrong, neeeel ) No, you are not allowed to stop someone from cursing in front of your wife and children. You can leave ( or if on your property, ask/force them to leave). I think here you may have unknowingly conceded the point. If you say that under the NAP you have the right to "force them to leave" your property, this absolutely implies that they have already committed an initiation of force. I know, you're gonna say that their violation of your property is the initiation of force, but this doesn't qualify under your own definition of threatening bodily harm. If all he does is stand in your living room while cursing you out, but specifically not bringing any credible threats, you're still allowed to forcefully remove him. Again, its very vague as to what you mean by "cursing in front of your wife and children". If its just a guy screaming and cursing at the sky because his football team has lost, does that count? As mello says, if its a credible threat, then yes, you need to protect yourself and your family. So if its a guy yelling threats and invading personal space, sticking their face right into yours or your wifes face, then you act to get your family to safety. That might involve ( but doesnt automatically mean ) physical violence against the guy. Walking up to a guy in the street and elbowing them in the face because they swore, is insane, in my opinion, perhaps thats not what you mean when you talk about it, but as I said, its very unclear as to what you mean by verbal aggression and "swearing in front of", and currently your argument includes that scenario. You dont like that he swore in front of your wife and children, therefore, you get to use force against him. If the police are escorting a thief out of my house, and I swear at him , call him a f**king thieving b****** , is he then justified in punching me? I am sure you will say no, but why not? Your argument currently allows this scenario.. How about something like this? "you're all a bunch of p**sies! your wife needs to s**k my c**k, so she can get a taste of a real man". Is this acceptable language that does not constitute aggression in front of someone's wife (and child) ? Look, I am not defending what the guy has done, but I am not condemning outright either. All I'm saying is that force has definitely been initiated by someone else and that guy was obviously in the process of continuing force, so whatever the retaliation was it can only qualify as escalation and not initiation.
neeeel Posted March 19, 2016 Posted March 19, 2016 You are saying that he could walk away in the opposite direction, but the opposite direction was replete with other people, not to mention that in the story I put forward, if his wife and children were there, it didn't matter if he were shepherding them all in the opposite direction because a voice carries farther than you can walk within the observed period for notice. Right, its just a story. Neither of us know what happened. I dont know why you think this somehow justifies what he did. I suppose you can accuse me of the same, that I am condemning him before knowing what really happened. I'd say that common sense decides. My example goes even farther than simple verbal aggression. If you really feel that a definition is required just so we can talk about the same thing here goes: verbal aggression is a manifestation of speech either directed at or performed in the presence of people who might take offence to the contents of the speech. (why do I feel that you're gonna focus on this definition more than on the following reply? prove me wrong, neeeel ) I think here you may have unknowingly conceded the point. If you say that under the NAP you have the right to "force them to leave" your property, this absolutely implies that they have already committed an initiation of force. I know, you're gonna say that their violation of your property is the initiation of force, but this doesn't qualify under your own definition of threatening bodily harm. If all he does is stand in your living room while cursing you out, but specifically not bringing any credible threats, you're still allowed to forcefully remove him. No. You have the right to force someone to leave your property EVEN IF THEY DID NOTHING! That is, if you dont like their hair, or the smell of their aftershave, or you just want some alone time, you can ask them to leave. If they dont comply, you can use force ( someone correct me if I am wrong here?) So, no, I havent conceded your point. It totally does not imply that the protester committed an initation of force. As I keep stating, if someone is leaving, or being escorted away, elbowing them in the face is an initiation of force. I still dont understand why you are defending this? He is not "forcefully removing" the protester from his property. He is violently assaulting him. How about something like this? "you're all a bunch of p**sies! your wife needs to s**k my c**k, so she can get a taste of a real man". Is this acceptable language that does not constitute aggression in front of someone's wife (and child) ? Look, I am not defending what the guy has done, but I am not condemning outright either. All I'm saying is that force has definitely been initiated by someone else and that guy was obviously in the process of continuing force, so whatever the retaliation was it can only qualify as escalation and not initiation. You are totally defending what the guy did. You are justifying it under all sorts of reasons, none of which I accept.
DrTruthiness Posted March 20, 2016 Posted March 20, 2016 I can't believe I'm seeing this Maddow segment praised on the left, right, and libertarian sides. She's not even able to keep the smirk off her face as she carefully presents feelings first, conclusions second, and a smattering of facts and evidence last. And I can't believe I'm seeing self-described libertarians and voluntarists apologize for violence committed at Donald Trump rallies this weekend in Arizona. There is no justification for sucker punching someone holding a sign and kicking him repeatedly on the ground. That is a direct violation of NAP.
Guest Gee Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 And I can't believe I'm seeing self-described libertarians and voluntarists apologize for violence committed at Donald Trump rallies this weekend in Arizona. There is no justification for sucker punching someone holding a sign and kicking him repeatedly on the ground. That is a direct violation of NAP. Its funny, when I was a child learning to play rugby this is exactly what we were taught to expect to happen to us when we tried to disrupt the game.
shirgall Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 Anyone see any media coverage on the black Trump supporter that helped take an unruly protester dressed like a KKK member out of rally?
shirgall Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 Nope. Got any links? https://twitter.com/sopandeb/status/711320555912339457 http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/protestors-block-ariz-road-stop-trump-rally-article-1.2570353 http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/273673-trump-protester-assaulted-at-rally#
Guest Gee Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 https://twitter.com/sopandeb/status/711320555912339457 http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/protestors-block-ariz-road-stop-trump-rally-article-1.2570353 http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/273673-trump-protester-assaulted-at-rally# Those headlines though! Trump protester assaulted at rally! Protester sucker punched during Donald Trump rally in ‘physical pain’ after violent Tucson, Ariz., event In Tuscon, a protester being escorted out of Trump rally was punched in face by an African-American attendee
shirgall Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 I was trying to be wry, but the coverage of a black man supporting Trump seems to be oddly missing considering what he did to support the narrative that Trump supporters are violent.
Recommended Posts