Continued: (Ed) Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[wareyin]

Let's review the elements of assault.



I don't think there is any doubt whatsoever that Victor intended to cause Paul apprehension by placing a foreign object on his person. I've no idea why you consider that sort of behaviour defensible, but it is clearly not. Even the proto-Pitters saw that, for the most part. It's a basic rule of civility that you don't lay hands on people without permission.

As for the hilited, there is a lot of assumption packed into that one sentence. First, is "proto-Pitters" intended as some sort of slur? It reads that way to me, and as I participated in that discussion, does that make me a "proto-Pitter"? Further, going back and re-reading your link to verify my memory, most claimed it crossed a line, and was creepy*, but only Justicar felt it was assault.

*As I did at the time, and in this thread, as opposed to your claim that I am defending this.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I was in the audience, no one found it problematic.

I was too. I, and a number of people around me, found it uncomfortable.

 

[tsig]

I was too. I, and a number of people around me, found it uncomfortable.

Did you notice the young women tearing off their clothes and trying to mount the stage because of PZ's lusty joke?

 

[d4m10n]

First, is "proto-Pitters" intended as some sort of slur? It reads that way to me, and as I participated in that discussion, does that make me a "proto-Pitter"?

I meant only those commenting on ERV's threads back then, before it became what it eventually became.

Further, going back and re-reading your link to verify my memory, most claimed it crossed a line, and was creepy*, but only Justicar felt it was assault.

Surprisingly enough, Justicar was the only commenter with the relevant expertise. Victor threatened an unwanted touching of Paul's person. Had he been caught in the act, that would be an assault. Again, look at the elements of the tort.

If someone places something in your coat pocket while you are not wearing it, have they "laid hands on you"?

I don't recall Hoggle saying that he'd wait for PZ to remove his coat.

If someone reaches into the pocket of something that you are wearing, of course that can be an unwanted offensive touching.

I was too. I, and a number of people around me, found it uncomfortable.

Sure is lucky for PZ that none of them wrote it down at the time.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Sure is lucky for PZ that none of them wrote it down at the time.

Not everyone is a rage blogger.

 

[d4m10n]

Perhaps, but when I imagine, say, Shermer saying something like this nowadays, I seriously doubt it would go over without comment from the Freethought Bloggers.

If that happens, then they would be wrong, right here in 2014.

Rather than retroactively wrong way back in 2010.

 

[wareyin]

I meant only those commenting on ERV's threads back then, before it became what it eventually became.



Surprisingly enough, Justicar was the only commenter with the relevant expertise. Victor threatened an unwanted touching of Paul's person. Had he been caught in the act, that would be an assault. Again, look at the elements of the tort.

If by relevant expertise you mean "paranoid about being touched", then yes. Seriously, you are hitching your wagon to someone who claims that putting something in a pocket is violent assault. Does that not give you pause?

I don't recall Hoggle saying that he'd wait for PZ to remove his coat.

Ok. Do you recall Hoggle saying that it would be a coat, or that PZ would be wearing whatever garment it was? I don't.

If someone reaches into the pocket of something that you are wearing, of course that can be an unwanted offensive touching.

I don't recall Hoggle saying that PZ would be wearing whatever pocket containing garment.

It sure looks like you are reading a lot into what Hoggle threatened, then still having to stretch the law in order to make this fit your claim of assault.

 

[d4m10n]

If by relevant expertise you mean "paranoid about being touched", then yes. Seriously, you are hitching your wagon to someone who claims that putting something in a pocket is violent assault.

If you look at the elements of assault, you will not find apprehension of violence is among them. The apprehended contact need only be unwanted and offensive.

It sure looks like you are reading a lot into what Hoggle threatened, then still having to stretch the law in order to make this fit your claim of assault.

It sure looks like you are reading a lot out of what Hoggle threatened, then still having to stretch the law in order to absolve him of wrongdoing.

If you find the idea of someone touching your person offensive, and they threaten to put something on your person (in your pocket), and you see them coming towards you, then that would cause the reasonable apprehension of an immediate offensive contact. That's all there is to it, really.

 

[wareyin]

If you look at the elements of assault, you will not find apprehension of violence is among them. The apprehended contact need only be unwanted and offensive.

The only person you have produced who agrees with your claim of assault thinks any unwanted touch, whether on person or on unworn garment, is violent assault. Yet you claim this is the only person with relevant expertise.

It sure looks like you are reading a lot out of what Hoggle threatened, then still having to stretch the law in order to absolve him of wrongdoing.

If you find the idea of someone touching your person offensive, and they threaten to put something on your person (in your pocket), and you see them coming towards you, then that would cause the reasonable apprehension of an immediate offensive contact. That's all there is to it, really.

And one out of your three ifs applies, maybe. But, as I am going by what was actually threatened, rather than adding elements such as "touching your person", "see them coming towards you", or even "put something on your person", please explain what I am reading in or out of the threat.

 

[d4m10n]

...please explain what I am reading in or out of the threat.

The fact that Paul's pockets are on Paul's person, obviously.

Do you deny that all the elements of the tort would be present if Paul caught Victor in the act of attempting a reverse pickpocketing?

Do you think it likely that Victor is a master of stealth and would not be seen coming or detected in the act?

Do you think that Victor's threats against Paul were somehow justifiable?

 

[wareyin]

The fact that Paul's pockets are on Paul's person, obviously.

Do you deny that all the elements of the tort would be present if Paul caught Victor in the act of attempting a reverse pickpocketing?

Do you think it likely that Victor is a master of stealth and would not be seen coming or detected in the act?

You have yet to establish that PZ's pockets would have been on his person during the threatened action. Please explain how you have determined this, when "on person" was never in the threat, and without "on person" your claim of assault falls apart.

Do you think that Victor's threats against Paul were somehow justifiable?

You seem quite keen on ignoring my actual stated opinion on Hoggle's threat, while repeatedly asking me what my opinion is. Why is that? If you honestly wanted to know, why did you ignore it the first 2 times I posted it here?

 

[tsig]

You have yet to establish that PZ's pockets would have been on his person during the threatened action. Please explain how you have determined this, when "on person" was never in the threat, and without "on person" your claim of assault falls apart.



You seem quite keen on ignoring my actual stated opinion on Hoggle's threat, while repeatedly asking me what my opinion is. Why is that? If you honestly wanted to know, why did you ignore it the first 2 times I posted it here?

Hair splitting at it's finest.

Apparently PZ is so evil that anything can be done to him.

 

[wareyin]

Hair splitting at it's finest.

Apparently PZ is so evil that anything can be done to him.

Another person who is unable to read my posted opinion on the threat. I have clearly stated the opposite of your claim. Its a shame that you and d4m10n must invent positions not held by your opponent in order to find a problem to be offended by.

 

[tsig]

Another person who is unable to read my posted opinion on the threat. I have clearly stated the opposite of your claim. Its a shame that you and d4m10n must invent positions not held by your opponent in order to find a problem to be offended by.

Ah, yes, the old "I've already posted it so if you can't tell what I mean by my disjointed ramblings that's your fault" ploy.

If you don't understand your position well enough to state it succinctly then I feel no obligation to do it for you.

 

[wareyin]

Ah, yes, the old "I've already posted it so if you can't tell what I mean by my disjointed ramblings that's your fault" ploy.

If you don't understand your position well enough to state it succinctly then I feel no obligation to do it for you.

You do not understand a simple sentence such as "It was creepy and crossed a line, but it is not assault"?

You are under no obligation to post my position, and given your malicious mischaracterization regarding what I said, I ask you to not state my position.

 

[d4m10n]

You have yet to establish that PZ's pockets would have been on his person during the threatened action.

Where are your pockets, usually?

You do not understand a simple sentence such as "It was creepy and crossed a line, but it is not assault"?

"It" being the act that was threatened or the post itself?

Obviously the post itself was not assault.

Obviously the act itself would have been.

No idea why this is even a controversy. If someone threatens to lay hands on someone else in an unwanted way, that is plainly wrong and indefensible. Victor crossed the line of morality and decency in making that threat. The fact that Paul is an unlikable fellow doesn't make that okay.

 

[tsig]

Where are your pockets, usually?



"It" being the act that was threatened or the post itself?

Obviously the post itself was not assault.

Obviously the act itself would have been.

No idea why this is even a controversy. If someone threatens to lay hands on someone else in an unwanted way, that is plainly wrong and indefensible. Victor crossed the line of morality and decency in making that threat. The fact that Paul is an unlikable fellow doesn't make that okay.

What does he have in his pocketses? My precious, nasty Hobbits.

 

[wareyin]

Where are your pockets, usually?

On my clothing. Where do you think they would be? Do you wear every item of clothing you own at all times? Some of us own more than one pair of pants, leaving the extra in the dresser, or perhaps at the dry-cleaners(I wonder what kind of security you imagine a dry cleaner uses?). Some of us get warm and take off jackets. Some of us even own more than one shirt with a pocket.

"It" being the act that was threatened or the post itself?

Obviously the post itself was not assault.

Obviously the act itself would have been.

The only way to interpret the act itself as assault requires you to add in things Hoggle did not state in the threat. You cannot possibly interpret putting something harmless into a pocket as assault, unless the victim was wearing the clothing. As it is rather common to check coats in winter environments, or leave a jacket on a chair, assuming that PZ would be wearing whatever garment is not automatic. The obvious fact is that such an assumption on your part is the only way to claim assault.

No idea why this is even a controversy. If someone threatens to lay hands on someone else in an unwanted way, that is plainly wrong and indefensible. Victor crossed the line of morality and decency in making that threat. The fact that Paul is an unlikable fellow doesn't make that okay.

You and tsig are really on a tizzy with dishonestly misrepresenting those with whom you disagree, aren't you? Please point out where anyone said this was ok.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Looks like Nate Phelps has got the Warriors in a tizzy.

 

[d4m10n]

Out of curiosity, wareyin, have you ever been to an avocational conference with a coat check booth? Is that the custom in Australia in early autumn?