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

[tsig]

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.



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.



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.

I'm sure that breaking into a dry cleaners is illegal.

 

[d4m10n]

I am glad you can admit they were both wrong. Can you explain what makes you conclude that every time PZ threatens someone or propositions someone it is a joke, but when someone else does the same act it is not a joke?

n=2

Why do you not apply the same standards?

I do.

 

[wareyin]

n=2

I do.

Well, as I have seen you laughing off PZ's threat of criminal assault against you while also condemning Hoggle's threat that could possibly be interpreted as tort assault, it certainly seems that you are holding PZ to a different standard.

 

[wareyin]

I'm sure that breaking into a dry cleaners is illegal.

Thank you, Captain Obvious. Is it assault, too?

 

[d4m10n]

...it certainly seems that you are holding PZ to a different standard.

Either that, or else only one of them was obviously unserious, when taken in the relevant context.

...if I am to accomplish any stalking, it would be foolish to make myself so readily identifiable. I will seek to surreptitiously besmirch as many baboons as possible by sitting next to them without them realising anything is amiss and then silently wandering off after a happy snap is taken.

It would be a grave disservice on my behalf to not feed their collective derangements and paranoias. They are martyrs remember? They have turned me into a hairshirt. I have obligations to live up to. PZ should keep checking his pockets too. I will deposit a strange, yet entirely innocuous and harmless, token of my affection for him in there. It's up to him to catch me.

Doo-doo-doo-doo, they are entering the Twilight Zone... If they choose to make themselves insane, it's entirely none of my concern.

We’ll get a good presentation, the Q&A will roll around, and some wanker, like the pair who got their photo by the elevator sign last year, will be in attendance just for laughs and will ask some question that they regard as clever and pointed, and then I’ll just have to puke on their heads, right there in public. Really, public emesis is one of those things I hate. I won’t feel good about it. They’ll really feel awful. I just hope it doesn’t happen.

Maybe they were both serious threats, maybe neither of them was, but it seems to me that the first one is more probably intended as a serious statement of the author's actual intentions.

IMO. YMMV. BTWAPOS.

 

[wareyin]

Either that, or else only one of them was obviously unserious, when taken in the relevant context.





Maybe they were both serious threats, maybe neither of them was, but it seems to me that the first one is more probably intended as a serious statement of the author's actual intentions.

IMO. YMMV. BTWAPOS.

The relevant context tells me neither was intended to be real, unless you believe the twilight zone is real.

 

[d4m10n]

The relevant context tells me neither was intended to be real, unless you believe the twilight zone is real.

I am undone!

No doubt he meant "martyr" and "baboon" perfectly literally as well.

 

[wareyin]

I am undone!

No doubt he meant "martyr" and "baboon" perfectly literally as well.

No doubt. Clearly he also meant what he said about both being unidentifiable, and being in as many pictures as possible. Same with being a hairshirt. [/sarcasm]

 

[wareyin]

I am undone!

No doubt he meant "martyr" and "baboon" perfectly literally as well.

I wonder why you appear to think that pointing out how a large part of Hoggle's threat was not literal means that it is more likely to interpret the one bit you have stretched into assault was literal? Clearly, one wishing to remain unidentifiable would not be posing in as many pictures as possible. Clearly, if one wanted to surreptitiously put something in a pocket and not get caught, posing in pictures with as many people as one could makes it easy to identify the culprit.

Working so hard to paint the pocket bit as assault on behalf of someone who just as seriously threatened to criminally assault you does not look very rational.

 

[tsig]

I wonder why you appear to think that pointing out how a large part of Hoggle's threat was not literal means that it is more likely to interpret the one bit you have stretched into assault was literal? Clearly, one wishing to remain unidentifiable would not be posing in as many pictures as possible. Clearly, if one wanted to surreptitiously put something in a pocket and not get caught, posing in pictures with as many people as one could makes it easy to identify the culprit.

Working so hard to paint the pocket bit as assault on behalf of someone who just as seriously threatened to criminally assault you does not look very rational.

It all looks like a wind in a watch-pocket.

 

[d4m10n]

I wonder why you appear to think that pointing out how a large part of Hoggle's threat was not literal means that it is more likely to interpret the one bit you have stretched into assault was literal?

Both Paul and Victor have threatened an unwanted, unauthorised, offensive touching of a fellow convention-goer. I've no idea why you cannot simply read the elements of assault and battery in tort law and check all the boxes that would apply if they had actually made good on those threats. It's not as if this is tricky to research.

As to whether the threats were serious, I leave that to each reader to discern for themselves. Personally, I think PZ would never attempt physically attacking someone like that, partly out of a sense of self-preservation.

 

[tsig]

Both Paul and Victor have threatened an unwanted, unauthorised, offensive touching of a fellow convention-goer. I've no idea why you cannot simply read the elements of assault and battery in tort law and check all the boxes that would apply if they had actually made good on those threats. It's not as if this is tricky to research.

As to whether the threats were serious, I leave that to each reader to discern for themselves. Personally, I think PZ would never attempt physically attacking someone like that, partly out of a sense of self-preservation.

Whistle blows, flag on the play for "offensive touching" five yards and loss of frown.

 

[wareyin]

Both Paul and Victor have threatened an unwanted, unauthorised, offensive touching of a fellow convention-goer. I've no idea why you cannot simply read the elements of assault and battery in tort law and check all the boxes that would apply if they had actually made good on those threats. It's not as if this is tricky to research.

As to whether the threats were serious, I leave that to each reader to discern for themselves. Personally, I think PZ would never attempt physically attacking someone like that, partly out of a sense of self-preservation.

And now it is assault and battery? Indeed, these laws are not tricky to research, and there is no way that battery applies. The only way to apply assault is if you pretend that the threat necessitates the clothing to be worn at the time, and that "offensive touching" is interpreted as "any touch by someone I don't like." Please, you are not appearing any more rational by getting more hyperbolic in your approach.

 

[d4m10n]

What do you think offensive touching means?

Assuming a reasonable person standard, that question becomes whether a reasonable person would be offended by having someone who hates them attempt to stealthily enter their pockets, while they are wearing said pockets.

 

[wareyin]

What do you think offensive touching means?

Assuming a reasonable person standard, that question becomes whether a reasonable person would be offended by having someone who hates them attempt to stealthily enter their pockets, while they are wearing said pockets.

Please provide any evidence of the hilited. Thank you.

ETA: The legal explanation of "offensive touching/contact":
"In general, the definition of an “offensive contact” would be determined by an objective standard, based on what kinds of contact society deems acceptable and what kinds of contact society would not. An unwanted kiss or caress is offensive, even if not harmful. But, there are many kinds of contact tolerated as part of living in a crowded society. A tap on the shoulder to ask a question, a bump in a crowded elevator or department store aisle, gently holding an acquaintance's arm to escort the person into a cab or through a slippery stretch of sidewalk would normally be tolerated by society's mores and not deemed offensive. However, while authority on the issue is sparse, it may be that if the defendant knows that a specific plaintiff has an idiosyncratic fear of certain kinds of otherwise tolerable touches, a defendant who knowingly violates the plaintiff's wishes and performs that kind of contact would be guilty of a battery."


Is putting something harmless in a pocket even if the individual is wearing said pocket (which you have not established) more, or less offensive than touching them on the shoulder to ask a question?

 

[Myriad]

Everyone seems to be missing the point of the threat of putting something harmless in someone's pocket. It's not assault without greatly stretching the definition, but if carried out it would be a form of threat.

So, threatening to do it is essentially threatening to threaten. Much like announcing, "If you're still here when I come back, I'll shake my fist at you."

Shaking ones first, of course, demonstrates that one has the minimal physical capacity to strike a blow, while putting something harmless in a pocket demonstrates that one has the capability to get close enough to that person to strike a blow. As both capabilities are equally necessary to carry out an unarmed physical attack, they're roughly equal in threat-quality.

 

[wareyin]

Everyone seems to be missing the point of the threat of putting something harmless in someone's pocket. It's not assault without greatly stretching the definition, but if carried out it would be a form of threat.

So, threatening to do it is essentially threatening to threaten. Much like announcing, "If you're still here when I come back, I'll shake my fist at you."

Shaking ones first, of course, demonstrates that one has the minimal physical capacity to strike a blow, while putting something harmless in a pocket demonstrates that one has the capability to get close enough to that person to strike a blow. As both capabilities are equally necessary to carry out an unarmed physical attack, they're roughly equal in threat-quality.

I basically agree with this. I think it's slightly worse than saying "I'll shake my fist at you," though. In my opinion, if carried out, it would have been more along the lines of telling PZ that Hoggle could get to him whenever Hoggle wanted, without PZ being aware of who Hoggle even is to be able to stop him. That part gets negated by also threatening to be in as many pictures as possible, though.

 

[d4m10n]

Please provide any evidence of the hilited.

People generally keep their pockets on their persons at conferences. If the GAC had a coat check, no one ever mentioned it. If you're thinking Victor might break into Paul's luggage or hotel room, that is a whole other category of wrongdoing.

 

[wareyin]

People generally keep their pockets on their persons at conferences. If the GAC had a coat check, no one ever mentioned it. If you're thinking Victor might break into Paul's luggage or hotel room, that is a whole other category of wrongdoing.

So no evidence, just an assumption.

 

[zooterkin]

People generally keep their pockets on their persons at conferences.

They do? I must be doing it wrong. I frequently leave my jacket on my chair at conferences. I take it off because it's usually too warm in the auditorium, and I leave on my chair to reserve my seat during breaks.