Disgraceful! Richard Spencer Sucker-Punched While Giving Interview

[caveman1917]

The rule of law, and whether or not we want to be a nation governed by the rule of law.

Why would you want to be a nation in the first place? Besides, you're governed by the bourgeoisie and not by "the rule of law". Try having an election in your workplace to replace management and stop recognizing the shareholders, see what happens...

 

[Thermal]

To justify assaulting him, either legally or even morally.

The rule of law, and whether or not we want to be a nation governed by the rule of law.

Because it matters.

And you simply can't tolerate any discussion about opinions which might stray from legal definitions?

Aldrin was threatened by Sebrel. Nobody was being threatened by Spencer. These are not equivalent situations.

Bull. Sebrel was demanding he swear on a bible and calling him a liar and a coward. That's not assault.

ETA: Spencer's speech (and by extension his presence) threatens many, unless you think advocating racial cleansing and genocide is non-threatening.

 

[Belz...]

No, we haven't. You said that dictatorships have rule of law. They don't.

Black-and-white thinking, as usual. Guess it goes well with the pretty avatar.

(Go ahead, tell me that I have a being and orange thinking).

What's your thoughts on executive orders and martial law in the US?

Still waiting on the moral explanation. I know you want to run away from it.

 

[Ziggurat]

Black-and-white thinking, as usual.

That's a pretty weak excuse for being wrong.

What's your thoughts on executive orders and martial law in the US?

Executive orders do not properly apply to citizens, they apply to the executive branch itself, and thus are not equivalent to laws. And martial law is indeed problematic, which is why it's a good thing it's not used much.

Still waiting on the moral explanation.

I'm sure you are.

 

[Ziggurat]

And you simply can't tolerate any discussion about opinions which might stray from legal definitions?

I can tolerate them just fine. I don't tolerate stupid arguments very well, though.

Bull. Sebrel was demanding he swear on a bible and calling him a liar and a coward. That's not assault.

I didn't say assault. I said threaten. Substituting one for the other is a stupid argument which I don't tolerate well.

 

[Belz...]

That's a pretty weak excuse for being wrong.

I was refering to you, not me.

Executive orders do not properly apply to citizens, they apply to the executive branch itself, and thus are not equivalent to laws. And martial law is indeed problematic, which is why it's a good thing it's not used much.

Who has the power to declare martial law in the US?

I'm sure you are.

You know that this is cowardice on your part, right?

 

[Thermal]

I can tolerate them just fine. I don't tolerate stupid arguments very well, though.

I didn't say assault. I said threaten. Substituting one for the other is a stupid argument which I don't tolerate well.

That's the petty semantic argument you are relying on? Ok, Sebrel did not assault or threaten Aldrin, which are the legal justifications for a self-defense claim, as you assert Aldrin had. The word substitution changes nothing about the argument in context. And you know it.

 

[Ziggurat]

I was refering to you, not me.

I know that. It's still an excuse.

Who has the power to declare martial law in the US?

You tell me, since you seem to think this matters.

You know that this is cowardice on your part, right?

No, it's a deliberate attempt to annoy you. Hey, it's working!

 

[Belz...]

I know that. It's still an excuse.

No, it's a description of your inability to follow what I'm saying.

You tell me, since you seem to think this matters.

I'm asking you because I don't know. Stop playing your stupid games.

No, it's a deliberate attempt to annoy you.

Well, it's working, I can confirm. However it makes you look like an ass, not me.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's the petty semantic argument you are relying on?

The difference between assaulting someone and threatening them are not petty, they are not merely semantic, they are large and significant.

Ok, Sebrel did not assault or threaten Aldrin

I disagree. I think that there's a very good case to be made that Sebrel's conduct was threatening, which I think has a lot to do with the district attorney choosing not to bring charges against Aldrin.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, it's a description of your inability to follow what I'm saying.

What you said was wrong. You still can't admit it, even though neutral sources confirm your error.

I'm asking you because I don't know.

You are perfectly capable of finding that out yourself. The answer isn't part of my argument, and I have no idea why you think that even matters here. So why should I do your research for you?

Stop playing your stupid games.

And play your stupid games instead? No thanks.

Well, it's working, I can confirm.

 

[fuelair]

*MostlyDead buries his face in his hands under the realization that his half-assed anarchist apologetics are crushed by income tax declarations*

Ok, retracted. You win a $20 bet from your buddy who couldn't knock out a white supremacist with one punch. Do you declare that, or are you a tax evader?

I wouldn't, others might. I strongly suspect the IRS is not going to go after you on $20!!!

 

[Belz...]

What you said was wrong.

You only think it's wrong because you're thinking in black-and-white terms.

You are perfectly capable of finding that out yourself. The answer isn't part of my argument, and I have no idea why you think that even matters here.

It matters because it's a way to circumvent the rule of law. You really had no idea? I mentioned it directly in relation to that! Stop pretending.

And play your stupid games instead?

Just because you're playing games doesn't mean you can project that behaviour onto others.

Don't worry, I find comfort in the certain knowledge that you can't possibly answer my challenge on this.

 

[Thermal]

The difference between assaulting someone and threatening them are not petty, they are not merely semantic, they are large and significant.

Sometimes. In the context of whether or not Aldrin was justified in claiming self-defense, not so much.

I disagree. I think that there's a very good case to be made that Sebrel's conduct was threatening, which I think has a lot to do with the district attorney choosing not to bring charges against Aldrin.

Ok, I'll bite. In the context of justifying the use of force for self-protection, what threat did did Sebrel deliver?

 

[Ziggurat]

You only think it's wrong because you're thinking in black-and-white terms.

"Fire is hot."
"You're wrong. There's a whole spectrum between hot and cold."
"Uh...."

It matters because it's a way to circumvent the rule of law.

And that makes a difference to what *I* said... how?

Oh, that's right, it doesn't. Yes, martial law circumvents the rule of law. So what's your point? Did I advocate martial law? Does martial law play a role in the events we were discussing?

Just because you're playing games doesn't mean you can project that behaviour onto others.

True, but irrelevant, since you are in fact playing games.

Don't worry, I find comfort in the certain knowledge that you can't possibly answer my challenge on this.

Find comfort in whatever you want to believe. You might want to try religion, it's more generally applicable.

 

[Ziggurat]

Sometimes. In the context of whether or not Aldrin was justified in claiming self-defense, not so much.

I disagree. The difference matters here because although Sebrel didn't assault Aldrin, he did threaten him.

Ok, I'll bite. In the context of justifying the use of force for self-protection, what threat did did Sebrel deliver?

Sebrel was behavior irrationally and in a hostile manner, and he had backed Aldrin up against a wall. Aldrin asked him to leave him alone repeatedly. His refusal to do so, his physically blocking Aldrin from leaving, and his continued badgering of Aldrin, creates a reasonable fear that his behavior might escalate beyond simply yelling at Aldrin.

 

[Belz...]

"Fire is hot."
"You're wrong. There's a whole spectrum between hot and cold."
"Uh...."

And now it's you who fails to understand.

And that makes a difference to what *I* said... how?

One of your presumably key arguments in the distinction between the two was that the law could change at any time. Well, it can under rule of law too.

True, but irrelevant, since you are in fact playing games.

Nope. I'm actually trying to carry the conversation forward, but your simply refuse to make that happen. Ego, I suppose.

Find comfort in whatever you want to believe.

Oh, it's based on solid evidence, like your inability to answer the challenge.

 

[Ziggurat]

And now it's you who fails to understand.

... he said, as he continued to deny his own failure of understanding.

Just admit it, Argumemnon. My link already contradicted you.

One of your presumably key arguments in the distinction between the two was that the law could change at any time. Well, it can under rule of law too.

No. Martial law can only be declared under certain conditions, which are very rare in the US. It cannot be imposed at any time.

Edited by jsfisher: 

<snip> Edited for compliance with the Membership Agreement.

 

[Belz...]

... he said, as he continued to deny his own failure of understanding.

Just admit it, Argumemnon. My link already contradicted you.

It only contradicted something you believe I argued for but didn't.

This game of yours is getting silly.

 

[applecorped]