Disgraceful! Richard Spencer Sucker-Punched While Giving Interview

Delphic Oracle said:
When one advocates for violence against other demographic groups, one no longer gets to invoke a right to bodily safety because they've demonstrated they don't believe one exists.
Click to expand...


So if someone screams "Hitler was Right!" that gives you a right to shoot them?
 
Argumemnon said:
You don't think "The peole who applaud and condone this weak ambush of disgusting intent, are just as much the coward that the ineffectual attacker is." constitutes a declaration of having the moral high ground?
Click to expand...

I'd say moral level ground, myself.
 
dudalb said:
So if someone screams "Hitler was Right!" that gives you a right to shoot them?
Click to expand...

We have become much more progressive since WWII. If you want to shoot them now, they have to say, "Allauh Akbar."
 
Ziggurat said:
I disagree. The difference matters here because although Sebrel didn't assault Aldrin, he did threaten him.

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.
Click to expand...

See attached video. Aldrin was not 'backed against a wall', there was a column behind him, space between him and Sibrel (note Aldrin moves forward to close the gap) and free access to either side. The incident took place in California, and the self-defense statute (linked below) reads that you must believe you are in imminent danger of bodily injury to claim self-defense. Further:

Belief in future harm is not sufficient, no matter how great or how likely the harm is believed to be.
Click to expand...

So your claim that Aldrin acted in self-defense through fear that Sibrel 'might escalate' is not supported by the law of the relevant jurisdiction. There was simply no imminent threat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wptn5RE2I-k

https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/3400/3470.html
 
MostlyDead said:
So your claim that Aldrin acted in self-defense through fear that Sibrel 'might escalate' is not supported by the law of the relevant jurisdiction. There was simply no imminent threat.
Click to expand...

It doesn't actually matter if there was actually an imminent threat. What matters is if the fear of an imminent threat was reasonable. I think it was. Apparently the prosecutors believed that a jury would think so too.

So either you think the prosecutors were wrong (on what basis?), or you think a jury would consider Spencer's attacker to have a reasonable fear of imminent threat from Spencer (which is laughable). Otherwise, they simply aren't comparable.
 
Ziggurat said:
It doesn't actually matter if there was actually an imminent threat. What matters is if the fear of an imminent threat was reasonable. I think it was. Apparently the prosecutors believed that a jury would think so too.

So either you think the prosecutors were wrong (on what basis?),...
Click to expand...

From a practical standpoint, I think the prosecutors doubted that any jury would convict an American hero for punching that hoax nut. I still see no reason to fear imminent threat of bodily injury per statutory definition.

...or you think a jury would consider Spencer's attacker to have a reasonable fear of imminent threat from Spencer (which is laughable). Otherwise, they simply aren't comparable.
Click to expand...

False dichotomy. I opine that both are statutory assaults, but that both are justifiable under Natural Law (Aldrin more so than hoodie-boy)
 
dudalb said:
So if someone screams "Hitler was Right!" that gives you a right to shoot them?
Click to expand...

Only when they act on that belief by attempting torture/murder/related.

Screaming their bile just lets you know to be ready to shoot/cut if needed.
 
MostlyDead said:
False dichotomy. I opine that both are statutory assaults, but that both are justifiable under Natural Law (Aldrin more so than hoodie-boy)
Click to expand...

That's not what "false dichotomy" means. It refers to cases where there are MORE than two possibilities, but one tries to arbitrarily limit consideration to only two. You have done the opposite: claim that two different things are actually the same.
 
caveman1917 said:
Good question. Primarily nihilist with affinity with autonomism and anarchist(-communism). Something like that. You?
Click to expand...

Mixed bag. I'm the world's loneliest political orphan.

I'm extremely liberal on all the LGBT+ stuff, and would happily legalise anything from Qat to Crack.
When I do an on-line test, it comes up left-liberal.
Economically I suspect I'd like a greater role of the state in money distribution. But I still have to look into that more. Economics is complicated.
But on some issues I lean hard right. I'm seriously nationalistic and on illegal immigration, border protection and violent crime I find myself somewhere between Isabella of Castilia and Vlad the Impaler.

Basically, if I were to design a country, I would harness the right-winged elements to form a hard outer shell and create a safe space for an extremely free left-winged soft core.

Like most ideals it is an impossibility. The liberal core would remove the outer shell through voting, or the outer shell would start to police the core.

All societies are somewhere on the Chaos-Order spectrum, but I don't know if it would be possible to marry two extremes.
 
Eddie Dane said:
I'm extremely liberal on all the LGBT+ stuff, and would happily legalise anything from Qat to Crack. When I do an on-line test, it comes up left-liberal.
Click to expand...

Which test?

Economically I suspect I'd like a greater role of the state in money distribution.
Click to expand...

It seems to have a decisive role already. Try changing the money distribution. Go to your nearest store, take something and walk back out without "paying" and thereby altering the legally mandated money distribution. See who comes showing up believing they are justified in using violence to stop it...

But I still have to look into that more. Economics is complicated.
Click to expand...

Economics is the basis. Who should control the means of production in your view?

I'm seriously nationalistic
Click to expand...

Which unicorn/nation?

and on illegal immigration, border protection and violent crime I find myself somewhere between Isabella of Castilia and Vlad the Impaler.
Click to expand...

Uhu. This is where it goes seriously downhill. Have you considered that if you have no borders and no classes that those 3 problems wouldn't even exist?

Do you mean that you want to be some combination of Isabella of Castillia and Vlad the Impaler? Or that you'd want someone else to do that?

Basically, if I were to design a country, I would harness the right-winged elements to form a hard outer shell and create a safe space for an extremely free left-winged soft core.
Click to expand...

Why?
 
Last edited:
caveman1917 said:
Uhu. This is where it goes seriously downhill. Have you considered that if you have no borders and no classes that those 3 problems wouldn't even exist?
Click to expand...

Only if the entire world agrees with you.

Which it won't. Because nation states are evolutionarily superior to anarchism, just as industrialization is superior to primitivism.
 
Ziggurat said:
Only if the entire world agrees with you.

Which it won't. Because nation states are evolutionarily superior to anarchism, just as industrialization is superior to primitivism.
Click to expand...

Define "evolutionary superior" and provide your evidence.
 
dudalb said:
So if someone screams "Hitler was Right!" that gives you a right to shoot them?
Click to expand...

No, if someone screams "Hitler was Wrong!" that gives you a right to shoot them. The person who was shot was an anti-fascist and the shooter a neo-nazi who was let go without charge.

Meanwhile the arrested non-violent protestors at the inauguration protests are facing charges for up to 10 years imprisonment.

So if I'm getting it straight, talking about a disbelief in private property is a huge no (10 years in jail for rearranging a window and stuff), punching a Nazi is somewhat ok if you can get away with it and can stand the liberal whining that follows, shooting an anti-fascist protestor as a Nazi is ok even if you can't get away with it. Interesting developments so far.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom