Disgraceful! Richard Spencer Sucker-Punched While Giving Interview

caveman1917 said:
Did they say something not nice to you? How violent of them!
Click to expand...

Unwarranted aggression and threats of physical harm are attempts to encumber the decisions of another free agent.

That you defend this behavior as 'enlightened' is telling.

Taking in the growing cues of your proposed social model, it sounds a lot like one where whoever is willing to be the most brutally and preemptively violent wins.

They sabotaged surveillance equipment? Anarchists would never do that!
Click to expand...

Well, they attempted to damage it.

What justification is there for causing damage to an object that does not represent immediate physical danger to oneself?

You can't invoke an expectation of privacy when in public.

Evidence?
Click to expand...

My testimony.

Do you have contradictory evidence to offer?

I'm sure it all has nothing to do with your stated goals of collaboration with the state, so as to identify them and get them assaulted and kidnapped by your favourite gang.
Click to expand...

Show me where I have stated that goal.

People who have caused damages to others should answer for that.

I propose: I get to decide what I believe and you get to decide what you believe. If you get to decide both (not unexpected since you enthusiastically embrace your self-appointed unilateral authority over all human behaviors), I can amuse myself elsewhere while you play this all out.

Do you suggest a society where throwing bricks through windows has no consequences? Should people simply have to endure it and expend their own resources and efforts to repair the damages? What recourse do they have to claim redress?

If you want that society, go build it. Preferably without violently displacing others who have caused you no harm or offense (except in the sense that you believe yourself to be the unilaterally-empowered, personal embodiment of Truth and Justice).

If you insist on imposing that society upon me through violence, let's dance baby.
 
Last edited:
caveman1917 said:
That's nice. How many "employees" does she have?
Click to expand...

I watch the shop for the last 2-1/2 hours on Friday nights while she works a shift at a local bar. She sometimes has another friend do so on occasion when she has events to attend.

Could you perhaps quote me demanding this of her? As far as I can remember I hadn't even heard of her until now.
Click to expand...

...or any similar example of such.

What right does someone have to menace her for these actions I have described.

Or you can go on feigning ignorance. That's not an unprecedented outcome in my experience with your philosophy.
 
Basically the model at play right now is if Caveman didn't see it, didn't hear it, and didn't speak it: it doesn't exist.

Moving on.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
I watch the shop for the last 2-1/2 hours on Friday nights while she works a shift at a local bar. She sometimes has another friend do so on occasion when she has events to attend.



...or any similar example of such.

What right does someone have to menace her for these actions I have described.
Click to expand...

Who menaced her for these actions?
 
caveman1917 said:
Present your evidence that this Muhammad Ashraf

-is the owner of the limo
-protesters started smashing the windows of his car while he was still in it
-then demanded he get out and then set his car on fire
Click to expand...
Ok...

Muhammad Ashraf owns Nationwide Chauffeured Services, which operated the limo that was set ablaze. He also happens to be a Muslim immigrant, a group anti-Trump protesters claimed to support.
Click to expand...

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/01/25/owner-of-limo-set-on-fire-during-anti-trump-protests-in-washingt/21662962/

Ashraf was not in the limo at the time because he's the owner of the company, but one of his employees was.

Luis Villarroel had parked his limo on K Street after dropping off a client when he heard a loud noise.
"There were these boys who had covered their faces with masks" who had surrounded the car, Villarroel told CNN Saturday. A woman signaled to him to get out of the limo, and by the time Villarroel exited, "they were already hammering my car."
Click to expand...

It's pretty obvious they set the limo on fire.

http://static.lakana.com/media.fox5dc.com/photo/2017/01/20/LimoFire2_1484952091599_2588223_ver1.0.jpg
 
Macgyver1968 said:
Ok...



https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/01/25/owner-of-limo-set-on-fire-during-anti-trump-protests-in-washingt/21662962/

Ashraf was not in the limo at the time because he's the owner of the company, but one of his employees was.



It's pretty obvious they set the limo on fire.

http://static.lakana.com/media.fox5dc.com/photo/2017/01/20/LimoFire2_1484952091599_2588223_ver1.0.jpg
Click to expand...

So none of the claims you made is true. The owner of the limo is Nationwide Chauffeur Services (an abstract entity), and this "owner" was not in the limo when it was rearranged. Try again with a better argument.
 
caveman1917 said:
Which belief system do you think I have advocated the imposition of?
Click to expand...

The same one you have been advocating all along, that you buy into a belief system which does not recognize private ownership of property, or the English language (like what the word violence means, for example). Are you backpedaling on that, or just pretending not to understand?

What is awkward is your terrible fishing for an ad-hom or tu quoque kind of thing. Let's compare:

Private property: kills hundreds of thousands of people in the so-called US alone each year.

Negation of private property: a limo got rearranged.

The second is violence and the first isn't? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Private property (which you claim does not even exist) does not kill anything, directly or indirectly.

And you now claim that a limo being 'rearranged' represents the sole result of pretending private property doesn't exist?

So yes, the second is a deliberate act of violence (in the English language). The first is a nonsensical delusion. There is no ad hominem going on at all, nor a tu quoque. To suggest so is in fact a red herring on your part. :) Why try to play word games? I've asked you the same direct question several times:

If you think that you choose a belief system and then impose it on unwilling others (your belief re: private property), then do you have any logical objection to others choosing a belief system and imposing it unwillingly on you?
 
Y'all still following the Apple Fan down the alleged "I was a teenaged Anarchist" rabbit hole?

I thought we snuffed out that nonsense when the anarchist started whining about people "pretending" that speech they disagree with is "random."

That was funny!
 
caveman1917 said:
... I'm using physical force on my keyboard to write it.
Click to expand...

Delphic Oracle said:
...But since it is your keyboard (that you have stolen from the public) you can use it in any manner you like short of violating others' consent if they are involved in this form of use.
Click to expand...
Hey, cut an anarchist some slack for what appears to be just an innocent typo:

Here, fixed it...
caveman1917 said:
... I'm using physical force on "my" keyboard to write it.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
MostlyDead said:
The same one you have been advocating all along, that you buy into a belief system which does not recognize private ownership of property
Click to expand...

Is that like how atheism is a "belief system" because it does not recognize the belief in god?

Private property (which you claim does not even exist) does not kill anything, directly or indirectly.
Click to expand...

Hundreds of thousands of people in the so-called "US" die each year due to poverty. Poverty is, by definition, the state of people who your belief system about "private property" fails to assign enough things to so as to sustain their life. No wonder you need such violent gangs to enforce that belief system for you.
 
Macgyver1968 said:
Please show me where my claims are false.
Click to expand...

Here you go, after me saying that I would probably be upset if someone burned down my personal property (ie my house):

Macgyver1968 said:
I think it is relevant. You stated that you would be upset if someone burned your stuff. If those protestors were marching down your street, and started smashing the windows of your car while you were still in it...then demanded you get out and then set your car on fire...I seriously doubt you would be calling it "speech". You'd probably be calling it what it was...a crime.
Click to expand...

Yet it turns out that the owner of the limo (Nationwide Chauffeured Services) was not "still in the limo" when the windows got rearranged, nor was Nationwide Chauffeured Services "demanded to get out" before its limo was set on fire. And what would it even mean for Nationwide Chauffeured Services to "be upset"?

So it appears you believe in an imaginary person, Nationwide Chauffeured Services, who you believe can be located "still in the limo" and can have emotional states such as "be upset". Or to put it in terms you might be able to understand: you're a delusional nutcase.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom