Ed Dueling protests spark state of emergency in Virginia.

[Emily's Cat]

For one, that guy who claimed that the EDL was only violent because Antifa opposed them.

Who was that?

Wait a second. Didn't you just say "You don't get to selectively apply the rule of law as you see fit based on your own personal preferences!"? Are you now saying it does depend on your own personal preferences (in this case, your personal preference for the current laws of the US vs the laws in Nazi Germany)?

Are you actually conflating the selective application of laws within the US at the same time... with a "selective" application of laws that don't apply? This is absurd.

 

[Hellbound]

Just an FYI, the Holocaust was against German law, as well. They did it anyway.

 

[phiwum]

You also fail to see the false equivalency created by using the one to excuse the other, which is what happened in this thread.

used by whom? In which posts?

I haven't seen the Oracle do what you suggest.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Emily's Cat]

Well a small number of people here do support Nazis, and a larger number are willing to act as apologists for racists and white supremacists - as do the vast majority of GOP representatives, and so I presume GOP voters and supporters too.

Your definition of what constitutes "willing to act as apologists..." leaves a lot to be desired. It appears to consist of anyone who defends the rights of ALL citizens, regardless of their beliefs, as well as anyone who doesn't support the instigation of violence against people that you have classified as "Nazis" regardless of whether your classification makes any sense at all.

Beyond that... you now "presume" to extend that to the vast majority of GOP representatives, and their supporters and voters?

So let me get this straight - you're essentially claiming that approximately half the citizens of the US are Nazi Supporters? Do I have that right?

Man, that is one whopper of a hasty generalization.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Sounds like defense to me. When they are pointing a gun at you.

That's cool I guess. I mean, I really hadn't taken the aerosol-spray-on-fire-device-holder's extensive and highly accurate ESP into account, I suppose.

 

[Belz...]

It is though.

Then you have no clue what "support" means.

 

[caveman1917]

Are you actually conflating the selective application of laws within the US at the same time... with a "selective" application of laws that don't apply? This is absurd.

So you are retracting your earlier claim about how you can't selectively apply the rule of law based on your personal preference? Because that's exactly what you're doing if you're basing your different approach on a personal preference for some specific laws (the current US ones) over other specific laws (the ones in Nazi Germany).

 

[caveman1917]

Just an FYI, the Holocaust was against German law, as well. They did it anyway.

No it wasn't. Hitler's orders had the full force of law. And even if they didn't, there was nothing in German or international law against genocide.

 

[caveman1917]

Then you have no clue what "support" means.

I do though. Perhaps you don't, can you explain what you think "support" to mean?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

There's a difference between saying both are hostile and both are the same level of hostility.

Correct. One's a vague statement allowing plenty of shade for those who wish to shelter under it. The other, not so much.

But the different is rather moot if the intent of "both are hostile" is to simply dismiss both sides equally.

 

[Belz...]

I do though. Perhaps you don't, can you explain what you think "support" to mean?

Yes, it means you agree with someone's ideals or goals and are making efforts to help them out.

Merely saying that the Nazis only got violent because of their opponents' actions, even if it's false, does nothing of the sort.

 

[blutoski]

No it wasn't. Hitler's orders had the full force of law. And even if they didn't, there was nothing in German or international law against genocide.

Yep, that's something that gets overlooked. The Nazis were the government, everything they did was literally legal. The Third Reich was a flurry of legal activity. The Jews were technically outlaws, in that environment. Illegal immigrants, I think was the status (they had been stripped of their citizenships).

I recall reading how they were using US [anti-miscegenation laws] as a startingpoint during the [Wannsee] discussions. They couldn't adopt the American [One Drop Rule], or Hitler would be off to the death camps, so they hummed and hawed about how far back in ancestry made a person a 'legal' noncitizen.

Just as an example, after [Kristallnacht], the Gestapo learned that some insurers were going to honour their vandalism policies. A new law was whipped up within hours to make it illegal to pay out claims to Jews. All those payments were to be redirected to the Reich.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

You're right, it's a makeshift flamethrower!

I believe the legal jargon is "Improvised Incendiary Device."

As soon as you arrange an ignition source at the appropriate distance from a fuel source and engage the functions of them in such a sequence as to create a plume of flame having intended to do exactly that then you're probably technically wielding such a device.

I'm not sure the lack of permanent bracket to affix them or a single unified trigger mechanism need necessarily apply.

Again, all this with the understanding that I don't equate this with discharge of a firearm or even think any indictment should go forward for this particular instance of such a device being deployed.

 

[caveman1917]

Yes, it means you agree with someone's ideals or goals and are making efforts to help them out.

You don't have to agree with their ideas and goals. If, say, I work as lookout ("hey, guys, I found a defenseless stuck ****** here - come beat him up") yet I also say "I don't support neo-nazis ideas or goals", do I then "support" neo-nazis or not?

 

[caveman1917]

Yep, that's something that gets overlooked. The Nazis were the government, everything they did was literally legal. The Third Reich was a flurry of legal activity. The Jews were technically outlaws, in that environment. Illegal immigrants, I think was the status (they had been stripped of their citizenships).

I recall reading how they were using US [anti-miscegenation laws] as a startingpoint during the [Wannsee] discussions. They couldn't adopt the American [One Drop Rule], or Hitler would be off to the death camps, so they hummed and hawed about how far back in ancestry made a person a 'legal' noncitizen.

Just as an example, after [Kristallnacht], the Gestapo learned that some insurers were going to honour their vandalism policies. A new law was whipped up within hours to make it illegal to pay out claims to Jews. All those payments were to be redirected to the Reich.

It was one of the better examples of the "rule of law" principle - those guys really knew how to make their law rule.

 

[phiwum]

Correct. One's a vague statement allowing plenty of shade for those who wish to shelter under it. The other, not so much.

But the different is rather moot if the intent of "both are hostile" is to simply dismiss both sides equally.

I think this is why Trump deserves such vitriol over his comments. He said both sides had good people and both sides committed violence. Let's set aside the good people comment.

When he realized that his audience thought he was treating both sides equally, he had every opportunity to back pedal. He could have said that, while both sides came prepared for violence, one side did so to defend racism and that is worse. He didn't do so. This is why he deserves criticism.

I haven't seen anyone in this thread make that same error. Some have said that the flaming idiot did something wrong, but not that he was equally wrong as the racist gun wielder. Maybe one of our resident racists had said something like that, but not, for instance, Delphic Oracle.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Belz...]

You don't have to agree with their ideas and goals. If, say, I work as lookout ("hey, guys, I found a defenseless stuck ****** here - come beat him up") yet I also say "I don't support neo-nazis ideas or goals", do I then "support" neo-nazis or not?

Well, you'd be lying about the second part, so yeah, you're supporting them, but that's because you happen to agree with their goals.

You're just broadening the definition of "support" so that it can include anyone who disagrees with your own position.

 

[Emily's Cat]

So you are retracting your earlier claim about how you can't selectively apply the rule of law based on your personal preference? Because that's exactly what you're doing if you're basing your different approach on a personal preference for some specific laws (the current US ones) over other specific laws (the ones in Nazi Germany).

You post is not even wrong.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

I never moved them.




I'm not intelligent enough to give you an answer to the question you pose. Our civilization has been around for a long time, and we haven't solved this issue yet, so I'm fairly sure not a lot of people are intelligent enough to solve it. All I am asking is that we acknowledge the fact that free speech cannot be an absolute right, because sometimes that right would infringe upon other rights, including other people's right to free speech.

My irony meter just broke.

 

[caveman1917]

Well, you'd be lying about the second part

Suppose I'm not. Would I be "supporting" neo-nazis or not?