• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Charlottesville Car Crash Video

BobTheCoward said:
I masquerade nothing. Adults do not write, "my opinion is..." It is poor writing. If you are stating an opinion, it is obvious it is your opinion.
Click to expand...

Adults....right. Is the air thinner up there on your 50 foot tall, high horse of semantics? Do "adults" try and score internet points on semantic, ******** topics? I'm asking for a friend.
 
plague311 said:
Adults....right. Is the air thinner up there on your 50 foot tall, high horse of semantics? Do "adults" try and score internet points on semantic, ******** topics? I'm asking for a friend.
Click to expand...
Show us on the doll...

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
 
plague311 said:
*shrug* I'd even admit to that being the case to me. I have no issues embracing my bias though. That's always been funny to me, as "skeptics" we aren't supposed to condone or forgive violence against people who want other people dead for nothing more than the color of their skin because...skeptic.

**** Nazi's. All of them. I don't have to accept them because Freedom of Speech exists, but I do believe if you do the crime then you should be held accountable for it. Either way though, never feel bad for punching a nazi in the mouth.
Click to expand...

Or running them off a bridge in a park......
 
plague311 said:
*shrug* I'd even admit to that being the case to me. I have no issues embracing my bias though. That's always been funny to me, as "skeptics" we aren't supposed to condone or forgive violence against people who want other people dead for nothing more than the color of their skin because...skeptic.

**** Nazi's. All of them. I don't have to accept them because Freedom of Speech exists, but I do believe if you do the crime then you should be held accountable for it. Either way though, never feel bad for punching a nazi in the mouth.
Click to expand...
Your personal ethics is one thing.

But this debate among skeptics is not a philosophical one about how laws and ethics should be. Instead, we were figuring out what the objective facts are about the Charlottesville events: 1. What did, in fact, happen (who punched whom, who started what, did anybody cry...)? 2. Were any of the actions in fact illegal, criminal according to applicable law? You cannot very well deny that before the law, nazis enjoy the same protections as anybody else. You cannot, in fact, legally punch a nazi in the face just so, even if you personally find this moral.

I am sure you know and understand all of this somewhere on a rational level - where skepticism shines.
 
Oystein said:
Your personal ethics is one thing.

But this debate among skeptics is not a philosophical one about how laws and ethics should be. Instead, we were figuring out what the objective facts are about the Charlottesville events: 1. What did, in fact, happen (who punched whom, who started what, did anybody cry...)? 2. Were any of the actions in fact illegal, criminal according to applicable law? You cannot very well deny that before the law, nazis enjoy the same protections as anybody else. You cannot, in fact, legally punch a nazi in the face just so, even if you personally find this moral.

I am sure you know and understand all of this somewhere on a rational level - where skepticism shines.
Click to expand...

This conversation, and the questions you're stating now, were answered at the latest on the last page. I'd say when Mead posted that no one could tell if Harris hit the Nazi, it was done...over done. Then it devolved into arguing with racists. Perhaps, in all our shining skepticism, you couldn't recognize a dead thread? By all means, don't let me interfere in this skeptical debate.
 
Oystein said:
Your personal ethics is one thing.

But this debate among skeptics is not a philosophical one about how laws and ethics should be. Instead, we were figuring out what the objective facts are about the Charlottesville events: 1. What did, in fact, happen (who punched whom, who started what, did anybody cry...)? 2. Were any of the actions in fact illegal, criminal according to applicable law? You cannot very well deny that before the law, nazis enjoy the same protections as anybody else. You cannot, in fact, legally punch a nazi in the face just so, even if you personally find this moral.

I am sure you know and understand all of this somewhere on a rational level - where skepticism shines.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And while it may not be critical or anything, I am really finding it interesting to see what sort of details can be found in multiple videos.

For example, yesterday I questioned the source of the staff held by the man in the pink shirt. He would eventually swing it at Harold Crews. It was in fact a flagpole. I had seen several copies of clips showing the burning of a confederate battle flag during the protests. Who is holding it? The man in the pink shirt. And what is used to ignite the flag? Corey Long's flamesprayer. The staff is in fact the remnants of that flag, which was presumably some sort of spoils of war captured from the alt-right.
 
Corey Long has now been charged. He was charged with disorderly conduct in the flamesprayer incident, and with assault and battery in what the article I read called "a separate incident". In the videos I saw of the parking garage skirmish, I didn't see anything Long did other than try to steal a confederate flag, so I don't know if the charges sprang from that incident or some other incident that day.
 
I'll take future Charlottesville related issues to the other Charlottesville thread, but this little bit of news just in is indeed related to the car crash.


Heather Heyer died of blunt force trauma to the chest.

http://www.newsweek.com/charlottesville-heather-heyers-cause-death-revealed-medical-report-686471

Sorry all you jerks out in internet land that thought she just was a bit out of shape. It turns out she died from being hit by a car.


ETA: The source doesn't necessarily say she was hit by a car. Just blunt force trauma to the chest. It's possible she was hit by something, or someone, who was hit by a car. I suppose there are even other scenarios that are slightly different, but, one way or another, it was the neo-Nazi dude that killed her. Not a heart attack. Not chain smoking.
 
Last edited:
So Fields is going up the river for a long stay. Could not be long enough for me.
The jury did not buy the "just scared" defense, which always seemed weak to me.
Say goodbye to another one of Trumpy's "fine people".
And where the Trump supporters in this thread who more or less were making excuses for the guy?
 
dudalb said:
So Fields is going up the river for a long stay. Could not be long enough for me.
The jury did not buy the "just scared" defense, which always seemed weak to me.
Say goodbye to another one of Trumpy's "fine people".
And where the Trump supporters in this thread who more or less were making excuses for the guy?
Click to expand...

Oh I can predict that: that the jury was wrong, or prejudiced, or afraid of public condemnation if they came up with a not guilty, or... The other choice would be that the posters themselves were wrong, which of course would be unheard of:D

A friend's observation has made me realize that although juries do sometimes "get it wrong," that is not typical, nor should a jury's verdict be casually dismissed in the absence of hard evidence to the contrary. Juries have the benefit of access to many more of the actual facts and details than do we are informed by the judge of the actual laws and rules involved, and are provided with both sides of the case by the opposing lawyers. The verdict is also achieved by debate and it must be unanimous. Any outside Kibitzer seeking to discredit a jury's verdict should be able to present very convincing evidence to do so, rather than empty speculation.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom