• 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.

Moderated Using wrong pronouns= violence??

Hercules56 said:
Kindly give an example of a penal code statute which states that "assault" can be anything other than physical violence, or threatening physical violence.

I have seen none... Yes I looked it up.
Click to expand...

I already did. NJ statues. Here is the relevant section, under definition of simple assault:

Attempts by physical menace to put another in fear of imminent serious bodily injury.
Click to expand...

Still confused? What do you think physical menace means? Can you conceive of physical menace as doing nothing but quietly standing to the side? The judge in my case sure did.

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/2013/title-2c/section-2c-12-1

And before you try to weasel, you said big and bold that you cannot be charged with assault unless you do or attempt injury or damage.
 
Hercules56 said:
You seem to be contradicting yourself.
Click to expand...

Not at all.

Simply calling a co-worker a jerk is not harassment, and therefore is not violence.

Simply misgendering a person is not harassment, and therefore wouldn't be violence.

Repeated and deliberate [calling someone a jerk, misgendering] can rise to the level of harassment, and therefore would be considered violence.

You don't like that harassment and verbal abuse are considered violence. Tough cookies. You have been shown that it is considered as such legally.

So now the only question is at what point does misgendering constitute harassment and verbal abuse.
 
*A frustrated substitute teacher is trying in vain to describe the school's dress code to a group of students.*

"Can I wear my strapless dress?"
"Yes, that is fine."
"Well what about my dressless straps?" (Student is literally wearing two dress straps and nothing else."
 
pgwenthold said:
Not at all.

Simply calling a co-worker a jerk is not harassment, and therefore is not violence.

Simply misgendering a person is not harassment, and therefore wouldn't be violence....

Edited by jimbob: 
adding in snipped part of post for full context that changes the meaning

Repeated and deliberate [calling someone a jerk, misgendering] can rise to the level of harassment, and therefore would be considered violence.

You don't like that harassment and verbal abuse are considered violence. Tough cookies. You have been shown that it is considered as such legally.

So now the only question is at what point does misgendering constitute harassment and verbal abuse.
Click to expand...

Okay it appears we agree. :)

Edited by jimbob: 


It is against the MA to selectively edit a quote to mislead
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thermal said:
I already did. NJ statues. Here is the relevant section, under definition of simple assault:



Still confused? What do you think physical menace means? Can you conceive of physical menace as doing nothing but quietly standing to the side? The judge in my case sure did.

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/2013/title-2c/section-2c-12-1

And before you try to weasel, you said big and bold that you cannot be charged with assault unless you do or attempt injury or damage.
Click to expand...


It appears the judges interpretation was correct as you did engage in a physical activity, that caused a reasonable fear of physical harm. Threatening imminent force and engaging in force are both considered acts of assault.
 
Hercules56 said:
Well that's just stupid.

Why not call it "harrassment" instead of "violence"?

"He called me a name, Im a victim of violence!!!! Owwwww my feelings have been bruised!!!"

Unbelievable...
Click to expand...

Stop.
Right.
There.

You have spent pages arguing that words can never visit violence. You have been shown using your own source (OED) that the definition of violence may include mere use of words. Now you have been shown conclusively that the principle Carrie’s the full weight of law everywhere in the US.

Personal integrity requires yo to admit your errors if you wish to participate meaningfully in this discussion going forward. No more weasel words. Something like “I was wrong about what may constitute violence, but I still oppose the policy because….” would work. I can think of several places you could start:

I oppose the policy on first amendment grounds
I oppose the policy on religious grounds
I oppose the policy on practical grounds
 
Hercules56 said:
It appears the judges interpretation was correct as you did engage in a physical activity, that caused a reasonable fear of physical harm. Threatening imminent force and engaging in force are both considered acts of assault.
Click to expand...

Who said any of that happened? The only physical activity was my physical existence. I did not block their movements or anything similar. I didn't even look at them or speak to them, except to answer one question that they asked me honestly and accurately.

In case you forgot, your claim was to DO OR ATTEMPT PHYSICAL DAMAGE.

Demonstrate such attempt, if you please.
 
Last edited:
I just want to point out that "assault" is a straw man that appears nowhere in the OP* or the linked article.


*By which I mean the original OP. Some thread merging shenanigans has resulted in a new post appearing before the OP that actually started this thread.
 
Upchurch said:
I just want to point out that "assault" is a straw man that appears nowhere in the OP* or the linked article.


*By which I mean the original OP. Some thread merging shenanigans has resulted in a new post appearing before the OP that actually started this thread.
Click to expand...

Where I come from, an assault involves violence.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
Who said any of that happened? The only physical activity was my physical existence. I did not block their movements or anything similar. I didn't even look at them or speak to them, except to answer one question that they asked me honestly and accurately.

In case you forgot, your claim was to DO OR ATTEMPT PHYSICAL DAMAGE.

Demonstrate such attempt, if you please.
Click to expand...

I guess it is possible based on the specific circumstances, for a judge to view a simple physical presence without any words being spoken to be a threat of physical violence. However I obviously do not know all the details of the situation so it's hard to really say for sure.
 
Hercules56 said:
Plain old violence? Not the neologism of "verbal violence"? No, then we do not agree. At all.
Click to expand...

Neologism?

Nor shall you do mine ear that violence, -Hamlet, circa 1600, by a rather well known "bard". He was not referring to his ear actually being physically harmed.

which violence of tonge, & rashnes of wordes bulked out..was nothing els but a declaration & token of his traiterous hart. The history of Quintus Curcius written in the mid 1500's. (or more accurately translated to English then?)

What do you think he means by "violence of tonge? (tonge being an archaic spelling of tongue).

ETA: if anything its more a neologism that violence has to be physical than the other way around.
 
Last edited:
lobosrul5 said:
Neoglism?

Nor shall you do mine ear that violence, -Hamlet, circa 1600, by a rather well known "bard". He was not referring to his ear actually being physically harmed.

which violence of tonge, & rashnes of wordes bulked out..was nothing els but a declaration & token of his traiterous hart. The history of Quintus Curcius written in the mid 1500's. (or more accurately translated to English then?)

What do you think he means by "violence of tonge? (tonge being an archaic spelling of tongue).
Click to expand...

What is your understanding of the phrase "non-violent protest" and "non-violent resistance"?
 
Hercules56 said:
I guess it is possible based on the specific circumstances, for a judge to view a simple physical presence without any words being spoken to be a threat of physical violence. However I obviously do not know all the details of the situation so it's hard to really say for sure.
Click to expand...

THEN WHY DO YOU KEEP ARGUING AGAINST IT???

That's the point that I and others are making. You don't need to do anything at all, and can still be charged with assault. It need not have any physical component beyond (as in my case) simply existing. THERE DOES NOT HAVE TO BE ANY PHYSICAL ATTEMPT TO DO VIOLENCE OR INJURY.

I mean, come on dude.
 
Surely if you all explain it to Herc another 100 times in 100 different ways he'll finally admit how ridiculous he's being. And if not, then try another 100 times!
 
Thermal said:
THEN WHY DO YOU KEEP ARGUING AGAINST IT???

That's the point that I and others are making. You don't need to do anything at all, and can still be charged with assault. It need not have any physical component beyond (as in my case) simply existing. THERE DOES NOT HAVE TO BE ANY PHYSICAL ATTEMPT TO DO VIOLENCE OR INJURY.

I mean, come on dude.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see the public record of all the facts of the case.
 
The_Animus said:
Surely if you all explain it to Herc another 100 times in 100 different ways he'll finally admit how ridiculous he's being. And if not, then try another 100 times!
Click to expand...

People like that are just snowflakes who want to insult and degrade certain people without repercussions. ("I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!")
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom