Moderated Using wrong pronouns= violence??

[lobosrul5]

What is your understanding of the phrase "non-violent protest" and "non-violent resistance"?

That they're neologisms.

 

[Shalamar]

I'd like to see the public record of all the facts of the case.

Where did you get your law degree?

 

[Hercules56]

Where did you get your law degree?

Never claimed to be a lawyer. Would simply like to see all the evidence before making further judgement.

 

[Shalamar]

Never claimed to be a lawyer. Would simply like to see all the evidence before making further judgement.

It's off topic, and a distraction.

Where did you get your Etymology degree?

 

[Hercules56]

If violence need not be a physical assault, then why is the common meaning of "non-violent protest" and "non-violent resistance", resistance and protest without physical confrontation?

 

[Upchurch]

Where I come from, an assault involves violence.

But not all violence is an assault. It's a straw man.

 

[Hercules56]

But not all violence is an assault. It's a straw man.

And yet we have the phrases non-violent resistance and nonviolent protest, which both mean acts without physical altercation.

 

[Thermal]

I'd like to see the public record of all the facts of the case.

Never claimed to be a lawyer. Would simply like to see all the evidence before making further judgement.

Thats funny. You've been making very sweeping legal declarations and conclusions for pages and pages now, with no support whatsoever except your redefining of words.

And now I have to publically dox myself to satisfy what you have already been shown statutorily from multiple States? Come on, man. You're better than this.

 

[lobosrul5]

And yet we have the phrases non-violent resistance and nonviolent protest, which both mean acts without physical altercation.

Those are likely 20th century neologisms. Phrases that would have at one point not made much sense to English speakers.

I'm using supposition, do we have an etymology expert present?

 

[Thermal]

If violence need not be a physical assault, then why is the common meaning of "non-violent protest" and "non-violent resistance", resistance and protest without physical confrontation?

For convenient clarification.

 

[Hercules56]

Thats funny. You've been making very sweeping legal declarations and conclusions for pages and pages now, with no support whatsoever except your redefining of words.

And now I have to publically dox myself to satisfy what you have already been shown statutorily from multiple States? Come on, man. You're better than this.

I was asked about a specific case involving a specific forum member. I don't want to comment further on the issue without more details.

 

[Hercules56]

For convenient clarification.

Seems pretty much everyone on the planet understands what non-violent resistance and non-violent protest means

And no, it does not mean protest and resistance without any harsh language.

 

[Shalamar]

Seems pretty much everyone on the planet understands what non-violent resistance and non-violent protest means

And no, it does not mean protest and resistance without any harsh language.

Where did you get your degree in Etymology?

 

[Thermal]

I was asked about a specific case involving a specific forum member. I don't want to comment further on the issue without more details.

No, you made a sweeping and entirely wrong statement that no one could be charged with assault without committing or attempting physical damage/injury.

Would reposting your claim help?

ETA: it's in your post #1092. I'm ready to repost it.

 

[Upchurch]

It's almost like the context matters.

 

[Hercules56]

No, you made a sweeping and entirely wrong statement that no one could be charged with assault without committing or attempting physical damage/injury.

Would reposting your claim help?

ETA: it's in your post #1092. I'm ready to repost it.

Yes it was found that at least one state in the USA allows people to be charged with assault even though no physical Acts were done or threatened. The actual statute was posted and it looks to be unconstitutional and violates the first amendment

 

[Shalamar]

Yes it was found that at least one state in the USA allows people to be charged with assault even though no physical Acts were done or threatened. The actual statute was posted and it looks to be unconstitutional and violates the first amendment

Now you're an authority on constitutional law?

 

[Hercules56]

Now you're an authority on constitutional law?

Sigh. I have a basic understanding of the first amendment. The New Mexico statute appears to violate that.

Now back to the OP.

 

[Shalamar]

Sigh. I have a basic understanding of the first amendment. The New Mexico statute appears to violate that.

I doubt that, since you seem to be incorrect on a great many things. Such as Etymology.

 

[Hercules56]

I doubt that, since you seem to be incorrect on a great many things. Such as Etymology.

I look forward to the statute undergoing thorough judicial review.

Now back to the OP.