• 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.

Being a racist while having a soft skull

Warp12 said:
Cook's overall pattern of lawless, abusive behavior got him a seat at the table, of course. Pujols, through his lawless act, delivered his last meal.
Click to expand...

Weird, then, that you were so troubled by this question when you had already arrived at the answer. Kind of seems like the whole thing was just performative.
 
johnny karate said:
Weird, then, that you were so troubled by this question when you had already arrived at the answer. Kind of seems like the whole thing was just performative.
Click to expand...

I made it clear that I was asking for the opinions of those who were vocal about Cook deserving what he got. That you glossed over that is very odd.

As stated elsewhere, our debate session is over for today, Johnny Karate.
 
Warp12 said:
I made it clear that I was asking for the opinions of those who were vocal about Cook deserving what he got. That you glossed over that is very odd.

As stated elsewhere, our debate session is over for today, Johnny Karate.
Click to expand...

Someone who thinks Cook “earned his fate” doesn’t understand why anyone else would say his death was justified (even though no one actually did) as if those two things are somehow different.
 
Pretty sure Warp is saying that Cook earned the right to die, but Pujols didn't earn the right to kill. Pujol's role is the more troubling in this gig.

A pedo getting waxed is karmically satisfying, but a man killing a senior citizen over words is one of those knock you back a few steps kind of thing.
 
Thermal said:
Pretty sure Warp is saying that Cook earned the right to die, but Pujols didn't earn the right to kill. Pujol's role is the more troubling in this gig.

A pedo getting waxed is karmically satisfying, but a man killing a senior citizen over words is one of those knock you back a few steps kind of thing.
Click to expand...

Sure, I get that. But he also said that George Floyd was a “scumbag who earned his fate”. Just trying to understand how someone who thinks like that can then turn around and moralize to other people for not really caring that a racist pedophile died.
 
theprestige said:
No. Hence the scare quotes and the absolute despicableness of the people advocating political violence.
Click to expand...

I guess I’m confused. Punching actual Nazis is ok, but punching someone who is just Nazi-ish is political violence?

What about Putin? Punchable or political differences? I don’t consider him a Nazi, but I feel like I would laugh at a video of him being punched with very little guilt.
 
I think the lesson to be drawn from this thread is that conservatives are against punching people on general principle, unless it's a cop standing between them and an election they'd like to overthrow.
 
Thermal said:
Short version: -Pujols (the puncher) was doing his job, managing a coffee joint.
77 yr old white guy complains about food or service or something, and calls Pujols (27 yr old black man) a particularly nasty racial slur.

-Pujols asks him to repeat that. Geezer does.

-Pujols cold-cocks the geezer and drops him to the concrete floor, and old guy dies of head injuries later.

-Pujols pleads guilty to felony battery and gets two years house arrest, 200 hours of community service, and has to take an anger management course.

Here in the States, provocation is a gray area in law. Usually, it doesn't get you off the charge, but it might soften your sentence as a mitigating factor.

I personally think that provocation (provisionally meaning to act in such a way that would incite a violent reaction) should be treated more like an assault (provisionally meaning to put someone in fear of an imminent fight), and the first physical shot would be preemptive self-defense. In that view, Pujols was judged too harshly. But the racist senior citizen was 50 years senior to the young Pujols, and generally a young, strong guy should have the wherewithal to hold back from beating on an old man, perhaps just treating him like a senile coot whose outrageous behavior is somewhat tolerated. But then this guy has a lifelong history of horrifyingly sick criminal behavior, not just some "relic of his time". So where does this fall on the spectrum? It's an interesting question of what has the most moral weight.
Click to expand...

Thanks for explaining. I still stand by my comment that the guy who threw the punch should be behind bars. The pensioners past is pretty irrelevant here. The cold hard facts are the old guy called the other guy a insulting name, insulted guy smacks old guy, old guy falls and dies.

The sentence seems very lenient to me. He wasn't in any actual physical danger, going by what you said, there wasn't any physical threat at all from Mr Racist. Mr Punchy Punch deserves prison time IMO.
 
RolandRat said:
Thanks for explaining. I still stand by my comment that the guy who threw the punch should be behind bars. The pensioners past is pretty irrelevant here. The cold hard facts are the old guy called the other guy a insulting name, insulted guy smacks old guy, old guy falls and dies.
Click to expand...

Mr Racist was also trespassing on the premises while using racial slurs. Apparently this is far less reasonably threatening that throwing pop corn at someone.
 
Thermal said:
Short version: -Pujols (the puncher) was doing his job, managing a coffee joint.
77 yr old white guy complains about food or service or something, and calls Pujols (27 yr old black man) a particularly nasty racial slur.

-Pujols asks him to repeat that. Geezer does.

-Pujols cold-cocks the geezer and drops him to the concrete floor, and old guy dies of head injuries later.

-Pujols pleads guilty to felony battery and gets two years house arrest, 200 hours of community service, and has to take an anger management course.

Here in the States, provocation is a gray area in law. Usually, it doesn't get you off the charge, but it might soften your sentence as a mitigating factor.

I personally think that provocation (provisionally meaning to act in such a way that would incite a violent reaction) should be treated more like an assault (provisionally meaning to put someone in fear of an imminent fight), and the first physical shot would be preemptive self-defense. In that view, Pujols was judged too harshly. But the racist senior citizen was 50 years senior to the young Pujols, and generally a young, strong guy should have the wherewithal to hold back from beating on an old man, perhaps just treating him like a senile coot whose outrageous behavior is somewhat tolerated. But then this guy has a lifelong history of horrifyingly sick criminal behavior, not just some "relic of his time". So where does this fall on the spectrum? It's an interesting question of what has the most moral weight.
Click to expand...

As a legal matter, I generally think the courts got it right.

Provocation is, like you say, an inherently grey area. Insulting someone isn't itself a provocation worthy of justifying violent reaction, but insults often play a role in implied (or overt) threats of violence in which a first strike may be fully justified. We often see violent people play these children's game of "I'm not touching you" in their attempts to physically intimidate others which I would prefer the law to see as the obvious criminal intimidation it is. Cook doing his chest puffing act while screaming racial slurs and refusing to leave the premises was more than a mere insult in my eyes, it was a threat of physical violence.

Had Pujols gut shot this guy and frog marched him out the store I really wonder if it would have been treated as a criminal matter. I would hope not.

A shot to the face that results in death is something that is harder to ignore, but this lesser conviction strikes me as decent. I'm happy to see this racist has taken the express lane off this plane of existence, but that's not to say that knocking someone unconscious (and dying lol) was a justifiable response.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom