Is Punching A Nazi OK?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by ElectricFetus, Feb 3, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    This is not a school playground.
    And this thread is not about you defending your accusation to your last breath. It doesn't help the thread. Start your own.
    This is shameful behavior.
    Let the thread get back on topic.
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bells Staff Member

    Actually, you are wrong.

    Stand your ground laws in many States in the US have allowed for people to shoot others, predominately black men and minorities, out of a feeling of fear or danger. Including police officers. And they get away with it. Most are not even charged.

    Take the case of Daniel Adkins Jnr. He was out walking his dog. He stepped in front of a car in a Taco Bell drive through and raised his hands in the air when he was nearly run over by a car driven by another young man. The young man shot him from his car, because he feared for his life. Adkins was holding a dog leash in his hand when he raised his arms in the air. His killer was not charged. Adkins was a coloured minority.

    I have noticed people literally raging about how it is not legal to murder a black person. And you would be correct, it is not legal to murder a black person or any other person.

    But you should also look just outside of that definition that several seem to be clinging to so tightly in your hands. The bigger picture shows just how damaging racial bias is in stand your ground States. And that is literally resulting in a larger proportion of whites literally getting away with killing blacks and other minorities by simply declaring that they were standing their ground. So a young man walking his dog can be shot and killed for lifting his arms up while holding a dog leash, because the white person in the car feared for his life. And he got away with it.

    And it is absolutely legal.

    So is it "legal" to murder blacks? No. Is it legal to kill blacks and other minorities and claim it is justifiable homicide because you feared for your safety, even if the person you killed was unarmed and even running away from you and posed no danger to you? Yes, it is and you will more than likely get away with it if you are white and your victim is black or a minority.

    The reason for that is simple.

    Individuals (i.e., defendants) in Florida were more likely to avoid charges if the victim was Black or Latino but not if the victim was white. Indeed, individuals are nearly two times more likely to be convicted in a case that involves White victims compared to those involving Black and Latino victims


    Using implicit methods, psychologists have repeatedly demonstrated a strong and persistent finding: blackness in the U.S. is linked to perceptions of crime and danger. In one of the oldest demonstrations of this link, psychologists showed people pictures of a white man with a razor threatening a black man on the subway (Allport and Postman, 1947). Later, people were simply asked to recall what they saw in the picture. People tended to mistakenly recall that black man wielding the razor against the white man. Decades of research using more sophisticated methods reveals that blackness leads people to evaluate (without intent) ambiguously assertive behavior as aggressive (Eberhardt et al., 2004), quickens the speed at which people decide to shoot someone holding a weapon (Correll et al., 2014), and increases the probability that someone would discharge a weapon at all (Correll et al., 2014).

    Stand-Your-Ground laws state that an individual has “no duty to retreat” from any place one has a lawful right to be and may use any level of force, including lethal, if one reasonably believes ones faces an imminent and immediate threat (Abuznaid et al., 2014). Forty- five states including Florida have adopted the “Castle Doctrine” stating that a person has no duty to retreat in the home. Twenty-two states have expanded the interpretation of the Castle Doctrine beyond the home to include anyplace a person should lawfully be. Blacks are a threat or a perceived threat. Stand-Your-Ground laws authorize a person to protect and defend one's own life against threat or perceived threat. If contemporary racism manifests in broad swathes of American culture then perhaps it is not surprising that individuals using Stand-Your-Ground laws as a defense were more likely to avoid charges if the victim was Black or Latino. Indeed, racial bias seems like a biased but logical finding

    It's called racial bias and it is intrinsically tied to stand your ground laws in the US.

    Now, if you are white and you have a much higher chance of getting away with shooting and killing a black person or a minority by simply citing a stand your ground doctrine, then many people would interpret that as being it being legal to shoot and kill blacks and minorities. Because in many instances, it has been, simply because the law allows one to merely feel a perceived threat, even if no such threat exists, to murder another and it becomes completely legal.
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    well, i have to argue against this: it is still a hate crime, as i noted, if you use race to justify your fear
    your example is still about injustice
    you even state as much (in various ways - including the following):
    this is about the injustice in the legal system, as i've noted elsewhere in this thread

    not really.
    it is simply not able to be prosecuted under the law as the law requires the following:
    1- the assumption of innocence
    2- evidence to demonstrate guilt beyond the shadow of a doubt

    that last part is the kicker - and in the case of stand your ground laws, it's very, very difficult to get. you can build a circumstantial case dependent upon the history of the shooter, but this is exorbitantly expensive and not guaranteed to actually work in court

    EDIT: it's expensive unless the shooter is one of those idiots who post their entire life regularly on social media showing a clear racial bias and hatred... and even then it is circumstantial and though you can build a case for manslaughter, it's still difficult to prosecute.
    unless, of course, explicit threats are made against the race and or there is a statement of desire to kill due to race, or some similar argument for premeditation.

    now, you've shown the injustice in your example. this is a horrible thing. however, this doesn't make it legal. it makes it unjust.
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2017
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member


    Yes, but Dave ran away, and you compare Nazis to transgender.

    Yes, I provided you a dictionary definition that you continue to refuse while only reiterating my point by constantly raising 18 USC § 249.

    Still, though, it's quite striking how much effort you'll put into trolling your straw man as defense of murdering black men.

    I always love those haughty, full of shit statements that you can't support.

    Seriously, if you think there's an argument there, try making it. (Hint: You'll only demonstrate my point.)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    • • •​

    Dave, you have nothing to say.

    You refuse objective evidence, you run from logical discussion. You're a troll lending his efforts to promoting Nazis.
  8. Bells Staff Member

    Mod Note

    Frankly, this thread is disgusting and disturbing on so many levels.

    The sheer level of intellectual dishonesty displayed by several in this thread is appalling.

    Worse still has been the overt sexism and homophobia on display in this thread. From comparing transsexuals to Nazi's to things like this:

    When the subject matter pertains to transsexuals.

    I should not have to point out just how god damn inappropriate that is, should I? Or do I actually have to make the point?

    Now onto the trolling.

    Truck Captain Stumpy.

    I have read pages and pages of this thread and can I say, your repeating the same thing over and over and over again, in bolded text, is pretty much tantamount to trolling. Just one example, in one post. And another one.. And oh look, another one..

    And this kind of rubbish is virtually on every second page. You aren't the only one doing it, but you have been the most consistent at it. From this site's rules on trolling.. in fact, it is the first point:

    Trolls tend to follow certain patterns of behaviour that may include:
        • Posting of similar responses and topics repeatedly.

    If people are unable to 'calm the frigging farm', the thread will be closed and maaaaany infractions will be issued, which will make me even more grumpy, which really will not end well for all concerned.

    Let's all start acting like adults.

    Soooo happy we could all have this chat.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  9. Bells Staff Member

    Whether it is a hate crime or not is really beside the point.

    The fact of the matter is, it is happening anyway. And at such levels which would make it entirely normal for people to say that it is legal to shoot a black person for being black. After all, much research has gone into showing just how people perceive blacks as a threat, even when they have no reason to.. That is just their automatic response. So it stands to reason that when laws are created that allows people to stand their ground or the castle doctrine, which is now being interpreted as not being one's home, but where one happens to be at any given time (brings new meaning to the whole 'my body is a temple' schtick), that more white people are shooting and killing black people and other racial minorities simply over a perceived threat and getting away with it, more often than not, without even being charged.

    You can cite hate crimes till the cows come home. They are not being prosecuted as hate crimes.. They aren't being prosecuted at all. Because all they need to declare is that they perceived a threat. More often than not (if you read the links provided in the previous post, you would see this for yourself), local law enforcement who deal with these cases do not take it any further. Now, when you look at how blacks are perceived as being dangerous and criminals, even without any reason for it, it becomes a vicious circle.

    Is it a hate crime? Yes. But they are not being prosecuted and in many places in America now, you can shoot and kill a black person or a person of colour and simply claim that you perceived a threat and you are more than likely going to get a way with it if you are white. That is the reality.

    Going on and on about how this is illegal.. It is actually legal. Laws exist, which makes it legal. How those laws are being applied is literally making it justifiable and legal to kill someone of colour, if you simply perceive a threat, even if that person is unarmed and walking away from you. Is it an injustice? Yes. Is it legal? Yes. The laws are written and interpreted in a way that has made it legal.

    Do you understand how it becomes easy to say that it is legal to murder black men in the US? How many would interpret it that way when you look at laws like this and how they are actually being applied? Because how they are being applied gives every impression that it is legal to shoot and murder black men, if one can claim that they felt threatened. So a minority walking his dog, lifting up his arms with a leash in his hand, becomes a threat to the guy who nearly run him over in his big truck, so much so that he was legally allowed to take out a gun and shoot the dog walker and kill him and not be charged for it. For many people, this is like it is legal to shoot and murder black men.

    Of course it is injustice.

    But it is still legal to do this sort of thing.

    Is it a hate crime? Yes. Is it about injustice in the legal system? Yes. Is it legal? Yes, because of how the laws are written in what? 30 states now? And how local law enforcement apply the law. They have literally made it legal to shoot and murder black men in some cases, even where there is no threat and no crime being committed that would warrant that level of self defense.

    And people are testing the boundaries to see how far they can get away with it by using the stand your ground laws and rules.

    Which has seen some get away with clear hate crimes. It's not fair, and they are hate crimes, but they get away with it because of how the law is being interpreted and how the law itself is often vague...

    Okay.. If it was illegal, people would not be getting away with it. The racial discrepancies between those charged and not charged would not be as great.

    Stand your ground laws are legal and the law. Ergo, applying those laws and murdering black people and minorities in the most dubious of cases where there is clearly no threat, and not even being charged because it was legal for them to do so, does make their actions legal. And many interpret that as a form of legality when killing black people and minorities. All they need to cite is a perceived threat. So a word, giving someone the finger, running away, walking away, driving away, have all been deemed perceived threat requiring that the white person shoot to kill to save themselves for said perceived threat. And it is perfectly legal for them to do so. And these are now legal precedents. Well half the time, the shooter is not even charged. So it does not even get to court.. Because the shooter is not deemed to have done anything wrong or illegal. Hence why so many say that it is legal to shoot and kill black men in America.
  10. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    i am grouping this together for a point of clarification: the [stand your ground - state] law exists to give a person the ability to defend themselves against threats
    however, the law [hate crimes act - federal] also states that to use race as a reason for the threat, it illegal and considered a hate crime
    this is not irrelevant
    the reason: people may well perceive other races as a threat, and this is a biological response due to their ignorance. howver, the constitution, and the rule of law, specifically state that utilisation of said racial argument as justification of a threat is illegal, and as such you cannot argue the legality of shooting over race using the stand your ground law as there is a clear, specific law that denotes said legality in the hate crimes act. said law is also a federal statute and superior to state governance.

    this is where the injustice in the system is found. you clearly defined the problem. it is about perception. but perception doesn't mean the same thing as legal.
    except that this is proven wrong by simply noting the OJ trial
    you are equating injustice with legality
    there are lots of laws that are broken regularly that people get away with breaking - that doesn't make it legal. it just makes it unjust, as people have gotten away with a crime.

    what you have presented above is about how the law is interpreted, and that is also injustice as the law is explicit on certain terms noted by me already

    interpretation isn't the same as legality - and you have made a coherent well thought out argument how the law is literally interpreted for me above proving my point. just because it is typical for people to completely ignore a law for the sake of their personal agenda doesn't mean something is legal. this is demonstrated best by the constitutional right to freedom of religion and the subsequent reinterpretation which required clarification, ending in the following: 42 U.S.C. § 1996

    clearly you can see where this applies to the situation?

    it's why you can seem to have it both ways, as you note here:
    it is clearly defined as not being both ways per the letter of the law, yet it appears that people interpret the law per their agenda.

    this is also something that will, eventually, end up in front of SCOTUS for the exact reasons we are posting above - because eventually someone will state the same argument that i just made, and it will be redefined per the SCOTUS, much like our 5th amendment "right" which is now, technically, a privilege per SCOTUS
  11. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    This is the distinction that I was trying to illustrate for Ice... Not that he isn't already aware of it - rather he made a sweeping statement: "it is legal to kill black people" and refuses to qualify it in any way. Stubborn like that.

    You won't find permission to kill minorities in any statute or definitively expressed in common law. Attorneys cannot explicitly appeal to "But he was black, your honor!" to avoid a conviction or mitigate at sentencing.

    The problem is far more insidious - precisely because it is not codified. If killing black people was specifically exempted from the definition of murder it would be much easier to combat - everyone would denounce it. (Well, everyone except some Trump supporters perhaps.)

    This murkiness is what leads professional attorneys to say: "it is not legal to murder a black person or any other person.", "So is it 'legal' to murder blacks? No.", "Is it legal to kill blacks and other minorities... Yes, it is..." - all in the same post.

    Regardless of the means chosen to express the concept, it is most definitely a "bad" thing. Sad! We need big league change in this area to make America great again. (Sorry, I can't resist the Trumpisms

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  12. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    clarification: it is more insidious because it is an interpretation of state law while ignoring federal statute that clearly states that it is illegal
    this would be funnier if your smiley had a toupee ...ROTFLMFAO
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    But, Randwolf, that was never the point he was advocating or defending. This is↑:

    And that, in turn, is a response to the point that:

    Which, in turn, is part of a "slippery slope" argument in response to, well, #63↑, which itself is commentary on DaveC's post at #51↑. And that's the approximate pathway that sets this whole thing off.
  14. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    On the Nazi Question

    How about when you get in the ring with a Nazi? Well, okay, that one's a little obvious.

    But a few years ago when he paused to take stock of his life, he found himself missing a friend, Catherine Boone, a health care aide and minor cable television personality. Mr. Schneider had met her years ago at an autograph convention. They now saw less of each other, partly because he was so busy being a neo-Nazi and partly because his comrades would have disapproved.

    Ms. Boone is black.

    “I had to keep a stiff upper lip and follow 'Mein Kampf',” Mr. Schneider, 66, explained recently as he and Ms. Boone sat at their usual table in the back of the Floridian Diner on Flatbush Avenue.

    Today they are happily married in what is surely one of Brooklyn's most unusual love stories. “We don't argue about one thing,” Ms. Boone said.

    Mr. Schneider's SS uniform is stuffed in a garbage bag in his attic and he speaks ruefully about his time with the National Socialist Movement, generally considered America's largest neo-Nazi group.

    “I did not drink or break the law, but I was one of the most evil men that ever lived,” Mr. Schneider said. “I was not serving God. I was serving Satan by serving Hitler.”


    At any rate, the now-renounced Nazi does not see his mere participation and identification as harmless.


    McKinley, Jesse. "The Rehabilitation of 'Pitbull,' a Former Wrestler and Neo-Nazi". The New York Times. 2 February 2017. 13 February 2017.
  15. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Perhaps originally. In post 265 I asked for clarification because I got lost trying to "up arrrow" from Ice to TCS to Ice to TCS (ad nauseum).

    I got this:
    Here it is again, in summary form: It is legal to kill somebody because one feels sufficiently and legitimately threatened by them; it is legal to feel legitimately threatened by someone because they are black; Therefore, in some circumstances, it is legal to kill somebody because they are black. (Would you prefer a less pejorative rewording, less redolent of presumed bigotry?
    Here: It is legal to have killed somebody because they were black. Or even: Because they were black, it is legal to have killed somebody. Feel better? )

    And replied thusly:

    Truthfully, I expected no objection to this (IMO) obvious statement of fact. Instead, I was told the scare quotes go too far...

    Ice responded:
    My only horse in this race is that it looks like people are trying to say: "Oh yeah, it's legal to shoot black people in the US - says so right here! Hell, you don't even need a huntin' license!".

    That's not true - there is no direct statutory support for this position, rather a convoluted if-then chain of logic that allows one to conclude that it is, implicitly, possible to kill a member of a minority and suffer no consequences - ergo, "legal". I would have thought this was self evident and even surmised that no one would contest it:
    So here we are... To some extent I think that is what has TCS going on about as well (aside from the comparing Nazi and transgender) - the statutes specifically and explicitly prohibit "killing someone because they are black" - although the functional outcome appears to be diametrically oposite.

    I'm going to go out on a limb, again, and speculate that no one here is denying that there is a problem in the U.S., especially with law enforcement, whereby innocent people are shot and killed far too often - most especially, minorities. Anyone? Beuller?

    So what do we do about this?

    And, to the OP - Which group's members are eligible for assaulting without one being reasonably in fear for their life? (Heavy on the reasonably and also excepting soldiering)

    Answer: None. Not even Nazi's. Do you know how you can tell? Because they are all members of the group named human beings.

    Do I personally have a hard time not punching some of these Trump supporters? You betcha'. Could I see myself punching one of them anyway? Affirmative, again. Does that make it acceptable? No.

    (Sorry for the mixed format on the quotes - in a bit of a hurry)
  16. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Personally, I think the mods should split this thread. The topic of the OP is "Is it moral acceptable to physically assault someone who holds political/social beliefs that most people find reprehensible?". The topic of shooting minorities based on racial preconceptions is a completely different topic and goes well beyond "thread drift". It deserves it's own thread.
  17. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    I agree. Evelyn Beatrice Hall said in 1906 "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." When I first saw this video on another forum, I didn't know who Spencer was. I just assumed he was some far right winger that was being accused of being a racist/white supremacist/nazi just because he was far right wing. Then I googled him, and holy crap, he really is all of those things.

    I wholly disagree with what he has to say, but I will defend his right to say it. That's the great thing about free speech. It's not the popular speech that needs's the unpopular speech that needs protecting. You may want to punch someone in the face that proposes ideas you disagree with, and it's cool to fantasize about that...but actually doing it is illegal.
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2017
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    One objectionable (and at issue) feature of TCS's list of punching targets - all of which he was comparing, using simile, with his pretended strawman punching target 'nazi ideology or belief ' - was its inclusion of inherent characteristics along with contingently held beliefs.

    Followed by his simply denying he was making a comparison, using simile, at all - because even that guy is wary enough to scrabble back from that cliff.
    When hundreds of judges, juries, attorneys general, police forces,

    when the Federal DOJ and related agencies, and dozens of examples of every single legitimizing authority involved,

    consistently and in precedent and over decades and involving hundreds of decisions,

    declare something to be legal, officially

    in a court of law while in session, in the AG's office while doing official business, in the management of police force discipline and daily behavior, in the official publications of the DOJ,

    it is.

    Your opinions of what the language of some law is supposed to mean do not count.
    My several and repeated attempts to do exactly that have been trashed by people posting in red caps and calling me a liar and a moron. Literally pages of that kind of posting. Perhaps you could address that, in your objections to disgraceful, shameful, childish behavior in the service of off-topic posting.
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2017
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    That's not quite the topic of the OP. If it were, the obvious answer would be "depends", as for anyone else - no topic.

    I have tried to move its vague description the other way - toward when and where and why it's ok to punch a "nazi" in particular. That seems more useful than the other direction, which would be when and where it's ok to punch someone merely for thinking bad thoughts - short thread: never, all agreed.

    When moved that way, the topic of when and where it's ok to punch people for one's own presumptions about them - even shoot and kill them - could be actually relevant. And it was, when introduced. So splitting this thread will not rid the topic of that aspect of the topic.
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2017
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Why does it look like anyone is trying to say that?
    There's nothing "implicit" about the fact that it is possible to kill a black person, with the justification described, and suffer no consequences. It's not an "if-then" chain of logic describing a hypothetical situation. It's not a conclusion arrived at by armchair reasoning, a theoretical matter. It's a description of a physical situation, an observed pattern in hundreds of events over decades of time across an entire country.

    And it's not merely, or even centrally, "suffered no consequences". It is specifically and explicitly exonerated of criminal act, by official acceptance of the justifications proffered as exonerating. Ergo: legal. No scare quotes.

    The question of legality is a question of fact: is it, in fact, illegal to do what was done to Martin, or Brown, or Castile, or the many others, with the justifications proffered and supported by the evidence? Say the judges, juries, AGs, police, and oversight agencies so far: no. (Castile is yet going to trial, apparently - here's an indication of what it's going to look like: )
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2017
  21. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    "The face of order is far from Christ." (Floater)

    Honestly, sir, that's all to you.

    Part of the problem is that you're letting the troll job get to you; this has been, from the outset, an argument about skin color as criterion of danger. I don't understand, for instance―

    ―your treatment of boldface, which would seem to separate it from what else you quoted from Iceaura's post. And this is kind of important in this moment because, and I will come back to the scare quotes, your only horse in the race would appear to focus on, say, for instance, what you boldfaced, while omitting the part you didn't; I would suggest it's actually kind of amazing, when we follow through the implication, what Iceaura needs to do in order to cover himself:

    • Here it is again, in summary form: It is legal to kill somebody because one feels sufficiently and legitimately threatened by them; it is legal to feel legitimately threatened by someone because they are black; Therefore, in some circumstances, it is legal to kill somebody because they are black. (Would you prefer a less pejorative rewording, less redolent of presumed bigotry?
    Here: It is legal to have killed somebody because they were black. Or even: Because they were black, it is legal to have killed somebody. Feel better?)


    It is legal to kill somebody because one feels sufficiently and legitimately threatened by them; it is legal to feel legitimately threatened by someone because they are black; Therefore, in some circumstances, it is legal to kill somebody because they are black.

    It is legal to kill somebody because one feels sufficiently and legitimately threatened by them; it is legal to feel legitimately threatened by someone because they are black; Therefore, in some circumstances, it is legal to have killed somebody because they were black.

    It is legal to kill somebody because one feels sufficiently and legitimately threatened by them; it is legal to feel legitimately threatened by someone because they are black; Therefore, in some circumstances, because they were black, it is legal to have killed somebody.​

    I really don't understand your detachment of alternatives from the larger formulation; it doesn't seem logical compared to the rest of Iceaura's argument.

    And there's also the bit you said to Bells↑ about how Iceaura "made a sweeping statement" and "refuses to qualify it in any way". And, you know, it was generally qualified when I said it; Iceaura has put much more effort into making the point that certain participants are simply trolling. (Take the bit about simile, for instance. The comparison has the effect of erasing a substantive range of discussion, and raising a question about the status of Nazis in society.)

    Part of the problem you're running into on this occasion is that you're trying to mediate between an argument and a fallacy; your middle ground is going to require distortion of the record.

    The thing about the scare quotes, as Iceaura suggested, is that they imply illegitimacy. If the justification for killing is reasonable fear of life and limb, then there isn't supposed to be any question of legitimacy. This isn't pseudo-legal, or quasi-legal. It's legal.

    Your question about statutory authority becomes entirely invested in the question of whether skin color is a reasonable criterion of danger. And the thing is, we kind of know it is. The statutory authority can be construed in the right to self-defense which in theory and practice exists outside specific codification in Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws. Whether that suits your vector of inquiry is, of course, its own question. (By the way, did you hear that in South Carolina the state asserts Castle Doctrine means a woman may not defend herself against abuse if she's in his home? Just some random trivia related to the purposes of these laws.)

    Here's a depressing reality: A local inquest jury just returned a very problematic pair of verdicts. First, a majority―described specifically as significant, and as I recall equaling three quarters―found that the officers most likely believed they were in danger when they shot.

    It needs to be mentioned here that the inquest jury did not rule on whether or not they found that belief reasonable, logical, or demonstrable in the evidence; the question is whether or not the officers believed.

    The second verdict returned is that the black man was shot to death while obeying police instructions.

    In other words, he was obeying, and they still feared for their lives―and, let's face it, it's a scary situation―so they shot him to death.

    This passes muster in Washington state.

    If dark skin has any influence increasing their perception of danger?

    What interests me is that if we go back to the beginning of this digression↑"Again, it's immoral to punch someone who is not attacking you."―we might wonder why the Nazi gets that special assertion.

    Funny how that question isn't being addressed.

    Honestly, I think that's ridiculous. There are reasons pretty straightforward according to the fact of civilized society, but you do not get to cover these choices as some matter of existential necessity. The choice to advocate for an historical warring enemy of our society can find all manner of human and civil rights protection in my book, but no, it is not so godforsaken simplistic as merely being human.

    I would ask you to think of the Godwin Corollary; why does this custom even exist?

    Or, perhaps I can only reiterate↑ that as much as I disdain the present public discourse representation of Christianity in my society, and such influences and impacts as those elements can have on my own and other people's qualities of life, I would not indict the ministry of Christ that way. I do not accept the proposition that the argument to not strike the Nazi who is advocating genocide in the public square is the same as the argument to not strike the Christian who evangelizes, "Blessed are the meek and the merciful and the persecuted."

    The basic difference in function between one who chooses to identify as a Nazi and advocate such outcomes, to the one, and whole lot of other choices, to the other, is kind of obvious, I would think.

    The basic difference in function between choosing to identify as a Nazi and advocate such outcomes, to the one, and merely existing, to the other, ought to be extraordinarily obvious. This isn't some weird question about someone identifying as "Christian", and everyone else having to wonder whether we're meeting a reflection of Christ or a Republican. Even still, I cannot accept that the argument why punching a Republican is inappropriate would be the same as the argument for why punching a Nazi is inappropriate. These aren't Christians or Republicans. We're talking about Nazis. This is the threshold; we don't have an equivalent to the Godwin Corrollary for accusing someone of being a Christian, and, yeah, there's kind of a reason why.


    I consider it a Godwin violation to include Nazis with transgender, Republicans, surgeons, epileptics, babies, &c. The point being that none of those other people are in the same class. None of those conditions bring any inherent context of harm. Even if I want to disdain Republicans, nope, I simply cannot elevate them to that valence of evil.

    Oh, yeah, you know, I mean ... go ahead and say it: Yet. And that worry, rippling through American society and around the world, is part of the reason we're even having this discussion about punching Nazis.

    But you can be a Christian, or even a Republican, without inherently threatening other people. This is different from, say, the KKK, who inherently threatens people of color; and even the Klan is different from Nazis, who are, as I have reminded, a genocidal historical warring enemy of this society, and also a symbolic threshold, an allegedly unique evil.

    What about this moment requires we should change that? This change is not required in order to maintain a rational and civilized prohibition against randomly clocking a Nazi.
  22. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Why would one need exoneration for committing an act that is specifically and explicitly deemed legal?
  23. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    And this differs from "It is functionally "legal" (with scare quotes) to shoot black people - in some cases, under some circumstances." how, exactly?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page