Is Punching A Nazi OK?

I'm tired of you posting inaccurate paraphrase, and demanding that I deal with it.

Yes, it did, in fact, mean that he was not legally culpable under the law. That's what "justified" meant, in that case and similar.

Your supposed "evidence" consisted of quoting some laws, which proves nothing - as a glance at the argument you claim to be addressing would show you.

At most, completely accepting your reading of those laws, it would demonstrate the existence of what appear to be, in an ordinary reading of the English words, conflicting principles in the law - in the one, killing someone who is sufficiently threatening you is legal, in the other killing someone who is or has come to be sufficiently threatening to you in part because they are black is illegal. The context of both is that feeling threatened by someone because they are black is legal - that is, it is legal to be sufficiently threatened due to the extra threat of racial identity. Mortal fear, even partly from that source, is legal.

The question of how that conflict is resolved, what in the final analysis the law as a whole says, must be answered in practice, by judges, AGs, police, DOJ, etc. And we have our answer, in various common circumstances, illustrated for us by these few examples from the hundreds of events.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's against the Law to assault ANYONE!

Whoever strikes first is wrong. "Who threw the first punch?"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Calling Out the Nazi Sympathizer

I'm tired of you continually ignoring what people say in order to just pop off with that white supremacist troll job just to distract away from the fact that you're protecting and advocating Nazis.

So let's go back to the point of digression↑: Why should Nazis get better than everyone else?

You need to show that Iceaura and I are talking about hate crimes. You make the claim, you bring the evidence.

Am I making myself clear?

If I am going to sit here and witness your advocacy of Nazis, then I am going to hold you to task for it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

and i've proven more than once that you are wrong WRT my posting or paraphrasing
present evidence or STFU

and again, this is transference and your interpretation

i'll explain (again)
you've presented a case of homicide that was adjudicated - this is your example
you didn't present the judicial findings, but rather articles. nowhere have i seen you present judicial findings
so, you're presenting your interpretation of events based upon the outcome

nowhere have you proven that the shooting was explicitly stated and prosecuted as a racially motivated hate crime and "justified"
you proved that there was "a" shooting, and that said suspect is not incarcerated
you've proved that it is perceived to be a hate crime based upon the articles you've presented (perceived by you and others)
you've proved that you perceive the situation as racially motivated
you've proved that race was involved
you've never once proved, through FOIA or other means, that it was prosecuted as such

so you've only proved that there was:
1- a homicide
2- suspects used stand your ground as a defense
3- no incarceration for the suspect

now, that is the extent of what you've proved.
you have not proved that it is legal to kill or batter blacks in the US. you haven't even been able to prove that the shootings were prosecuted as racial crimes.

the suspect of any racially motivated crime can still be prosecuted for the homicide under 18 U.S. Code § 249 as a hate crime, which is a separate charge and is explicitly worded to demonstrate without interpretation that it is illegal to shoot blacks in the US, making your claims as well as your defense above false, and as you've repeated it and ignored the facts, then blatantly false due to your interpretations and or delusion

really?
so, if you claim it's legal to speed in the US
and you use the demonstration that it's legal because three people have gotten away with it,
and there is a media story about it,
then quoting the explicitly stated law is not evidence you're wrong, but rather my interpretation of why you're wrong?

is that what you're saying?
ROTFLMFAO

you're arguing multiple separate points and distracting from the topic - for starters:
1- it is not my accepted reading of the law. it is explicitly stated. it is not about literacy at that point, but rather your ignoring the evidence

2- there is no conflict as one law covers threats to person, whereas the other law specifically covers hate crimes: the problem as you've posted is that the application of the stand your ground laws is applied in such a manner that you've interpreted it as supporting racial homicide, and the evidence is compelling to validate your argument. it in no way, shape or form supports or states that this is legal in any way, as that is an interpretation of the application of the law, not an explicit statement of the law.

3- application of a law in a situation creating a miscarriage of justice is not the same thing as being legal, it simply means that you got away with a crime. this is no different than my serial killer example: their crime is still illegal, but they got off on a technicality. it doesn't make what they did legal, it makes what they did unprosecuted.

now, about the unprosecuted part: this is also a tactic PA's use for a reason
sometimes a PA will not prosecute an event because there is insufficient evidence at that time, or at the time of the filing of the prosecution. this doesn't exonerate the suspect from the crime. it only postpones it to collect evidence. this is very common in the system. This allows a person to be prosecuted for "a" crime and incarcerated while giving investigators and law enforcement time to gather evidence to prosecute a more heinous crime.

the above examples you chose may well be examples of this - as there is no statute of limitations on murder, nor is there a statute of limitations on prosecuting a hate crime that results in a murder, as i've explicitly shown.

1- then please show the explicit wording from the following sources:
a- the law (it must explicitly state, as i showed WRT 18 U.S. Code § 249 , that it's legal to shoot blacks due to threat by race)
b- the adjudicated cases findings (it will be explicitly stated)
c- multiple precedent and SCOTUS will have ruled on this - so please show cases and adjudicated findings

2- it cannot be "legal" if there is an explicitly stated federal statute that states it is illegal

it really is that simple, so get to work, becuase to date all you've showed is your interpretation of events due to a known biased media storm
that is it
your interpretation

nowhere have you actually provided evidence showing the explicit adjudicated findings that this is legal due to race
nowhere
not once
in any post in this thread

so it's time for you to actually post the same level of evidence as mine
thanks

true

blatantly false
you have your interpretation of events

like i said - nowhere have you actually provided evidence showing the explicit adjudicated findings that this is legal due to race
nowhere
not once

you've showed interpretations based upon the lack of incarceration, but you have not explicitly tied this to race, you've only interpreted it as being because of race

where is the evidence that this is racial?
it will definitely be in the findings... it absolutely MUST be in the findings
it must be there because that is required by law - the findings must reflect the summation of the case and present legal justification for the ruling

present those findings

 

i am reporting this part of your post:
1- this is trolling and baiting
2- i'm not ignoring what people are saying. i have proven that what you're saying is your interpretation of events based upon your flawed understanding of the law and reality. and especially because of your bias
3- i am in no way protecting or advocating nazi's, and you've yet to make a case or prove that
4- you made a blatantly false claim that is based upon your interpretation of events that is explicitly proven wrong per the law - that is and always has been my point and my argument, and i will continue to refute this because the evidence is quite literally all on my side.

distraction from the argument. the OP is about nazism. the argument between us is about your false claim

this is and has been about the legality of shooting due to race. i've never wavered from this. you're attempting to distract from your blatantly false claim.
please show the prosecutor or judicial ruling that proves me wrong where it explicitly states it's ok to shoot due to race, and i will resign from the argument. insure this is on record and available for me to present later because i will require it. this is the only way to get you to see the point of law that i'm making as you are still only able to argue from your interpretation, not the law.

start here:

this is specifically and explicitly stating the legality of shooting blacks in the US
continued here:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is-punching-a-nazi-ok.158810/page-5#post-3435682
advocated by ice here:

and here:

and in the other above linked quotes i provided directly to ice which you're ignoring

reaffirmed here:

and in multiple subsequent posts by you and ice all over this thread to myself and others

so, i've just (again) given evidence of your explicitly stating a hate crime, as defined by 18 U.S. Code § 249, is legal, and you have yet to actually provide anything but subjective opinion and interpretation of events

show where the explicit findings state it is justified to shoot someone over race
it must be in the findings if your interpretation of the shootings are correct
it is the law based upon the following: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_52
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28a/52
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/3.46
and numerous other places - https://www.law.cornell.edu/search/site/findings

this isn't debatable

have i made the above clear in this post?

if i am going to be told that i am advocating for nazi's then you must present the evidence showing that i am advocating for nazi's

i will continue to report your blatantly false claim that i am advocating for nazi's as it's a lie and in no way, shape or form can you provide proof that i am

 

shall i title this as "calling out the blatant liar" ?? to mock your attempt to garner support for your position?

more for your evidence, just in case you think there are too many from ice above

continue here

continue here because you can't understand the difference between not being prosecuted and the legality of the crime

this is demonstrated when later in said same post you again attempt to validate your opinion on racial shootings as legal (which it clearly is not, and is clearly a hate crime)

then you defend your argument with a state statute here:

this is your specific defense that it's legal to kill over race, yet it's still based upon your interpretation of events
as such, this is still your argument about hate crimes, and as such is evidnece of your argument supporting your original statement that it's legal to shoot blacks in the US, which is explicitly proven to be a hate crime
to continue, you use circular reasoning here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is-punching-a-nazi-ok.158810/page-18#post-3438172
this is directly regarding hate crimes but you use a weird argument to justify your beliefs regarding your interpretations


so, clearly the topic i originally argued against posted by you (and defended by ice) is a hate crime
it's explicitly stated, and it's defined explicitly that shooting blacks is the same as shooting over race, therefore, a hate crime

.

that should be enough evidence for any MOD to establish that you argued a hate crime is legal, as i noted and continue to note
so i have provided more than adequate evidence that you and ice are talking about hate crimes and attempting to even state their legality, even though you don't even know what that means

.

of course, this is why you specifically started changing the subject to your strawman of me defending nazi's and worse
you can't actually show the legality of shooting blacks, so invoke godwin or simply distract from the argument with a false claim


evidence.
proven.
in your own words

 

point of clarification - i would appreciate a MOD review as well PLEASE Bells

when you post a point and link a case via media, then you are posting, literally, an interpretation of events written by an author that is using arguments to justify their belief

it doesn't matter if there are 1, ten, hundreds or they all state the same thing. this is true in Science when arguing about a specific scientific fact (like climate change, GR/SR, or evolution, all of which are stil debated as false by religious etc)

so then this then MUST be true when discussing the legality of a situation, as the only way to establish the legality, by definition, is to provide legal statute or the findings adjudicated in court whereas the official documentation states x is due to y (or the justification of shooting this person is due to race.)

EDIT: see: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/final_decree
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/final_judgment
END OF EDIT

any other link is a subjective opinion and interpretation of events justified by said authors arguments and is not evidence in and of itself of anything other than a similar opinion

so in order to present evidence of justification due to race, you will be required to present case documentation, adjudication and from the evidence and findings.
this is the only way you can explicitly claim that [insert case] used in [insert example] is justification of homicide due to race

if the findings are all based upon the above examples in the media, this also will demonstrate a state statute and only a state finding, not a federal one

by listing this documentation where it states the findings of homicide ( or battery, assault and the argument of self defense) are due to race, you will also be demonstrating and presenting evidence that this particular case is, at the state level, adjudicated, and supports your argument at the state level

nowhere does any state statute validate the claim on a federal level, as that would require a federal statute and or finding, with evidence (as i've presented)

so even if you can justify your findings per the state stand your ground laws, it is still in no way evidence for killing blacks in the US, only in that particular state and those states where it is adjudicated using said laws

moreover, this is also not demonstrative of the federal legality in that the federal statute can still be applied at any time in the future when there is a homicide

as such, this explicitly means it is still not "legal in the US"
it is simply a travesty and not prosecuted

 

No, you just made shit up. For instance―

No, we will not start out of order just to accommodate your deception. Your entire post, Stumpy, is a trolling waste.

†​

Too bad you failed to make any argument. I mean, what, do you want me to write your argument for you? (And therein lies the problem with your failure to actually make an argument.)

Why?

Yes, because that's an argument.

Huh? That sounds like something you could cite, analyze, and thereby argue.

It's the important one.

Yes, because people are allowed to defend themselves; contrary Michael's false assertion on behalf of Nazis, Americans are allowed to assert self-defense when they are not actually being attacked; it is sufficient under law to assert sufficient fear. And if skin color is a criterion of fear, suspicion, or aggravation―which even you have acknowledged in the Trayvon Martin case while arguing to preclude his right to stand his ground―then, yes, just like Schmelzer's argument comparing dark skin to a sex crime, if the difference between outcomes hinges in any way on skin color, then it hinges in some way on skin color.

And society already knows skin color makes a difference.

I would think the record is sufficient to demonstrate your misrepresentation.

You have posted days and pages worth of fallacies attacking the counterpoint to an argument requiring that Nazis should have greater rights than the rest of us. That's pretty straightforward. Of course, there is an alternative, and I suppose the philosophical principle of charity obliges me to attend: So it's not about Nazis in particular, but white supremacism in general.

Yeah, that makes sense.

But, really, right now there remains the question of why Nazis should have greater rights than the rest of us, so my question to you is whether you really want to waste even more time on your utterly worthless straw man?

Seriously, Stumpy, one of the problems is the coincidence of your grotesque dishonesty and what it actually accomplishes.

Actually, people have explained it to you over and over and over again, but you insist on talking about something else.

That's the thing about your fallacious futility. Like you said, "start here". No. We will not start midway just to suit your fallacy.

Meanwhile, the question of why Nazis should have greater rights than anyone else remains. Don't get me wrong, there are some pathways for making that assertion, but the advocates should probably write their own explanations.

 

where have i even addressed the specific topic that nazi's have greater rights, please?

quotes and links - thanks

so
1 - my point with you and ice has been pretty much about the legality of killing blacks in the US
it's not legal - end of story - so my point about your making a blatantly false claim stands

2 - as for the OP, i've already stated an answer to the question to which you ignored

3 - as for your argument about nazi's having more rights - if you don't know what constitutes the legality of something per US and State law, then how can you establish that nazi's have more rights?
because you say it's so?
because you can link a page from the internet supporting your opinion?
because there is an article somewhere that proves your opinion is supported by someone else's similar opinion ??

using that same argument and tactic then i can prove just about anything i want is "true" - i can prove faeries exist because Disney published a moving story that had Tinkerbell in it, and link the evidence, including pics

it doesn't mean it is true any more than quoting the bible means god is real or true

so quit distracting from the original point and argument

and actually, you didn't read this post: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is-punching-a-nazi-ok.158810/page-19#post-3438278

people have not demonstrated or proven the legality

what they have done:
-showed a problem
-showed a state law being utilised for shooting someone that is a threat
-showed that others share their opinion
-showed that people have committed a hate crime if, and only if, the article is validated by the final judgement and the findings
-showed where it is a state, and only a state where said laws have been used, offense
-showed where the statistics seem to support the conclusions of their opinion (until there is a study with validation, this is not a fact)
-showed where they truly, really do believe what they say

nowhere has anyone actually proven that it's legal
and this is clearly not true as there is an explicit law written that demonstrates this is illegal - 18 U.S. Code § 249

not a state law
not a belief
not an interpretation of a law based upon my bias or interpretation of events

it is explicitly stated in a federal statute that a death utilising the justification of race is illegal

period

so it is not... i repeat not legal to shoot blacks in the US

.


.

the rest of your post is blatant false claim, distraction, and attempt to bait/troll

especially the part about making sh*t up when i quote you verbatim and link the quotes for all to validate the claim
or the point "that Iceaura and I are talking about hate crimes" - as i clearly proved this

 

I'm still uncertain re: the comparison aspect; nevertheless, I do see your point. The "hate crime" angle does illustrate irony, however.

The reflexive tendency of some to unambiguously state that "it is not OK to punch a Nazi" is perplexing, and the First Amendment argument is every bit as weird as the others--I don't recall having the freedom to express something as necessarily precluding getting the shit beaten out of you for saying it. But again, that kinda speaks to the "legal interpretation" aspect, whereas I find the other aspects more interesting.

I had always thought so. I am admittedly, and willfully, kinda out of touch with "contemporary issues" these days, although I did see the clip of the guy punching Richard Spencer. Still, when I see the phrase "punch(ing) a Nazi" the first thing thats comes to mind is an image of Captain America punching Hitler and Captain America punching Red Skull, both rendered by Jack Kirby, at least thirty years apart. Would Kirby concede to draw a cover depicting Captain America defending Richard Spencer whilst pointing to the Constitution, or would he tell Stan Lee (or whomever) to fuck off? Almost certainly the latter.

I liked Iceaura's example back on page two re: a guy burning a flag outside the VFW on the 4th of July--in part, because ordinarily I have no problem with flag burning; however, under those circumstances, I would agree that punching the guy is warranted. A Nazi is decidely worse than that guy. For that matter, Spidergoat's comments on the first page seemed sufficient, paraphrasing: it's always OK to punch a Nazi, though probably not prudent and possibly counterproductive. 'Nuff said.

What I'm really wondering though is when did so many make such a strong commitment to non-violence, for instance? And just how sincere is this commitment? And, when is it OK to punch a Nazi (the most obvious circumstances, i.e., self-defense, defense of another, excepted)? Does there need to be a formal declaration of war, or act of congress, against the institutionalized advocacy of genocide? If so then, is it OK to punch an Apache (no formal treaty)?

I've only ever beaten the shit out of a person once in my life: in a foreign land, a guy was sadistically tormenting a pariah dog--just for kicks. I beat him senseless with a large, heavy stick. Probably unlawful, possibly pointless (unless he died--I didn't bother sticking around to find out), but I am perfectly "OK" with that and would do it again without hesitation. Still, that was defense (of another)--but I would also be OK with the beating of one advocating for the extermination of pariah dogs, esp. within a somewhat formal, institutionalized context, while acknowledging that such an action may be futile. It is generally conceded that a Nazi is not just some guy personally expressing an opinion, but rather one who actively campaigns or advocates for genocide, etc., right?

Returning to the First Amendment arguments, with a caveat: I do not take "pride" in being an American and I genuinely regard Law, and all things pertaining, with even more scepticism than I do Religion; regardless, I do appreciate the principles and the "spirit" of some things American. In much of Europe, certain expressions and aspects of Nazi sympathies/allegiances is unlawful, and the U.S. is somewhat unique in it's protection of freedom of expression, but using such to defend or protect expressions of Naziism and the like strikes me as rather UnAmerican.

 

That's kind of the problem, dude; you haven't. I did. And Michael didn't like the answer, and then Iceaura made the point, and somewhere along the line you eventually showed up with your change of topic and have spent the days since screeching uselessly about a fallacy that is entirely your own issue that you intend to force onto other people.

Articles of faith are articles of faith.

And?

See, this is how we know you're a troll. I want you to explain what the hell that has to do with anything?

Seriously, I even linked to↑ the "point of digression"↑, and you dismissed it as a distraction↑. And now here you are making up a fake one in order to issue self-righteous demands.

So, hey―

―quit lying, Truck Captain Stumpy. Maybe I should try telling you to pay attention, instead, but it's true I just don't believe your days-long tantrum of irrelevance was any sort of accident.

So, look:

(1) Your argument about 18 USC § 249 is a separate issue, a change of subject.

(2) Your argument has forestalled, by attacking the counterpoint, discussion of why Nazis should have greater rights than anyone else.

(3) You've tried to polish Nazi buttons along the way.

(4) You've been caught misrepresenting the record in order to mount a fake, self-righteous troll tantrum.

The only things you've accomplished are pathetic justifications of murdering black men, and distracting from Michael's argument requiring that Nazis have greater rights than the rest of us.

You are making shit up by insisting on your straw man.

Even in your self-righteous pronunciations you don't have the basic respect to acknowledge what people are actually saying.

 

Parmalee, in the case of the guy torturing the dog, hell yeah! Who wouldn't?

In the case of the moron that is intentionally inciting violent response by the act (in Nazi uniform?) of burning an American flag in front of a VFW hall, so he should expect to get his shit kicked into next month. And he will no doubt hire a lawyer to bring civil suit for his damages, a federal civil rights violation suit, and he'll insist on pressing charges on the vet who saw what fucking monsters really act and responded appropriately.

Not some fuckwit narcissist who "identifies" as a Nazi, in a public protest, who hasn't incited a reaction except by the fact that the snowflakes who know his face. I admit there may have been some off-camera action, but we don't know that.

 

Is the Apache in dress and colors, presenting a warring posture or advocating the extermination of the whites?

Quite honestly, considering history, I'll probably wait until the violence starts. But everything also becomes weird posturing about offense, defense, reservation, jurisdiction, treaty, and when the hell have we ever really cared what the treaties say, and all that. Yep, there's probably an occasion on which I'm perfectly justified by the standard of fighting words to punch the Apache. I don't actually know what that is, and I'm uncertain how much effort I intend to give constructing the framework.

To the other ... I mean, the Nazis even invited us to the dance. And, you know ... they're Nazis.

And that's the thing about saying, "They're Nazis!" Godwin's Corollary is an internet argument, but there are similar standards in the organic experience. We hold them as a unique evil until they are matched, and if the human species does this civilization thing correctly, Nazis will remain unmatched so long as our living heritage continues in this Universe.

(Something about an overlap 'twixt revolutionary and conspiracist rhetoric goes here, because, you know, at the end of the day I think there are differences still having to do with threat and advocacy that would further separate why we don't punch, say, transgender as compared to Christian, but that's the thing, it really does at that point depend more on the expression of "transgender" or "Christian" at hand; neither of these are inherently threatening, though I suppose we could call Christianity inherently supremacist, though in that case I should, for fairness' sake, note that the mass murder of their declared opponents is expected to be left to God and reserved to some unknown future occasion.)​

Even setting aside the strangeness of this particular thread and issue, though, human civilization might well be about to witness a mitigation of Nazi history; the overlaps are in place and, you know how it goes with accidents―see, controversy surrounding Sebastian Gorka and Nazi collaborators↱, which is unfortunate at best, but keep an eye on the State Department and how they treat the Order of the Valiant ... seriously, the guy wears the uniform and signed his dissertation as if he was part of the organization, but wearing it at Donald Trump's inauguration is just a tribute to his late father's anti-communism―that just happen to so perfectly fit the bill.

This is about to get strange.

You know ... like ... as if it's not, already.
____________________

Notes:

Staff. "Top Trump aide wears medal of Hungarian Nazi collaborators". The Times of Israel. 14 February 2017. TimesOfIsrael.com. 14 February 2017. http://bit.ly/2lMqBUM

 

I think the matter is made significantly more complicated by technology. As I said, for the past few years I've to a large extent weaned myself from willful, in-depth pursuit of "current affairs," largely due to the fact that such endeavors lower my seizure threshold--somehow, even more so than chronic insomnia, hyperactivity, and a tendency to forget to eat. I'm also partial to pre-surface mount tech, save for a laptop with crap internet: we live in the bush where cell phones don't work and the broadband is antiquated--and I prefer things that I can make and can fix. Still, I was somewhat familiar Richard Spencer even prior to the punching and saluting sagas. Twenty years ago, he would have been a complete unknown, but in an age in which there are such things as "Youtube celebrities" and suchlike, anonymity and obscurity cannot be ensured.

I realize that that can work both ways, i.e., Spencer's notoriety could be completely, erm, undeserved? But then again, Hitler was also a pathetic loser nobody...

 

The fact that such events are not prosecuted as "hate crimes"* is part of the evidence for my argument - if they were "hate crimes" , they would be illegal, and they are not. They are instead justified killings - legal.

For example, what Zimmerman did was officially determined to be not a "hate crime" or any other crime, but instead officially legal.

And you can quote the laws involved until you blue in the type, instead of red, and that will not change.

*This deceptive language may well be part of the problem: in the Zimmerman case, for example, he appeared to harbor no racial hatred or even racial animosity, and in similar cases the lack of personal racial animosity of the killer is often argued as centrally important and advanced as exonerating.

The original image was certainly not a (note the OP - small "n") "nazi" burning the flag, but rather an offensive hippie-type flag burner

(although you bring up an interesting observation: in the US the "nazi" would in fact tend to be inside the VFW club having a beer, or outside it proudly flying the American flag. How do you suppose that happened? )

But that digression from the digression aside, we have a further contribution to the rephrased OP question, "When is it ok to punch a "nazi", in particular". We have agreement that when said "nazi" is burning American flags outside of VFW clubs on July 4th it's ok to punch them,

and a general sense that it's not ok to punch "nazis" merely for saying stupidities into microphones pushed into their faces while they are walking down the street, no matter what the stupidities are (for one thing, there's a kind of "safe zone" around statements made to intrusive and obnoxious reporters - regular folks get a pass for some stuff).

That looks like a consensus, of a kind. So the OP is framed.

 

No, they are not.

Not all crimes are prosecuted. And even if there is a prosecution, there is not always a guilty verdict.

OJ Simpson got away with murder. By your logic, it was a justified killing, and entirely legal, since he was not found guilty of the crime of murder. (He was later, of course, fined for her wrongful death - but never convicted of murder.)

 

Good luck with this... The position is fortified and the moats dug.

 

Irrelevant.

Here's the quote:

That is: In these cases the reasons for not prosecuting, not arresting, declaring innocent, etc, were stated in public. They were part of the "fact", the acceptance as "justified killings", I apparently should have written out in long paragraphs of repetitive and footnoted detail, to replace my continual and continually foolish assumption of good faith in argument around here.

That's not my logic, or my argument. It will never be my logic, or my argument, no matter how many times it's trotted out here as my logic and argument. Why do you post that stupid fucking shit as my logic and argument? Trolling? Pulling my chain?

Ok, settle back, assuming some kind of ludicrous and inexplicable confusion:

The entire basis of my argument, the whole damn thing, is that the facts of these killings are not in doubt (at least not relevantly). We know - by that I mean I am taking as given the official findings - how, when, where, by whom, and pretty much why, all these black people were killed - just as we know these facts for the hundreds of thousands of less dramatic abuses that could be brought into this argument.

And we know that they are legal - officially and explicitly declared and established as legal killings, with the facts on the table.

That's what makes them legal. Nobody's "getting away" with anything - they simply weren't breaking the law, in doing what they did for the reasons they gave.

That's the point.

 

This reminds me of why Aristotle's invention (logic) was so useful - I'm referring to his idea of removing the subject and predicate and replacing them with letters to eliminate the emotive content and focus purely on the form of the argument.

Brilliant when you think about it.

Oh, he did so purposely to deal a blow against the Schools of Sophistry that were prevalent at the time. You know, they'd teach the rich elite's of society to lead the masses around by the nose / by the words (which they invented). Not much different from today when you stop and think about it.

Anyway, in the end he was run out of Athens, by those very same masses - barely escaping with his life. His great invention, logic, was soon forgotten.

LOL

How ironic.

 

I expressed that as an example of incitement of action, not the legality of it. Read harder.