Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < First | | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | | Last >
Re: ANTIFA [Re: Mad_Larkin]
    #24461696 -

Lol, okay.  Keep telling yourself that.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: ANTIFA [Re: Enlil]
    #24461701 -

there's still time to make a cogent point bro

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: ANTIFA [Re: Mad_Larkin]
    #24461710 -

Exactly.  So what are you waiting for?


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: ANTIFA [Re: Enlil]
    #24461754 -

i already made my point, it was short and simple, and unlike your sloppy attempts it had the added bonus of actually making sense :cookiemonster:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: ANTIFA [Re: Mad_Larkin]
    #24461758 -

All you did was state an absurd and irrelevant hypothetical followed by an accusation that I don't understand self-defense.  If that's what you call a "cogent point", then your rhetoric needs work.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: ANTIFA [Re: Enlil]
    #24461778 -

it was hardly absurd or irrelevent, it was merely a hyperbolic version of the situation you seemed to be having trouble understanding. i thought by exaggerating i might help you along a little. apparently not. :sad:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: ANTIFA [Re: Mad_Larkin]
    #24461803 -

It was both.  There is no gun in the video at all.  No one is shot.  No one is shot at.  No one is killed.  The fact that you think it's relevant only shows how little you understand the self-defense framework.

If you make a reasoned argument for self-defense, I'll be glad to respond in kind.  You haven't done that, and I suspect you can't/won't.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: ANTIFA [Re: Mad_Larkin]
    #24461816 -

Repertoire89 said:
Neo-Nazis have freedom of speech and assembly as well

No one has the right to violently disrupt a lawful assembly, nor should they


And this is where we will disagree, but my view is that this is self-defense; albeit a less direct, pre-emptive form than responding to an immediate physical threat.

At what point can I take someone's threat to do harm to me as sufficient reason to act in defense? If someone says "I'm going to stab you." do I need to wait until I see the knife; perhaps until the first attempt (successful or not) at stabbing has been made; maybe I saw them stab someone else after saying the same thing; or do I need to be personally physically harmed before I can respond in like?

When can we say fascist rhetoric and ideology has made the jump from philosophy to reality? Remember, although there may not currently be a mass coordinated movement of genocide taking place in the USA, fascists are targeting and killing people in a more haphazard way; do we need to wait until a government implemented plan for genocide occurs before we can physically respond? Some may consider that point already too late.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: ANTIFA [Re: shivas.wisdom] * 1
    #24461914 -

The USA operates under rule of law. We guarantee an individual's fundamental right to life, aside for the death pentalty. I don't see how that's just going to get thrown out the window to conduct a mass genocide, especially in the information age.

It would take a civil war and a subsequent abandonment of the US constitution to carry out something like that. And that's given the rest of the world doesn't try to intervene.


--------------------

Edited by schwarg (07/06/17 02:37 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: ANTIFA [Re: schwarg]
    #24461959 -

But outside of that political conjecture, care to answer the question I pose regarding responding to someone threatening to stab you?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: ANTIFA [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #24462062 -

who cares, you are not the law.

*insert Dredd meme here*

i just realized something. if we weren't in the media age...i wouldn't doubt we wouldn've already seen undue warring parties seeking to indemnify themselves their source of "income". all this for beliefs. overarching beliefs that should work in tandem but people are too gummed up with pride to care.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: ANTIFA [Re: akira_akuma]
    #24462081 -

That's a lame response that adds nothing to the conversation. I am honestly interested in how you folks decrying antifascist action draw your own personal line in the matter of self-defense. It's not a difficult question, I see no reason for this evasiveness.

Quote:
At what point can I take someone's threat to do harm to me as sufficient reason to act in defense? If someone says "I'm going to stab you." do I need to wait until I see the knife; perhaps until the first attempt (successful or not) at stabbing has been made; maybe I saw them stab someone else after saying the same thing; or do I need to be personally physically harmed before I can respond in like?



--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: ANTIFA [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #24462117 -

this conversation is always given to your "so what do you think punching people in the face when it's not me? is it wrong?" bullcrap. so...whatever. it's nonsense.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: ANTIFA [Re: Enlil]
    #24462152 -

Enlil said:
It was both.  There is no gun in the video at all.  No one is shot.  No one is shot at.  No one is killed.  The fact that you think it's relevant only shows how little you understand the self-defense framework.

If you make a reasoned argument for self-defense, I'll be glad to respond in kind.  You haven't done that, and I suspect you can't/won't.


it's totally relevant. you can kill someone easily with your bare hands. if you are attacked you have the right to take measures to stop the threat. it's that simple.

i'm not interested in your semantic games and "no u" one-upmanship. judging by the thread most people would agree with me (which is why you're attempting to take the contrarian position).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: ANTIFA [Re: akira_akuma]
    #24462168 -

My question is clearly trying to ascertain your perceived limits of self-defense. My perspective would be that someone verbally threatening to stab me is enough to garner a physical response, and this extends to my willingness to respond physically to fascist organizing (which in my opinion constitutes an equivalent threat to someone merely talking about stabbing me).

You, and others in this thread, state that fascists should be free to organize; given this difference of opinion, I am curious to see where your own personal limitations to free speech and self-defense are drawn.

I'm not sure how you think your quoted text relates to what I said. Perhaps your conversations with other people have gone in that direction, but in my case physical response to the threat of stabbing would be considered appropriate if it was in response to my own words as well. It's not a one way street. Fortunately, I'm not one to flippantly threaten people.

Why bother giving a non-answer to a question that wasn't even directed at you, if you care so little?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: ANTIFA [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #24462186 -

shivas.wisdom said:
Repertoire89 said:
Neo-Nazis have freedom of speech and assembly as well

No one has the right to violently disrupt a lawful assembly, nor should they


And this is where we will disagree, but my view is that this is self-defense; albeit a less direct, pre-emptive form than responding to an immediate physical threat.

At what point can I take someone's threat to do harm to me as sufficient reason to act in defense? If someone says "I'm going to stab you." do I need to wait until I see the knife; perhaps until the first attempt (successful or not) at stabbing has been made; maybe I saw them stab someone else after saying the same thing; or do I need to be personally physically harmed before I can respond in like?

When can we say fascist rhetoric and ideology has made the jump from philosophy to reality? Remember, although there may not currently be a mass coordinated movement of genocide taking place in the USA, fascists are targeting and killing people in a more haphazard way; do we need to wait until a government implemented plan for genocide occurs before we can physically respond? Some may consider that point already too late.


I've had two people pull knives on me this year, in neither case would I have been morally justified to shoot them as there was plenty of room for discussion still.  If they advanced or gave any reasonable indication of doing so, then lethal force would instantly be justified.

If the fascists threaten violence, then they should be treated as terrorists and sent to Gitmo, otherwise they can talk about black and jewish conspiracies all they like. That mentality has been defeated in the US and not through violence, its actually fed by violence like the LA Riots or 911

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: ANTIFA [Re: Repertoire89]
    #24462217 -

Thank you for actually answering,

FYI, when I talk about a physical response, it doesn't necessarily mean a lethal one. I'm not sure if I would condone gunning a person down solely over a threat to stab me, but neither do I condone gunning down groups of fascists attempting to publicly organize.

So would an actionable fascist threat, in your opinion, constitute an indirect threat such as "kill all the jews" or a direct one such as "kill this jew"?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: ANTIFA [Re: Enlil]
    #24462219 -

Enlil said:
It was both.  There is no gun in the video at all.  No one is shot.  No one is shot at.  No one is killed.  The fact that you think it's relevant only shows how little you understand the self-defense framework.

If you make a reasoned argument for self-defense, I'll be glad to respond in kind.  You haven't done that, and I suspect you can't/won't.


The mentally ill man threatened the black guy.


--------------------
Amanita86 said:
Sui is trying to mod right now.  Kinda like a newborn calf tryin ta stand fer the first time ain’t it..

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: ANTIFA [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #24462232 -

shivas.wisdom said:
Thank you for actually answering,

FYI, when I talk about a physical response, it doesn't necessarily mean a lethal one. I'm not sure if I would condone gunning a person down solely over a threat to stab me, but neither do I condone gunning down groups of fascists attempting to publicly organize.

So would an actionable fascist threat, in your opinion, constitute an indirect threat such as "kill all the jews" or a direct one such as "kill this jew"?


I definetely condone lethal force if someone attacks you with a knife, even after restraining or disabling them, but not torture. Same goes for unarmed unprovoked strangers.

If someone just says it should be done in private, then I think nothing. If they are suggesting it to a group, then they should be jailed. If plans are made, jail. If plans are set in motion: gitmo or death.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: ANTIFA [Re: Repertoire89]
    #24462244 -

If you're with family (like your kids or wife), I think someone making threats or pulling a knife justifies lethal force. Not sure how that translates.

Its all pretty difficult to determine

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < First | | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | | Last >

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* HOLOCAUST SURVIVOR DENOUNCES ANTI-GUN-OWNERSHIP MOVEMENT MagicalMystery 1,694 14 09/07/05 12:50 PM
by MagicalMystery
* Jewish Extremist Opens Fire Inside Bus Anisotropic 783 8 08/16/05 10:50 PM
by Unagipie
* Jewish terror cell members convicted in bombing plot wingnutx 617 2 09/18/03 03:52 PM
by wingnutx
* February 15 Anti-War Demonstrations....
( 1 2 all )		 Angry Mycologist 5,430 33 02/16/03 04:36 PM
by Angry Mycologist
* 2017 in the Bay and Beyond: A Play-by-Play Analysis of Antifascist Action in the USA
( 1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 all )		 shivas.wisdom 3,377 183 01/13/18 06:39 PM
by Falcon91Wolvrn03
* CSU-LA Professor Threatens to Fight Students who Invited Ben Shapiro to Speak on Campus
( 1 2 all )		 qman 2,235 23 02/01/16 05:24 PM
by airclay
* UC Berkeley Braces for Ben Shapiro Speech (Thursday)
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )		 qman 2,388 159 09/24/17 11:41 AM
by The Ecstatic
* Students Demand CSU-LA President Resign for Letting Ben Shapiro Speak qman 1,117 16 03/01/16 08:37 PM
by airclay

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
28,320 topic views. 2 members, 103 guests and 31 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.038 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 16 queries.