Read 4895 times

  • Savant
  • The Legend

    • 2751

    • April 07, 2012, 11:35:31 pm
Re: Violence has passed the potential stage
« Reply #60 on: July 29, 2021, 11:50:29 am »
I didn't think you'd resist the lure for another hypothetical false analogy!  :laugh:

Marty can't bring himself to say the words "white domestic terrorism".


Re: Violence has passed the potential stage
« Reply #61 on: July 29, 2021, 11:54:12 am »
Marty can't bring himself to say the words "white domestic terrorism".
If a bunch of Iraqi civilians stormed the Iraqi capitol building, armed only with bear mace and simple bludgeons, despite arms being readily available, and ransacked the place a little and then left, in protest of an election result, would you declare them terrorists?

No, it would be a riot. The only people calling it "terrorism" would be NeoCon thugs who would use it as an excuse to drone-strike a bunch of people.

You have the exact same mentality as those pieces of sh*t.
Join the DeMart Fan Club!
Shout out to WhenInRome... the first member. Thank you my son!


  • Adel
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1407

    • January 30, 2015, 12:50:26 am
    • The Abyss
    more
Re: Violence has passed the potential stage
« Reply #62 on: July 29, 2021, 12:16:20 pm »
noun
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

What word is being defined Marti?



Lawful you say?  :laugh:  Not violent?  :laugh: Not a pursuit of political aims?  :laugh:
« Last Edit: July 29, 2021, 12:19:00 pm by Adel »


Re: Violence has passed the potential stage
« Reply #63 on: July 29, 2021, 12:17:57 pm »
Here's the definition. What the word the I'm looking for Marti?

Quote
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
Are you going to apply this definition consistently and to all parties?

To clarify- Would you define the Iraqis in the example above as terrorists.

And before you say "That's an absurd hypothetical" be aware that's exactly what our Supreme Court does when they hear cases- they ask the lawyers on both sides what the implications would be of the law they seek to apply and how they would uphold it because if the district attorneys/courts are completely arbitrary with how they apply certain standards, then very quickly there will be problems.

The problem with people like you and Savant, is that you don't really understand how to apply a system. With a system, you have to look at things as a whole and things like the definition of terrorism, you have to apply not just in the cases you like, but in other cases as well.

The application of the term "terrorist", in my view, should be very strictly applied and not casually tossed about. Doing so would require us to name a whole bunch of groups/incidents as "terrorist" in order to be consistent and I don't think we really want to do that.

Remember, under the law you have to apply definitions of criminal conduct consistently and fairly to ALL parties. Do you really want to walk down that minefield?
Join the DeMart Fan Club!
Shout out to WhenInRome... the first member. Thank you my son!


Re: Violence has passed the potential stage
« Reply #64 on: July 29, 2021, 12:19:06 pm »
Lawful you say?  :laugh:  Not a pursuit of political aims?  :laugh:
LA Riots were terrorism? BLM protests that spun out of control were terrorism? Palestinian kids throwing rocks at Israeli bulldozers are terrorists?

Just want to make sure you're consistent here. You can't be arbitrary and only apply that standard to groups you hate.
Join the DeMart Fan Club!
Shout out to WhenInRome... the first member. Thank you my son!


  • Savant
  • The Legend

    • 2751

    • April 07, 2012, 11:35:31 pm
Re: Violence has passed the potential stage
« Reply #65 on: July 29, 2021, 01:46:02 pm »
Still can't say "white domestic terrorism"?  Go on, you can try. Put one of your minds to it.


  • Savant
  • The Legend

    • 2751

    • April 07, 2012, 11:35:31 pm
Re: Violence has passed the potential stage
« Reply #66 on: July 29, 2021, 01:52:28 pm »
Are you going to apply this definition consistently and to all parties?

To clarify- Would you define the Iraqis in the example above as terrorists.

And before you say "That's an absurd hypothetical" be aware that's exactly what our Supreme Court does when they hear cases- they ask the lawyers on both sides what the implications would be of the law they seek to apply and how they would uphold it because if the district attorneys/courts are completely arbitrary with how they apply certain standards, then very quickly there will be problems.

The problem with people like you and Savant, is that you don't really understand how to apply a system. With a system, you have to look at things as a whole and things like the definition of terrorism, you have to apply not just in the cases you like, but in other cases as well.

The application of the term "terrorist", in my view, should be very strictly applied and not casually tossed about. Doing so would require us to name a whole bunch of groups/incidents as "terrorist" in order to be consistent and I don't think we really want to do that.

Remember, under the law you have to apply definitions of criminal conduct consistently and fairly to ALL parties. Do you really want to walk down that minefield?

We got to remember the ol's Marty quote "One man's terrorist is another man's terrorist depending on the system that I say that you can apply it to." It must really hurt you inside when you can't argue rational points and you got to go into your "safe space" of non sequiturs.


Re: Violence has passed the potential stage
« Reply #67 on: July 29, 2021, 02:10:17 pm »
Still can't say "white domestic terrorism"?  Go on, you can try. Put one of your minds to it.
It was NOT white domestic terrorism. There you go.

It was a political protest that morphed into a political riot.

Reasons it was NOT a terrorist incident-
1) There is a distinction between political violence that results from violent outpour during a political demonstration vs. an organized terrorist attack
2) The parties involved did not use the full capacity of their arsenal to engage in political violence, nor anywhere close to it.

An out of control mob that sacks the governor's office or some palace are not terrorists. Dispassionate historians have never regarded such an act as terrorism. For it to be an "insurrection" the mob then has to actively try to establish a new government, not wander off back home to resume their lives. The only people who have labeled such actions as "terrorism" or "insurrection" have typically been military officials/despots who use it as a justification to engage in harsh reprisals often because they are looking for a casus belli to go after their targets. \

How stupid people think: "Because something has this part to it and this other part to it, that makes it this thing."
How smarter people think: "What makes something a thing, is not just what it has, but what it does not have."

Are you stupid? Why are you thinking the first way and not the second?
Join the DeMart Fan Club!
Shout out to WhenInRome... the first member. Thank you my son!


Re: Violence has passed the potential stage
« Reply #68 on: July 29, 2021, 02:15:49 pm »
We got to remember the ol's Marty quote "One man's terrorist is another man's terrorist depending on the system that I say that you can apply it to." It must really hurt you inside when you can't argue rational points and you got to go into your "safe space" of non sequiturs.
The fact that you think your point is rational is laughable.

Reason: Applying a consistent, objective definition to something. This definition is based on codified law and professional definitions that distinguish between phenomenon that are often quite similar. (For an example look at the differences in irregular military forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregular_military ). If those laws are to be just, they must be applied consistently and impartially. When considering whether we implement such laws we must consider the potential applications of that law and it's consequences.

How stupid people think: Webster's dictionary defines it as this. It can sort of fit the definition. Therefore it's that.

Also, genius, seeing that the definition of terrorism is consistently applied is not a non-sequitur. In fact, it is precisely on point and central to the issue. If you are arbitrary with your definitions and applications of terms, then those terms you apply don't really mean anything.
Join the DeMart Fan Club!
Shout out to WhenInRome... the first member. Thank you my son!


  • Savant
  • The Legend

    • 2751

    • April 07, 2012, 11:35:31 pm
Re: Violence has passed the potential stage
« Reply #69 on: July 29, 2021, 02:58:46 pm »
And we've reached the point of insults which is when Marty's ran out of logic or sense. Thanks for playing!


  • Savant
  • The Legend

    • 2751

    • April 07, 2012, 11:35:31 pm
Re: Violence has passed the potential stage
« Reply #70 on: July 29, 2021, 03:02:54 pm »
I'll leave what the law says here:

"Under the 2001 USA Patriot Act, domestic terrorism is defined as "activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state; (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion..."

They may well be crappy terrorists but still terrorists all the same.


Re: Violence has passed the potential stage
« Reply #71 on: July 29, 2021, 03:24:04 pm »
I'll leave what the law says here:

"Under the 2001 USA Patriot Act, domestic terrorism is defined as "activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state; (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion..."

They may well be crappy terrorists but still terrorists all the same.
Why didn't you include the full definition?
Join the DeMart Fan Club!
Shout out to WhenInRome... the first member. Thank you my son!


  • Adel
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1407

    • January 30, 2015, 12:50:26 am
    • The Abyss
    more
Re: Violence has passed the potential stage
« Reply #72 on: July 29, 2021, 04:31:06 pm »
Clearly Marti has no sense of objectivity in this matter!


  • gogators!
  • Waygook Lord

    • 5063

    • March 16, 2016, 04:35:48 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Violence has passed the potential stage
« Reply #73 on: July 30, 2021, 04:50:39 am »
It's gotten to the point where martini's argument is that if you don't agree with me you're stupid. Which IMO is fairly unpersuasive.

Kind of like Jim Jordan saying he knew nothing about the sexual assault that was happening with the wrestling team he was (assistant) coaching.

Like Jordan, when it comes to defending dishonest don, martini rolls up his sleeves and lies with the best of them. Of course, he'd say he's merely bending the truth.


  • gogators!
  • Waygook Lord

    • 5063

    • March 16, 2016, 04:35:48 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Violence has passed the potential stage
« Reply #74 on: July 30, 2021, 05:40:07 am »
I say terrorism, you say riot.

But they're talking about a revolution:

"Less than a year after a pro-Trump mob stormed the US Capitol, nearly half of Republican voters (47%) say that "a time will come when patriotic Americans have to take the law into their own hands," per a new nationwide survey by George Washington University's School of Media and Public Affairs.

Only about 29% of Americans agreed with this statement on some level, the poll found, including just 9% of Democrats. And 49% said they disagree or strongly disagree.

The poll also found that a majority of Republicans (55%) say "the traditional American way of life is disappearing so fast we may have to use force to save it."


Re: Violence has passed the potential stage
« Reply #75 on: July 30, 2021, 10:36:27 am »
I say terrorism, you say riot.

But they're talking about a revolution:

"Less than a year after a pro-Trump mob stormed the US Capitol, nearly half of Republican voters (47%) say that "a time will come when patriotic Americans have to take the law into their own hands," per a new nationwide survey by George Washington University's School of Media and Public Affairs.

Only about 29% of Americans agreed with this statement on some level, the poll found, including just 9% of Democrats. And 49% said they disagree or strongly disagree.

The poll also found that a majority of Republicans (55%) say "the traditional American way of life is disappearing so fast we may have to use force to save it."
That poll didn't release its full results. It would be interesting to see if they asked similarly worded questions as "There may be a time where the workers of this country will have to take the means of production into their own hands" or similar questions.

If they didn't then it's not a good poll, especially with putting the word "patriotic" in the question, which is code for "right-wing" as opposed to a question which could leave it open to interpretation whether such a revolution would be right or left-wing.
Join the DeMart Fan Club!
Shout out to WhenInRome... the first member. Thank you my son!


  • Mr C
  • The Legend

    • 2928

    • October 17, 2012, 03:00:40 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Violence has passed the potential stage
« Reply #76 on: July 30, 2021, 11:05:39 am »
the word "patriotic" in the question, which is code for "right-wing"

Like hell it is!  More like "right-wing" is code for fascist.  I have not seen any 6MWNE or Camp Auschwitz t-shirts at BLM protests, have you?


Re: Violence has passed the potential stage
« Reply #77 on: July 30, 2021, 11:25:07 am »
Like hell it is!  More like "right-wing" is code for fascist.  I have not seen any 6MWNE or Camp Auschwitz t-shirts at BLM protests, have you?
I'm talking about in the common vernacular. People on the left are patriotic. But if they see a question about "Patriotic" Americans revolting, they assume that means right-wing militia types and want nothing to do with it.

The right-wing co-opted "patriotic" so that many people associate it with conservatism and Republicans. Again, I disagree, left-wing Americans are just as patriotic as right-wing Americans, but the use of the word in the question will skew results.

For example- Switch "Workers and Laborers need to take over", which would have left-wing connotations, with "Blue Collar Americans" or "Working Class folks" and it would have a completely different connotation to many. You'd have wildly different poll results simply by switching out those phrases.
Join the DeMart Fan Club!
Shout out to WhenInRome... the first member. Thank you my son!


  • Adel
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1407

    • January 30, 2015, 12:50:26 am
    • The Abyss
    more
Re: Violence has passed the potential stage
« Reply #78 on: July 30, 2021, 01:35:02 pm »
LA Riots were terrorism? BLM protests that spun out of control were terrorism? Palestinian kids throwing rocks at Israeli bulldozers are terrorists?

Just want to make sure you're consistent here. You can't be arbitrary and only apply that standard to groups you hate.

Perhaps you could post some images of BLM protesters terrorising the police force in an unprovoked manner to overturn an election result to aid your 'need for consistency' argument.  :laugh:


Re: Violence has passed the potential stage
« Reply #79 on: July 30, 2021, 01:46:42 pm »
Perhaps you could post some images of BLM protesters terrorising the police force in an unprovoked manner to overturn an election result to aid your 'need for consistency' argument.  :laugh:

I'm sorry, the definition of terrorism, AS STATED BY YOU, is "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

There is nothing in there about "overturning an election result".

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/21/us/portland-ice-building-demonstration/index.html
https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/crowd-becomes-destructive-outside-federal-courthouse-in-downtown-portland-officers-deploy-tear-gas/283-7338ea54-532a-496d-a3b2-8195d9e9a698
https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2021/02/price-tag-so-far-for-protest-related-damage-to-federal-buildings-in-portland-23-million.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhRUyS9LjRY

By YOUR definition, this should be terrorism. But we all know you won't be consistent. However, by MY definition, neither one is terrorism.

You can't throw the book at one group of people because you don't like/disagree with them and not do so for another because you like/agree with them. That's not how the law works. Everyone gets treated equally and fairly under the law.
Join the DeMart Fan Club!
Shout out to WhenInRome... the first member. Thank you my son!