No, I'd just like to wank off a skyscraper. Hell, even the Gherkin Building would do. It'd love it, the dirty little whore.
Storm is a nazi. There, you're up to speed. I never encountered the guy, sounds like I didn't miss out on much.
You'll reich this one.... https://wordforge.net/index.php?thr...t-podcaster-used-to-be-local-reporter.120155/
You and Turkey love harping on this idiotic point as though it proves something. No, I didn't invent the fucking lawnmower. Those who did, then the people who manufactured them, and the people who sold them, were all compensated for their efforts. I do not owe collective society a perpetual, unpayable debt for my access to the tools of my trade. No, I made a clear statement of my position, and then you innocently ask me to "clarify" it. This is a rhetorical tactic designed to put me on the defensive by insinuating that I have been unclear and then burdening me to argue from a default position of guilt. What qualifies as a metric? I can play tedious games, too. I have given some general limitations of it. I find that more useful than the impossible task of supplying an exhaustive laundry list for someone to pick apart at their leisure or just dismissively declare incomplete. All of the above. No. Ordering, organizing and executing an air strike have very clear and inevitable effects. Economic brinksmanship does not. I answer plainly. I just don't select from your menu of approved responses. It wasn't clear to me. If you were trying to be clear, you could try asking directly, rather than trying to be artful about it. Define "egging," and what were they egged on to do? Did someone say "Go commit acts of violence?," and did the listeners in turn go out and do anything more than say hurtful things? A call to violence is clear, unambiguous incitement, and violence outside of self defense has clear terms and clear consequences. Simply being hateful and racist does not qualify. Ok, I've addressed Pearl Harbor twice now. Been plenty clear on the "Go commit violence!" => acts of violence linkage. Whereas you bullshitters cannot just come out and admit that you want every person who said a vile thing you dislike should share in the blame for the worst acts committed by the worst people you can think of, even if it requires diluting the concept of incitement to the point of absurdity. I don't sit in a cubicle all day anymore, and I can't dick off on message boards in my metal shop. There you go, something else to be petty about.
I've never sat in a cubicle, and you haven't answered @Bailey's post about bin Laden. Guess you're too busy making the next state-of-the-art lawn mower in your metal shop.
Interesting that you insist so hard that you can't be labelled and grouped together yet find it easy to do so with others. Never realised you were such a unique snowflake!
No, I did, brainiac. Jesus fucking christ. Because it's the Pearl Harbor question all over again. Yes, Bin Laden is responsible for ordering those attacks, no those conditions don't extend to anyone who says horrible shit but didn't order someone's attack.
Oh come the fucking fuck on. Everyone knows crypto-fascists use code. Even fuckin' hookers don't come out and say "hey, do you want to exchange money for sex? ".
Ok, so only predictable consequences in your book. I assume you'd also hold the Japanese high command responsible for the American response but not Hiroshima? One was inevitable, the other unforeseen and unforeseeable. Am I getting this right? Here's the thing. When police officers get into the habit of killing people in the streets it's utterly predictable there will be civil unrest and violence. That's not a semantic game, it's exactly what has happened and everyone with an ounce of sense could see it coming. People did not en masse get up one morning and go out smashing cities up just because they could. Justified or not it was very much predictable and very much in line with historic precedent. When people are threatened by violence from authority they protest and that inevitably includes at least a certain amount of violence. Am I wrong?
And they are not the only ones. That doesn't open the door to you interpreting everything you don't like to hear as "code." You are still burdened with connecting the dots when you make an accusation, rather than just resting on some unproven assumption that "everyone" agrees is true because the speaker is an asshole nobody likes anyway. Alright. The prostitution level of deniable ambiguity. I can possibly try to work with that.
If a religious leader consistently preaches to his devoted followers that a group of people are evil and deserve death, then one of his followers goes out and attacks them, does he hold any responsibility?
It works for legal terms, doesn't it? The "reasonable person" standard? That works as a point of discussion, sure. Here's the thing. "Habit" overstates it a bit. Your bias is showing. You could also argue that cops being confronted with heavily-armed people, often on drugs, with no aversion to violence and no concern for consequences, might to contribute to them collectively overreacting to the news of so many of them being killed in the line of duty. OR you could take the angle that the War on Drugs made the drug trade more profitable, that the prizes obtained through civil asset forfeiture and the privatization of prisons amount to a profit motive that all contribute to escalating these encounters, but instead you fixate on the cop's actions in a vacuum. Whereas I'm expected to embrace all manner of contortionism amounting to a civilian never being subject to a single constraint on his behavior in these interactions. There are people reacting in genuine outrage, and there are opportunists taking advantage of a chance to indulge their desire to steal shit and cause destruction. All are individuals making choices, and none of that is "inevitable."
Saying "they deserve it" is not the same as saying "go out and do it." I may not like it, but you may not realize how many screechy lunatics say people they don't like should die for whatever reason they deem the "most important EVAR." Could I dig up some vegan who thinks meat-eaters should die? A Bernie supporter who says Trump supporters should die? Maybe, but that doesn't make them responsible when it happens.
Consistent view, although I disagree. It comes back to the same idea as why we should hold someone responsible for injuries incurred if they falsely yell out FIRE in a crowded theatre. Sure they might not have told people to panic and trample each other, but it's an expected consequence of those actions.
It is inevitable though. We have thousands of years of recorded history making that clear to us. Civil unrest goes hand in hand with anarchy and violence. I'm not unsympathetic to the role and demands placed on police officers, I work alongside our own police everyday and questions of responsibility for violence are a real world concern when it's my role to assess the most violent criminals encountered and make recommendations. Hardly "semantic games" given I've to date had one genuine attempt on my life by strangulation, been held hostage, bitten on at least five occasions, been isolated due to the effects of a bacterial infection gathered when someone spat their own faeces in my face, been stabbed once, had ribs broken on three occasions, have a piece of sub retinal skull bone detached and embedded in skin tissue which is too risky to remove, have lost sexual function on one occasion due to being grabbed there by an attacker, have been knocked unconscious on two occasions, am missing a tooth, have suffered broken toes from having my foot stamped on, held together severely damaged skulls on more than one occasion, walked in on a man using his own long intestine as a skipping rope, lost count how many stab wounds, lacerations, inserted foreign bodies, self mutilations and other assorted injuries I've seen inflicted on people, seen a colleague have his eyes gouged out, negotiated an armed siege and that's just some of the highlights. It doesn't include the actual offences that bring people to my attention in the first place which are often worse. Violence, the causes of violence the consequences of violence and managing all of the above are very much a part of my daily life Strangely enough I set out to be a scientist. Let me assure you that I'm fully aware of the pressures on the police, but also how much control they exert over the risks with their conduct. @Elwood is no fool and he knows his business. Police officers have a role to play in their community and that role requires they develop trust. They are directly responsible for building that trust in the public. You bringing factors such as drugs, armed threats and guns into the equation is very much understood, but consider where your argument goes. You're talking about personal responsibility for protesters, but diluting that very same concept where it applies to those in authority. Their actions are still their own. Police violence in the US is exceptionally high for a developed nation, way outside of the expected norms and I think it's fair to refer to an internal culture which actively or passively condones excessive force up to and frequently including public non judicial executions to be "habitual".
History alone cannot immunize the individual from the consequences of his choices. That sounds too much like an excuse for my taste. I would apply the same standard for both. That does not seem to be the popular viewpoint. So is civilian violence. Those terms open the door to scrutinizing civilian culture.
Think about it, though. It's pertinent, and exactly the kind of thought question that turns UA into a frothing lunatic. "Oh, right. It's always about you, isn't it?"
