Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 whembly wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
However, wanted an exec fired (like Brendan Eich's Mozilla... who stepped down) is chilling free speech imo.

No it isn't. Freedom of speech has never meant "you can't be fired for the things you say".

Didn't say so... only pointing out how despicable it is to advocate someone to lose his/her job over said person's speech.

So it's despicable to use ones first amendment rights and advocate someone losing their job, but you're ok with people losing their lives for exercising their first amendment rights.

Civil disobedience <> protesting.

The former can get you jailed/fined and the latter perfectly fine.

I think you have your priorities backwards and I agree, you have no empathy.

For shutting down a highway? I sure as feth don't have empathy...

the highways are public spaces, therefore we are free to assemble there,

That is incorrect. You can be arrested.

and violating that right by trying to kill the protesters is the most unamerican thing you could possibly do.

Jeez... it's put words in Whem's mouth night. No one is advocating killing the protesters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
EDIT: you guys are on a silly roll tonight.

arrested for what exactly? if no laws are being broken it can't be civil disobedience.

It is against the law to block roads, as it's a public safety issue.

It's mainly a misdemeaner for public nuisance and unlawful assembly.

keeping in mind "The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights provides that “Congress shall make no law … abridging … the right of the people peaceably to assemble.”

Blocking traffic is not a "peacable assembly".

EDIT: I am heartless bastard in this regard. Having lived 15 minutes away from the Ferguson riots and being stuck on the highway for over 3 hours TWICE because of these civil disobedience, will do that to you.

 whembly wrote:
It's mainly a misdemeaner for public nuisance and unlawful assembly.

...which also makes it OK if these people are hit by cars.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 whembly wrote:
It's mainly a misdemeaner for public nuisance and unlawful assembly.

...which also makes it OK if these people are hit by cars.

Ninth... stop lying. I'm not saying it's OK of these people are hit by cars.

 whembly wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 whembly wrote:
It's mainly a misdemeaner for public nuisance and unlawful assembly.

...which also makes it OK if these people are hit by cars.

Ninth... stop lying. I'm not saying it's OK of these people are hit by cars.

Then what the feth are you saying?

I dont think they need to be killed or anything like that, but it is not their right to deprive others of their rights. Why does their right to free speech trump everyone elses right to pursue happiness. IT is hypocrisy.

 whembly wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 whembly wrote:
It's mainly a misdemeaner for public nuisance and unlawful assembly.

...which also makes it OK if these people are hit by cars.

Ninth... stop lying. I'm not saying it's OK of these people are hit by cars.

it just means Whembly does not care.

Put it this way. If Trump is assassinated, will anybody here shed a tear? No? Congratulations, you've just "incited murder".

 whembly wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 whembly wrote:
It's mainly a misdemeaner for public nuisance and unlawful assembly.

...which also makes it OK if these people are hit by cars.

Ninth... stop lying. I'm not saying it's OK of these people are hit by cars.

You seem okay enough with it to state having "zero empathy." Whatever subtle difference might exist (and I really don't think there is one) between "I have zero empathy. I'm for this" and "I'm not saying it's ok of these people are hit by cars" doesn't seem enough for me to rank one better than the other. Both statements are kind of equal grades of "this is why people call Republicans evil and if people really don't like the later following the former they should really start thinking before speaking."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


Put it this way. If Trump is assassinated, will anybody here shed a tear? No? Congratulations, you've just "incited murder".

Except no one here has advocated passing a law that immunizes people for killing presidents they don't like.

I probably wouldn't cry if someone murdered Trump. I would expect the killer to go to jail for it. Murder isn't okay just because the guy who was murdered was a donkey-cave.

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 whembly wrote:
It's mainly a misdemeaner for public nuisance and unlawful assembly.

...which also makes it OK if these people are hit by cars.

Ninth... stop lying. I'm not saying it's OK of these people are hit by cars.

You seem okay enough with it to state having "zero empathy." Whatever subtle difference might exist (and I really don't think there is one) between "I have zero empathy. I'm for this" and "I'm not saying it's ok of these people are hit by cars" doesn't seem enough for me to rank one better than the other. Both statements are kind of equal grades of "this is why people call Republicans evil and if people really don't like the later following the former they should really start thinking before speaking."

NO, for feths sake.

One scenario means Whembly is a heartless bastard. The other scenario means he is inciting violence.

Everyone should pick their words very carefully here, you're accusing Whembly of a criminal offence which is Libel if false. And it clearly is false. We're not obliged to care when someone is murdered. Would you have any empathy for a rapist, serial killer or murderer who is shanked and killed in Prison? Not caring doesn't mean you agree that it should happen.

 thekingofkings wrote:
I dont think they need to be killed or anything like that, but it is not their right to deprive others of their rights. Why does their right to free speech trump everyone elses right to pursue happiness. IT is hypocrisy.

A. happiness isn't a right

B. how does making you wait in traffic stop you from doing that?

C. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Put it this way. If Trump is assassinated, will anybody here shed a tear? No? Congratulations, you've just "incited murder".

The difference here is that most of us who say "I wouldn't shed a tear if Trump is assassinated" are only presenting it as a hypothetical because advocating the murder of the president tends to get a lot more attention from the police than similar suggestions about murdering random protesters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Everyone should pick their words very carefully here, you're accusing Whembly of a criminal offence which is Libel if false.

None of this is true.

 LordofHats wrote:
Except no one here has advocated passing a law that immunizes people for killing presidents they don't like.

I probably wouldn't cry if someone murdered Trump. I would expect the killer to go to jail for it. Murder isn't okay just because the guy who was murdered was a donkey-cave.

But does it actually immunize the driver? Whembly's words were "it shifts the burden of proof to the protester". Not "drivers who run over protesters should be immune to prosecution".

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
I dont think they need to be killed or anything like that, but it is not their right to deprive others of their rights. Why does their right to free speech trump everyone elses right to pursue happiness. IT is hypocrisy.

A. happiness isn't a right

B. how does making you wait in traffic stop you from doing that?

C. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

A) you are wrong, the right to LIFE, LIBERTY and the pursuit of HAPPINESS are fundamental rights
B) they can protest in approved areas with permits, thus they can still exercise their right without halting traffic and commerce
C) gibberish, but this is part of why the left has been so despised of late,. you can accuse the republicans of all kind of evils but it is the left that is the worst evil and hypocrites besides.

 thekingofkings wrote:
I dont think they need to be killed or anything like that, but it is not their right to deprive others of their rights. Why does their right to free speech trump everyone elses right to pursue happiness. IT is hypocrisy.

Because the right to pursue happiness is not a right that exists in US law.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
[b]Everyone should pick their words very carefully here, you're accusing Whembly of a criminal offence which is Libel if false.

Then it's a good thing I've not accused Whembly of inciting violence?

Even if I were, it's not automatically libel. Libel requires me to knowingly say something I know to be false.

I don't think anything I've said is false and certainly don't know any of it to be false. It could be (it's not), but libel is only libel if I know its false and it can be proven I knew that when I said it.

And it clearly is false.

I disagree.

We're not obliged to care when someone is murdered.

Who said he was?

Would you have any empathy for a rapist, serial killer or murderer who is shanked and killed in Prison?

Yes.

Not caring doesn't mean you agree that it should happen.

No, but not caring and supporting a measure would seem to indicate one 1) supports the measure and 2) doesn't care about the consequences which thus far seems to be the accusation.

 Peregrine wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
I dont think they need to be killed or anything like that, but it is not their right to deprive others of their rights. Why does their right to free speech trump everyone elses right to pursue happiness. IT is hypocrisy.

Because the right to pursue happiness is not a right that exists in US law.

What about that famous "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" aspect of the Declaration of Independence? Was that just a bit of prose, and never codified in the Constitution or other law?

Honest question here, I'm not American.

 Peregrine wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
I dont think they need to be killed or anything like that, but it is not their right to deprive others of their rights. Why does their right to free speech trump everyone elses right to pursue happiness. IT is hypocrisy.

Because the right to pursue happiness is not a right that exists in US law.

Yet unlawfully blocking public access and use of public property is? I think that's a stretch.

 thekingofkings wrote:
A) you are wrong, the right to LIFE, LIBERTY and the pursuit of HAPPINESS are fundamental rights

Not under US law.

B) they can protest in approved areas with permits, thus they can still exercise their right without halting traffic and commerce

They can also protest in areas that are not approved, without permits. The first amendment does not include a "only in permitted areas with approval by the government" disclaimer.

And in any case, enforcement of the law is the responsibility of the police, not random drivers. If a protest shuts down the street then the only acceptable act for you, as a driver, is to stop your car, yield to pedestrians (including pedestrians that are doing something you disagree with), and wait until the road is clear before proceeding. Whether the road clearing is accomplished by the protesters voluntarily ending their protest or the police removing them from the street, the driver is 100% responsible for any injuries caused and should suffer the appropriate civil and/or criminal penalties.

C) gibberish, but this is part of why the left has been so despised of late,. you can accuse the republicans of all kind of evils but it is the left that is the worst evil and hypocrites besides.

Irony, thy name is thekingofkings.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Everyone should pick their words very carefully here, you're accusing Whembly of a criminal offence which is Libel if false.

None of this is true.

Besides, this is an anonymous internet forum. I could claim that Whem eats live puppies and rapes sheep and it wouldn't be libel (and I'd like to point out I'm not, from my experience he's a perfectly wonderful human being, just with partisanship issues.

 thekingofkings wrote:
I dont think they need to be killed or anything like that, but it is not their right to deprive others of their rights. Why does their right to free speech trump everyone elses right to pursue happiness. IT is hypocrisy.

How does blocking off one road deprive you of your rights? It is fair game to block roads, though they should get a permit first though.

is it just the roads closed due to protesters you feel denies you your rights? or is it any time they're closed say for parades or road work?

Can you not detour around them? do you not get traffic alerts? back in the caveman days when I was in a traffic jam because of wild fires, people did the sensible thing and cut across the median and doubled back.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 whembly wrote:
It's mainly a misdemeaner for public nuisance and unlawful assembly.

...which also makes it OK if these people are hit by cars.

Ninth... stop lying. I'm not saying it's OK of these people are hit by cars.

Then what the feth are you saying?

Okay... let's unpack this so that maybe ya'll can stop putting words in my mouth.

This propose SD law simply changes the burden of proof from the driver to the pedestrian. While that is unusual and is most likely the first of its kind, all that does, IN COURT, forces the pedestrian to show the court that they have a right to that space. THIS.IS.NOT.A.GET.OUT.TO.JAIL.CARD for the driver. If the driver did, indeed hit & killed the pedestrian, that's auto manslaughter. This proposal doesn't change that, nor does it encourage protester murdering. You're being hyperbolic... dial it down a bit please.

Is it a law designed to be vindictive over what's transpiring at the pipeline ordeal... absolutely. You're free to call 'em dicks.

So, from where I coming from, 15 mins away from the Ferguson riots and having been stuck twice on the highways because of these civil disobedience shutting down highways. I have zero empathy for anyone's cause. feth them. If that makes me a cold unfeeling bastard, so be it, I'll own up to that.

Furthermore, with respect to the differences between a "peaceful protest" and a "civil disobedience"....one's 'right' to protest ends when you interfere with others' freedom of movement.

Blocking my legitimate movement is a battery(I think that's what it's called in court) under all state laws.

Far to often, our culture has become excessively deferential to violating the rights of others.

Indeed... those who chose to block highways and major thoroughfares just to draw attention to their cause are taking a great risk, something that is NOTthe job of public safety officials to ignore. They're supposed to protect us from the lawbreakers, not the other way around.

 LordofHats wrote:
I probably wouldn't cry if someone murdered Trump. I would expect the killer to go to jail for it. Murder isn't okay just because the guy who was murdered was a donkey-cave.

To be fair, if I was on the jury for Trump's assassin I'd vote "not guilty" as a matter of principle. But, unlike whembly, I'm not going to evade and hide from this fact.

 thekingofkings wrote:


A) you are wrong, the right to LIFE, LIBERTY and the pursuit of HAPPINESS are fundamental rights

Unless you happen to think you have a right to protest an oil pipeline for the sake of your own personal life, liberty, and happiness apparently.

It's almost like this whole "freedom" thing gets really fething confusing when practiced.

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
I dont think they need to be killed or anything like that, but it is not their right to deprive others of their rights. Why does their right to free speech trump everyone elses right to pursue happiness. IT is hypocrisy.

A. happiness isn't a right

B. how does making you wait in traffic stop you from doing that?

C. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

A) you are wrong, the right to LIFE, LIBERTY and the pursuit of HAPPINESS are fundamental rights
B) they can protest in approved areas with permits, thus they can still exercise their right without halting traffic and commerce
C) gibberish, but this is part of why the left has been so despised of late,. you can accuse the republicans of all kind of evils but it is the left that is the worst evil and hypocrites besides.

Other points have already been covered, but I'm expressing hilarity at how fething out there your statement was.

BTW, what are these atrocities "the left" has committed.



I hope I've guessed correctly

 Peregrine wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I probably wouldn't cry if someone murdered Trump. I would expect the killer to go to jail for it. Murder isn't okay just because the guy who was murdered was a donkey-cave.

To be fair, if I was on the jury for Trump's assassin I'd vote "not guilty" as a matter of principle. But, unlike whembly, I'm not going to evade and hide from this fact.

I thought a lot better of you until this.

 whembly wrote:
While that is unusual and is most likely the first of its kind, all that does, IN COURT, forces the pedestrian to show the court that they have a right to that space.

Which:

1) Is rather difficult if you are dead.

2) Fundamentally misunderstands basic concepts of criminal law. The victim of a crime is not obligated to show anything in court, the state is.

3) Ignores the fact that a driver must yield to pedestrians in all circumstances, even if the pedestrian is not in the road in the correct place.

If the driver did, indeed hit & killed the pedestrian, that's auto manslaughter.

With a defense of "they were in the road illegally, it was an accident" that requires an unreasonable standard of proof to overcome and makes it virtually impossible to convict anyone.

Furthermore, with respect to the differences between a "peaceful protest" and a "civil disobedience"....one's 'right' to protest ends when you interfere with others' freedom of movement.

Civil disobedience is a form of peaceful protest. The fact that a protest is inconvenient to you does not mean that it is violent or not a protest.

Blocking my legitimate movement is a battery(I think that's what it's called in court) under all state laws.

No it is not.

Indeed... those who chose to block highways and major thoroughfares just to draw attention to their cause are taking a great risk, something that is NOTthe job of public safety officials to ignore.

There is no risk if you are a safe driver. There is a great inconvenience, perhaps, but the only risk comes from reckless and/or negligent drivers who are 100% responsible for any harm. You know the protest is there, you are free to stop your vehicle and wait until the protest is out of the way before proceeding. If all drivers do this there is zero risk to anyone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thekingofkings wrote:
I thought a lot better of you until this.

Then you must not have paid much attention. I've made no secret of the fact that I feel zero sympathy when awful people, especially awful people in positions of power, die. I will gleefully dance on the grave of dictators, corrupt and abusive politicians, etc.

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I probably wouldn't cry if someone murdered Trump. I would expect the killer to go to jail for it. Murder isn't okay just because the guy who was murdered was a donkey-cave.

To be fair, if I was on the jury for Trump's assassin I'd vote "not guilty" as a matter of principle. But, unlike whembly, I'm not going to evade and hide from this fact.

I thought a lot better of you until this.

that would be a tough case to sit through. The make believe assassin would probably be former military and if he claimed he did it to defend the constitution as he pledged to do, he could possibly walk.

people are innocent until proven guilty so starting with "not guilty" is the right place to be for any juror.

I do not advocate any attempts on the presidents life, and I love the work the NSA is doing for us. HI guys

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
While that is unusual and is most likely the first of its kind, all that does, IN COURT, forces the pedestrian to show the court that they have a right to that space.

Which:

1) Is rather difficult if you are dead.

2) Fundamentally misunderstands basic concepts of criminal law. The victim of a crime is not obligated to show anything in court, the state is.

3) Ignores the fact that a driver must yield to pedestrians in all circumstances, even if the pedestrian is not in the road in the correct place.

If the driver did, indeed hit & killed the pedestrian, that's auto manslaughter.

With a defense of "they were in the road illegally, it was an accident" that requires an unreasonable standard of proof to overcome and makes it virtually impossible to convict anyone.

Furthermore, with respect to the differences between a "peaceful protest" and a "civil disobedience"....one's 'right' to protest ends when you interfere with others' freedom of movement.

Civil disobedience is a form of peaceful protest. The fact that a protest is inconvenient to you does not mean that it is violent or not a protest.

Blocking my legitimate movement is a battery(I think that's what it's called in court) under all state laws.

No it is not.

Indeed... those who chose to block highways and major thoroughfares just to draw attention to their cause are taking a great risk, something that is NOTthe job of public safety officials to ignore.

There is no risk if you are a safe driver. There is a great inconvenience, perhaps, but the only risk comes from reckless and/or negligent drivers who are 100% responsible for any harm. You know the protest is there, you are free to stop your vehicle and wait until the protest is out of the way before proceeding. If all drivers do this there is zero risk to anyone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thekingofkings wrote:
I thought a lot better of you until this.

Then you must not have paid much attention. I've made no secret of the fact that I feel zero sympathy when awful people, especially awful people in positions of power, die. I will gleefully dance on the grave of dictators, corrupt and abusive politicians, etc.

dying is one thing, but murder is a bridge too far.

I still want to know what attrocties "the left" commited.

 Peregrine wrote:

Furthermore, with respect to the differences between a "peaceful protest" and a "civil disobedience"....one's 'right' to protest ends when you interfere with others' freedom of movement.

Civil disobedience is a form of peaceful protest. The fact that a protest is inconvenient to you does not mean that it is violent or not a protest.

Civil disobedience by definition, is an unlawful gathering.

Blocking my legitimate movement is a battery(I think that's what it's called in court) under all state laws.

No it is not.

So I don't have legitimate movement on highway? You're gravely mistaken.

Indeed... those who chose to block highways and major thoroughfares just to draw attention to their cause are taking a great risk, something that is NOTthe job of public safety officials to ignore.

There is no risk if you are a safe driver. There is a great inconvenience, perhaps, but the only risk comes from reckless and/or negligent drivers who are 100% responsible for any harm. You know the protest is there, you are free to stop your vehicle and wait until the protest is out of the way before proceeding. If all drivers do this there is zero risk to anyone.

Not every driver is a good driver... in fact, we're surrounded by idiots on the road.

Stop whitewashing this, it's more than an inconvience. It's a safety hazard as well, potentially impacting emergency vehicle movements.

 Peregrine wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
I thought a lot better of you until this.

Then you must not have paid much attention. I've made no secret of the fact that I feel zero sympathy when awful people, especially awful people in positions of power, die. I will gleefully dance on the grave of dictators, corrupt and abusive politicians, etc.

Then by your own standards you are advocating violence, the exact thing you are accusing Whembly of, which makes you a hypocrite.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
We're not obliged to care when someone is murdered.

Who said he was?