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.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Andrea Bocelli backs out of inauguration after receiving death threats from the "tolerant Left."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4120970/Opera-star-Andrea-Bocelli-backs-singing-Trump-s-inauguration-receiving-death-threats.html

Rosie calling for martial law, death threats against bloggers and opera stars...the modern left is having a nuclear meltdown.

Yeah, because no one else acts like that.

#whataboutery

No, it isn't so your wannabe clever use of a hastag is pointless.

The point is that ridiculous people will do crazy things regardless of what part of the political spectrum they occupy, despite your attempts to make it seem like this is a problem with "the left."

Threatening to kill people, and indeed, killing people is a bad thing. Those that threaten to kill innocent people are bad people who should take a long, hard look at their life. Those who have threats to kill people that reach the burden of proof for the legal system of <their location> should be prosecuted.


Happy now?

 Compel wrote:
Threatening to kill people, and indeed, killing people is a bad thing. Those that threaten to kill innocent people are bad people who should take a long, hard look at their life. Those who have threats to kill people that reach the burden of proof for the legal system of <their location> should be prosecuted.


Happy now?

Happy. Good thing I neither advocated or threatened as such...

Well then... going off the deep end based on snippets on a news article is fraught with perils. I took the liberty to look for the ND bill in question, to seek clarification on the "burden of proof shift"... turns out, it's something else (I'm not seeing anything else... if someone has a different bill, let us know):

39-10-33. Pedestrian on roadway.
1. Where a sidewalk is provided and its use is practicable, it is unlawful for any pedestrian to walk along and upon an adjacent roadway.

2. Where a sidewalk is not available, any pedestrian walking along and upon a highway shall walk only on a shoulder, as far as practicable from the edge of the roadway.

3. Where neither a sidewalk nor a shoulder is available, any pedestrian walking along and upon a highway shall walk as near as practicable to an outside edge of the roadway, and, if on a two-way roadway, shall walk only on the left side of the roadway.

4. Except as otherwise provided for in this chapter, any pedestrian upon a roadway shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway.

5. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a driver of a motor vehicle who unintentionally causes injury or death to an individual obstructing vehicular traffic on a public road, street, or highway is not guilty of an offense.

Not seeing this "burden of proof" shift as described in that article...

This isn't simply 'targeting' protestors... but all pedestrians.

The brouhaha looks to be #5. Good luck proving the unintentionally part...

If this goes into effect, and somehow the driver was able to prevail on #5, all that means is the criminal charges won't apply. I'm not seeing anything that prevents civil a case (where you'd get sued for damages and such).

There are stupid people on all sides of the political divide.

That being said... the idea of "tolerance" has become a bludgeon used by the altright in an attempt to shut liberals up... A liberal disagrees? they aren't being tolerant....whine, whine, whine... It's good to tolerate things that are annoying or that you don't like. It's also good to say I think that's BS"

Personally, I am intolerant toward racism and sexism. It's a badge of intolerance I wear with pride.

 whembly wrote:

 Compel wrote:
Threatening to kill people, and indeed, killing people is a bad thing. Those that threaten to kill innocent people are bad people who should take a long, hard look at their life. Those who have threats to kill people that reach the burden of proof for the legal system of <their location> should be prosecuted.


Happy now?

Happy. Good thing I neither advocated or threatened as such...

Not everything in the politics thread is about you, Whembly.

Personally, I am intolerant toward racism and sexism. It's a badge of intolerance I wear with pride.

Well said.

How high will Trump's tolerance level be towards people who dont think or act in his way? He's the worst what could happen to the US

 Compel wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Compel wrote:
Threatening to kill people, and indeed, killing people is a bad thing. Those that threaten to kill innocent people are bad people who should take a long, hard look at their life. Those who have threats to kill people that reach the burden of proof for the legal system of <their location> should be prosecuted.


Happy now?

Happy. Good thing I neither advocated or threatened as such...

Not everything in the politics thread is about you, Whembly.

Well... consider me chastised...

 wuestenfux wrote:

Personally, I am intolerant toward racism and sexism. It's a badge of intolerance I wear with pride.

Well said.

How high will Trump's tolerance level be towards people who dont think or act in his way? He's the worst what could happen to the US

I'm plenty tolerant towards people who think my wife is a negroid ape, who think my children are mixed race abominations before God, and who think I'm a traitor to my race. I know they exist, they have told me as much. I'm not tolerant towards people who act on those thoughts.

In the same way I'm also intolerant towards gays who want to force straights to have gay sex, or pedophiles who try to have sex with children, or pot smokers who try to make me inhale.

#simplestuff

 d-usa wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

Personally, I am intolerant toward racism and sexism. It's a badge of intolerance I wear with pride.

Well said.

How high will Trump's tolerance level be towards people who dont think or act in his way? He's the worst what could happen to the US

I'm plenty tolerant towards people who think my wife is a negroid ape, who think my children are mixed race abominations before God, and who think I'm a traitor to my race. I know they exist, they have told me as much. I'm not tolerant towards people who act on those thoughts.

In the same way I'm also intolerant towards gays who want to force straights to have gay sex, or pedophiles who try to have sex with children, or pot smokers who try to make me inhale.

#simplestuff

A few things...

feth anyone who think inter-racial marriages and " children are mixed race abominations before God ". I gave my kidney to my ex-sister-in-law who's married to black man... who, has since had 2 beautiful daughters. We still stay in touch and go to the kids sports game.

Secondly... the what-and-what about gays wanting to force straights to have gay sex? (the others I've seen/heard... but that? O.o )

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.

I know this was a few pages ago, but I would just like to take the time and tell Whembly to grow up. If you live in the St. Louis area, you have had longer delays from construction and rush hour traffic. I know I have. Defending something that changes the dynamic of the court system just so protesters will have a harder time defending themselves in court is a hack move and a slap in the face to our system. It works the way it does for a reason. If your only argument in your favor is "I was stuck in traffic two times", then you really have no argument here.

Also, the idea of people only protesting in areas where they can get permits is hilarious. I wonder if the Forefathers you love so much got those permits.

I bet they did when they were paying their tea taxes.....

 Dreadwinter wrote:

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.

I know this was a few pages ago, but I would just like to take the time and tell Whembly to grow up.

Nah... I'm fine bro... thanks for sharing.

If you live in the St. Louis area, you have had longer delays from construction and rush hour traffic. I know I have.

There's a difference. You know where the contruction traffic will be and adjust your commute accordingly. Whereas, most of the time, you're not aware of an adhoc civil disobedience to shut down the highway.

Defending something that changes the dynamic of the court system just so protesters will have a harder time defending themselves in court is a hack move and a slap in the face to our system. It works the way it does for a reason. If your only argument in your favor is "I was stuck in traffic two times", then you really have no argument here.

That makes me a heartless bastard.

Also, the idea of people only protesting in areas where they can get permits is hilarious. I wonder if the Forefathers you love so much got those permits.

You don't need a 'permit' to protest and have not advocated that you must have a permit to simply protest. You do need a permit to legally shut down a stretch of road so that the public entities can be prepared. It's the same how parades are conducted...since forever.

Breaking the law to shutdown a stretch of highway in the midst of a protest cease being a 'protest' and becomes a 'civil disobedience'.

Civil disobedience can be good, though.

Civil Disobedience is just a form of protest.

Rosebuddy wrote:
Civil disobedience can be good, though.

Sure... not all civil disobedience are created equally.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Civil Disobedience is just a form of protest.

The distinction is that one is breaking the law.

 whembly wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Civil Disobedience is just a form of protest.

The distinction is that one is breaking the law.

And your point is? Just because you are breaking the law doesn't make it not a protest, nor make your protest any less valid.

 whembly wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:
Civil disobedience can be good, though.

Sure... not all civil disobedience are created equally.

Right, as long as you agree with the protestors and/or it doesn't inconvenience you, it's totally swell.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Civil Disobedience is just a form of protest.

The distinction is that one is breaking the law.

And your point is? Just because you are breaking the law doesn't make it not a protest, nor make your protest any less valid.

I think I've made my point. When it’s a question of peaceful protest, no matter how much it may interfere with our getting on with our own business... I let 'em do their thing. They’re not hurting anyone. They're just carrying signs and yammer into bullhorns.

They’re not putting themselves or anyone else in any great danger, and it is probably better to let them blow off steam.

However, I cannot endose the practice of blocking roads and major highways in order to draw attention. In the information age, there are easier means to get your point across. Shutting down the roads...all you're really doing is pissing off the locals.

This isn't Selma.

You illegally shutting down the highway isn't the right thing to do... you can even be held liable for damaging a car in Missouri.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:
Civil disobedience can be good, though.

Sure... not all civil disobedience are created equally.

Right, as long as you agree with the protestors and/or it doesn't inconvenience you, it's totally swell.

Now you're getting the picture.

However, I cannot endose the practice of blocking roads and major highways in order to draw attention. In the information age, there are easier means to get your point across. Shutting down the roads...all you're really doing is pissing off the locals.

Really? Because people are still whining about it being done. One person in particular is still whining about Ferguson, which was awhile ago.

Seems like a perfect way to draw attention. In fact, it may be the best way.

 ender502 wrote:
There are stupid people on all sides of the political divide.

That being said... the idea of "tolerance" has become a bludgeon used by the altright in an attempt to shut liberals up... A liberal disagrees? they aren't being tolerant....whine, whine, whine... It's good to tolerate things that are annoying or that you don't like. It's also good to say I think that's BS"

Personally, I am intolerant toward racism and sexism. It's a badge of intolerance I wear with pride.

Do you know what the left calls anyone who tries to defend a religious group's beliefs about homosexuality? Intolerant. When you ask for vetting of refugees from areas that have explicitly stated their intent to infiltrate the refugees with jihadists specifically there to orchestrate attacks once in their destination country? Intolerant. If I get upset about someone spitting on me and calling me a baby killer because I'm in uniform, I'm being intolerant of their beliefs and their rights to protest. Cuts both ways, I guess...

Got any actual examples of liberals saying you are intolerant for being upset that someone spit on you?

 Just Tony wrote:
Do you know what the left calls anyone who tries to defend a religious group's beliefs about homosexuality? Intolerant.

People can believe whatever they want about whomever they want. It's the acting on those beliefs that is intolerant.

When you ask for vetting of refugees from areas that have explicitly stated their intent to infiltrate the refugees with jihadists specifically there to orchestrate attacks once in their destination country? Intolerant.

Well yeah, because you're asking for something that already takes place and is rather extensive to begin with. Framing it as "vetting" is the same as framing the right to discriminate as "religious liberty;" it's just a euphemism for being a douchebag.

If I get upset about someone spitting on me and calling me a baby killer because I'm in uniform, I'm being intolerant of their beliefs and their rights to protest.

I'm sure you were just walking down the street one day and a mean, intolerant liberal walked up to you and called you a baby killer and then spit on you. Then after that, you were upset and they told you that you were intolerant. That's totally believable.

The US has the most extensive refugee vetting process in the world. It takes years.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The US has the most extensive refugee vetting process in the world. It takes years.

Yes, but the problem is that eventually those scary brown people might get a chance to come to America. We need extra vetting to make sure that doesn't happen.

 Just Tony wrote:

 ender502 wrote:
There are stupid people on all sides of the political divide.

That being said... the idea of "tolerance" has become a bludgeon used by the altright in an attempt to shut liberals up... A liberal disagrees? they aren't being tolerant....whine, whine, whine... It's good to tolerate things that are annoying or that you don't like. It's also good to say I think that's BS"

Personally, I am intolerant toward racism and sexism. It's a badge of intolerance I wear with pride.

Do you know what the left calls anyone who tries to defend a religious group's beliefs about homosexuality? Intolerant. When you ask for vetting of refugees from areas that have explicitly stated their intent to infiltrate the refugees with jihadists specifically there to orchestrate attacks once in their destination country? Intolerant. If I get upset about someone spitting on me and calling me a baby killer because I'm in uniform, I'm being intolerant of their beliefs and their rights to protest. Cuts both ways, I guess...

How best to tackle all that...
1. There is a big difference between a religious group that says they think homosexuality is wrong and one that advocates against extending full constitutional rights to people just cause they don't like their sex acts. You're painting with a broad brush....as so many sadly do.
2. refugees can undergo years of vetting. American allied afghani translators can take 3 years to get vetted. The idea that vetting isn't happening is a brietbart, dailystormer and fox news lie designed to manipulate anyone too lazy to actually do the research. Liberals have never complained about the vetting process. what they complain about is a form with 1 box...are you a muslim? That is intolerant and just a great way to show folks how right the jihadists are about America.
3. Baby killer? Ummm... it aint the 60's. If someone spits on you, that's a battery. Prosecute. Nothing intolerant about that.

What liberals are consistently intolerant to are policies that legitimize racism, sexism, homophobia and religious intolerance. to put it more simply, what liberals call "intolerance" is not what you think...but policies groups advocate for. You, as an individual, can be as intolerant as you want. That's your right. What they will not stand for is your individual intolerance defining every one else's existence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

Personally, I am intolerant toward racism and sexism. It's a badge of intolerance I wear with pride.

Well said.

How high will Trump's tolerance level be towards people who dont think or act in his way? He's the worst what could happen to the US

I'm plenty tolerant towards people who think my wife is a negroid ape, who think my children are mixed race abominations before God, and who think I'm a traitor to my race. I know they exist, they have told me as much. I'm not tolerant towards people who act on those thoughts.

In the same way I'm also intolerant towards gays who want to force straights to have gay sex, or pedophiles who try to have sex with children, or pot smokers who try to make me inhale.

#simplestuff

Ive been hit on by guys. Been groped at clubs a couple of times...ive never been told I had to have gay sex. Nor, as I recall has anyone ever advocated for such a law. Heck, I didn't even have to get divorced and then get married to a dude after Oberfell (sp?). I'm not sure where you are hanging out but I think they may be filling your head with nonsense.

Pedophiles are pretty sick IMO. I'm all about being intolerant toward anyone who commits such a heinous crime. I agree with pot smoke analogy as well. But I also think that would apply to cigarette smoke as well. Smoke is, a particulate matter, and should be dealt with like any other tort.

People that define others based on race are, IMO, pretty freaking ignorant. Lucky for us, they would never become attorney general. Right? Right?

When you say "groped at clubs" I assume you mean gaming clubs where people are there for Warhammer et al. Gamers are very handsy.

Pedophilia is "just" another paraphilia, and I do think there needs to be a distinction between people who are pedophiles and people who act on their pedophilia. I think that the vast majority of pedophiles know that it is not a safe and appropriate attraction, but they also have a difficult time coming forward and seeking help to keep from acting on their paraphilia because it's one of the most stigmatized forms there is due to the tremendous damage it inflicts on victims of it is acted upon.

Which is the reason why I included being tolerant of pedophiles, because the more we push them into the shadow the less likely they are to ever get the help they need that keeps them from acting on their paraphilia, while still being intolerant of pedophiles who force their sexual desires onto others.

 Ahtman wrote:
When you say "groped at clubs" I assume you mean gaming clubs where people are there for Warhammer et al. Gamers are very handsy.

HAHA. Nah. Dance clubs...when I was but a young lad. I make sure to keep my distance from gamers. It's not the hands, it's the smell.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Pedophilia is "just" another paraphilia, and I do think there needs to be a distinction between people who are pedophiles and people who act on their pedophilia. I think that the vast majority of pedophiles know that it is not a safe and appropriate attraction, but they also have a difficult time coming forward and seeking help to keep from acting on their paraphilia because it's one of the most stigmatized forms there is due to the tremendous damage it inflicts on victims of it is acted upon.

Which is the reason why I included being tolerant of pedophiles, because the more we push them into the shadow the less likely they are to ever get the help they need that keeps them from acting on their paraphilia, while still being intolerant of pedophiles who force their sexual desires onto others.

i get what you're saying. im not sure if i agree but i hear you.

I agree that it's a difficult subject, and I'm happy if there is dialogue even if there isn't agreement.

It's a subject I agree with you on d-usa but it may be a discussion for another thread.

Trump appears to be promising to replace the ACA with the ACA.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-vows-insurance-for-everybody-in-obamacare-replacement-plan/2017/01/15/5f2b1e18-db5d-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html?pushid=breaking-news_1484529933&tid=notifi_push_breaking-news&utm_term=.b7ac9b7d1c72