---Hard To Watch---High School Girl Viciously Attacked For Supporting Donald Trump

originally posted by: seasonal
I see you amended your comment, should have left it, you had it correct.

All I did was change the sentence structure. It says that same thing.

That is if you are referring to this post. If so then I think I see what the problem might be.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: SaturnFX
I guess your line of reasoning will get you out of jury duty. well done

So, trials are not about what actually happened?

What actually happened was this
a woman attacked another woman over a different political viewpoint.

that's all that happened, and no matter how you care to demand there is more, there isn't...attack a person over an opinion.

the woman should go directly to jail. do not pass go, do not collect 200$
nothing else would be discussed in a trial, and if a lawyer kept saying "well, what actually happened was the girl said something on social media that the defendant disagreed with, therefore its part her fault for writing things someone may disagree with"..that man would be laughed at and career over.

a reply to: SaturnFX

They were minors. Right off the bat you get the basic facts wrong.

Is there more? I don't know but at a trial that would certainly be asked.

If you are going to compare things, it would be nice if you did so honestly.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Sorry, check that, it is the affiliate in San Fran. Not exactly a minor affiliate though and still ABC News.

Yep. ABC Nightly News did a piece last night on violent and threatening outbreaks on school campuses since the election. Nooses and notes in dorms, White Supremacists parading through the campus quad with White Power signs and Confederate Flag. Kids chanting "Build that Wall" in the cafeteria.....

a reply to: daskakik

the only time violence is acceptable is when it is response other violence.
ie your attacked either by psychical, psychological, emotional means.

never by spoken or written words, unless those spoken or written words come from a entity that has threatened violence and can carry out such violence.

example, violent protests to campaign promises, trump can't do any of the things he said without the approval of congress, they have the purse strings, the only exception would be to appointed a special prosecutor. then and only after a investigation and trail would she ever see a chance in prison.

even if he uses executive orders congress can pass new laws that override his eo's and then they can override his veto if he uses that. plus eo's can be found unconstitutional.

so unless there is one of the threats i mentioned above violence based on words spoken or written is never acceptable.

a reply to: windword

Jackassery knows no party affiliation. Obviously they are on both sides.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: SaturnFX

They were minors. Right off the bat you get the basic facts wrong.

Is there more? I don't know but at a trial that would certainly be asked.

If you are going to compare things, it would be nice if you did so honestly.

ok, honestly, she attacked someone over words on the internet
that's the beginning and end.

a reply to: SaturnFX

words on the internet that's the beginning and end.

Maybe in more ways than one. Melania Trump has vowed, as First Lady, to take up internet and schoolyard/playground bullying as her cause.

I'm skeptical on how that can be achieved without attacking the 1st Amendment. I don't think sensitivity training and outreach will cut it.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

You are using the term "acceptable". I don't want to get caught up in a semantic pissing match. "Acceptable" is a matter of personal opinion. What is "acceptable" varies from person to person, group to group and even country to country.

The term I used was "expected".

originally posted by: SaturnFX
ok, honestly, she attacked someone over words on the internet
that's the beginning and end.

So, it isn't really like a trial and I don't have to see things like I'm on jury duty?

Imagine that.

a reply to: daskakik

yes i used the acceptable.

people expecting something would also be a matter of opinion. you might expect violence from words you've written, i might not expect violence from words i have written.

see how that works

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
see how that works

I agree completely, the thing is that to expect something or not isn't a matter of right or wrong.

Like when someone asks a party that was nowhere near the incident, "Do you think this is ok?" or they state "This is not acceptable". They are talking about right and wrong.

a reply to: daskakik

I agree completely, the thing is that to expect something or not isn't a matter of right or wrong.

first let me say, if you have video that is complete enough to see that only words have been spoken or written, and no violent acts have been displayed from either side, which i can't say because the video has been pulled, all i've got to go by is what other members posted and describe. whether you except it or not to resort to violence is wrong.

second i guess i should have been more clear in my first post to you.
i was responding to this.

ETA: To be honest, I don't have a problem with violence. The freedoms that citizens of the US and other free nations enjoy did not come to be without it. In some situations it is not just the only way but the correct way. This may not be one of those situations but to think that violence is never the answer is naive.

now maybe my post make more since to you.

again as i said whether expected or not, to respond to violence from words that are spoken or written is wrong. unless their is a clear threat for violence from those words, that can be carried out.

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
first let me say, if you have video that is complete enough to see that only words have been spoken or written, and no violent acts have been displayed from either side, which i can't say because the video has been pulled, all i've got to go by is what other members posted and describe. whether you except it or not to resort to violence is wrong.

The video is only part of the story.

Accepting that the violence depicted in it is wrong and saying "she should have known better", although that can't be fully backed with what is known, are not mutually exclusive.

now maybe my post make more since to you.

again as i said whether expected or not, to respond to violence from words that are spoken or written is wrong. unless their is a clear threat for violence from those words, that can be carried out.

Makes no difference. I'm not arguing about when it is and isn't right.

Oh the irony; doesn't Trump supporters believe in personal responsibility?


Looks like a case of someone's mouth writing a check that their ass couldn't cash lmao

a reply to: daskakik

Makes no difference. I'm not arguing about when it is and isn't right.

I thought that the fact, we didn't know what was written was a "should have known better" excuse?...

Like going into a biker bar and yelling I don't like bikers. Isn't that what you wrote?

originally posted by: seasonal
I thought that the fact we didn't know what was written was a "should have known better" excuse?...

No, not knowing what was actually written is what keeps us from, logically, coming to that conclusion.

Like going into a biker bar and yelling I don't like bikers. Isn't that what you wrote?

I wrote that but I'm not sure what you are comparing it to.

Let's see if I can clarify:
I walk into a biker bar and yell bikers are a bunch of bums.

They get up and pound me.

You see it on the news and say, "That was wrong, they almost killed him over having an opinion"

MagicCow comes in and says "Maybe it was wrong but that guy should have known better"

MagicCow would be correct. It doesn't make your position wrong. They are not mutually exclusive.

a reply to: daskakik

originally posted by: seasonal
I thought that the fact we didn't know what was written was a "should have known better" excuse?...


No, not knowing what was actually written is what keeps us from, logically, coming to that conclusion.


Like going into a biker bar and yelling I don't like bikers. Isn't that what you wrote?


I wrote that but I'm not sure what you are comparing it to.

Let's see if I can clarify:
I walk into a biker bar and yell bikers are a bunch of bums.

They get up and pound me.

You see it on the news and say, "That was wrong, they almost killed him over having an opinion"

MagicCow comes in and says "Maybe it was wrong but that guy should have known better"

MagicCow would be correct. It doesn't make your position wrong. They are not mutually exclusive.

All opinion, nothing based in reality. Don't try to live what you are writing, you will be cooling your unrealistic feet in jail.