Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Descan]

Wow, it's almost like that has nothing to do with what he said!

Or are you under the assumption the only crimes we can set up consequences for are violent ones?

<3

[Loud Whispers]

Firstly I was claiming this seemed a reasonable practise (or rather I was claiming that Dutchling would probably find it a reasonable practise), I was not claiming it was... how shall I say this, semantically accurate practise.
The same way that if someone was stealing money from a cash register and you called it shoplifting, I'd say that's a reasonable thing to call it even though the definition of shoplifting is by most accounts the theft of goods (money not being typically considered goods).

I'd call that a robbery since we have different definitions for different offenses of varying intents, circumstances and scale.

Most definitions I look at seem to include what I described as being violent. So there doesn't even seem to be a basis for arguing semantics here if that was even appropriate.

Quite frankly LW, I think this was an extremely pedantic argument.

The basis is in that violence's literal definition is physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

In the US this means robbery, assault, rape, and murder.

Threatening as declaring the intent is both harassment and verbal abuse, but it is not violent as any crime where physical force is involved.

If it is semantic, it is because it IS, nor is it my argument, and yes it very damn well is a relevant distinction to make.

Wow, it's almost like that has nothing to do with what he said!

Or are you under the assumption the only crimes we can set up consequences for are violent ones?

<3

Why the dick?

[Truean]

Having said all that, you've given me the impression many times that I know more people here who are accepting of homosexuality than you seem to in Ohio.

Pretty much yes. I know a lot of people who openly or secretly-while-saying-they-do, do not like gays. I've posted a lot of times about how my friends (who are often single females) will eventually get a boyfriend and that he will have a problem with me hanging around her even as the clearly gay friend.... You'd think the fact that I date guys and just wanna watch chick flicks with the girlfirend would clear up the jealousy but .... Evidently not. Also if that didn't make it obvious, one might think the dress would?

Sadly, there are still plenty of people who would like nothing more than for being gay to be a crime again....

[Pnx]

The basis is in that violence's literal definition is physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

I give you a number of definitions that disagree and say that it doesn't have to be physical force, and you completely ignore them.

Firstly I was claiming this seemed a reasonable practise (or rather I was claiming that Dutchling would probably find it a reasonable practise), I was not claiming it was... how shall I say this, semantically accurate practise.
The same way that if someone was stealing money from a cash register and you called it shoplifting, I'd say that's a reasonable thing to call it even though the definition of shoplifting is by most accounts the theft of goods (money not being typically considered goods).

I'd call that a robbery since we have different definitions for different offenses of varying intents, circumstances and scale.

(...)

Threatening as declaring the intent is both harassment and verbal abuse, but it is not violent as any crime where physical force is involved.

If it is semantic, it is because it IS, nor is it my argument, and yes it very damn well is a relevant distinction to make.

And again you're completely missing the point, it's not classified as violent crime because it's semantically fits into that classification neatly, it's called that because it's useful to classify it as a violent crime.

In the case of the shoplifter example, because the person in question was stealing from a shop, so it's useful to call them a shoplifter because that makes the nature of the crime clear. The same applies to the whole idea of assault being a violent crime even if it's purely a verbal assault.

In the US this means robbery, assault, rape, and murder.

We are not talking about the US, this has no relation to what we were talking about at all.
Though since you brought up law in the US, I'd like to point out that in the US they have essentially the exact same practise (though I believe assault laws may vary from state to state), to quote this random google result.

An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civil liability..

The key difference apparently being the apparent present ability to cause the harm. You yourself classified assault as a violent crime, so the example of threatening someone would be a violent crime, no?

Well, unless you want to get fussy about the semantics for absolutely no reason other than "I think this is the way it should be and damn all definitions, legal precedent, or what everyone else in the world might believe".

[Moghjubar]

Sadly, there are still plenty of people who would like nothing more than for being gay to be a crime again....

Well... if they don't like 'murica then they can just GEDDOUT!  /DOMAunconstitutional
And then they can go to Uganda.

[kingfisher1112]

You don't have any legal right to that. Just threatening someone isn't assault. Assault requires a present and plausible ability to commit one's threats.

However, consider that in Florida, even being perceived as threatening is legal justification for someone to shoot you and claim self-defense.

And thus the Trayvon case which a certain website I browse is going mad about.

[GlyphGryph]

Truean the girlfriend/boyfriend thing seems to honestly have little to do with people disliking you for being gay (even if they do). If anything it sounds like your getting more rope than a straight guy would in the same situation. They do seem to be jealous assholes in general though. Remember that there plenty of assholes that are so jealous they won't even let their girlfriends have ANY friends, regardless of gender. You are competition for time and affection there is no doubt about that and its competition some guys just don't want.

I still wonder why you don't move. Yes it would upheave your career but you honestly don't seem to like it much anyway and from the things you say it can't be about the money so... it is actually better in other places than what you describe.

[Leafsnail]

I'm a bit late for threattalk, but I think there need to be proper guidelines in place for establishing when something isn't an actual threat.  In particular if it's not directed at the people who would be threatened as in the case above.

[alway]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23269437

The alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, reportedly asked his CIA captors if he could design a vacuum cleaner.

His military lawyer at Guantanamo Bay, Jason Wright, told the Associated Press he was forbidden to discuss whether the vacuum cleaner designs existed.

"It sounds ridiculous," he said. "But answering this question, or confirming or denying the very existence of a vacuum cleaner design... would apparently expose the US government and its citizens to exceptionally grave danger."

It's a good thing these vacuum cleaner designs are a state secret. Imagine the fallout if the world could clean floors at a faster rate; or even as fast as the CIA! Everyone would have enough spare time to plot hundreds of attacks on American soil!

[Sirus]

Everyone would have enough spare time to plot hundreds of attacks on American soil!

Not sure if deliberate pun or fortuitous choice of words...

[Leafsnail]

I'm pretty sure making silly headlines happen is his only source of entertainment.

[Owlbread]

A lot of these guys are really bright. You know, doctors, engineers, teachers, scientists, historians. It's a shame they've wasted their lives on Al-Qaeda.

[Leafsnail]

/ on being captured and held indefinitely for no reason at all

e: I don't mean KSM, just a bunch of the other people who are still being held

[SalmonGod]

Umm, yeah... I could be getting something mixed up, but aren't some of them completely innocent?

[palsch]

Certainly some GTMO prisoners have been innocent. Others have been 'innocent' of any crime that would justify legal detention, although maybe the military/administration did justifiably consider them a threat when they were detained. Others may not be 'innocent' but can certainly never be found guilty.

All of this is absolutely separate to who has been released, who has been cleared for release and who can be released. That's all far more complicated.