He said he forgot about the event, why do you assume he's lying?
I've made a number of posts to this thread addressing that question.
But like I said, if it is him saying "I forgot" just to squash the subject,
That does not appear to be an effective squashing technique; it looks like lying given that everyone else involved has no trouble remembering the event.
Yeah I admit some ignorance on the subject of the LDS but it was omething to the effect of not allowing black members for reasons I assume are not so nice.
Wrong. The official LDS policy was to limit people with black ancestry from holding a number of important positions, and from participating in some important church ceremonies. The church dogma was that black people were barred from certain levels of heaven.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison
That does not appear to be an effective squashing technique; it looks like lying given that everyone else involved has no trouble remembering the event.
That's a very common thing to forget when many people remember. I don't know what's so surprising about that?
And it's politics too, so we can't be too sure everthing being presented is how it seems. It seems too petty to even worry about in any case.
The official LDS policy was to limit people with black ancestry from holding a number of important positions, and from participating in some important church ceremonies.
I don't get it, I guess. So it'd be ok for Mitt Romney to get a mob together to bully me, but it wouldn't be ok for me to use the law to fight back?
The notion that the victims of bullies have to sit there and take it, that they can't be allowed to do anything to fight back - that's an impulse of yours I just don't understand, Oni.
It's assault with a deadly weapon because it meets, in every respect, the characteristics of that class of crimes. Your argument seems to be that it's not technically an assault because it happened 40 years ago, or that the actors involved were all rich kids at prep school, or something. I'm not really clear on your legal reasoning, there.
But, yeah, there's your impulse - we couldn't possibly do something so unfair as to bully the 18-year-old son of a governor and his buddies for some prep school pranks, right?
It's assault with a deadly weapon because it meets, in every respect, the characteristics of that class of crimes. Your argument seems to be that it's not technically an assault because it happened 40 years ago, or that the actors involved were all rich kids at prep school, or something. I'm not really clear on your legal reasoning, there.
Its not legal reasoning... its non-legal reasoning. The legal classifications of "assault" are less than the classifications are for not just being a whiny bitch about it.
A lot of things technically count as legal assault that don't count as assault for people who aren't whiny bitches.
And I'm not talking specifically about the kid in this case. (Were charges even filed?)
Do you have a problem with calling an incident in which several people held a man down an cut the man's hair against his will a real assault?
That appears to me to be what you are saying in this post, but that impression does not jibe with other things you've said about the incident. And in fact you yourself have used the term assault in Message 81.
I totally understand the reluctance about calling scissors a deadly weapon was used, but I don't get the hesitancy to call the incident a real assault.
Would your opinion be different if the participants were all adults and they held down another adult to cut his hair?
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison
Do you have a problem with calling an incident in which several people held a man down an cut the man's hair against his will a real assault? That appears to me to be what you are saying in this post, but that impression does not jibe with other things you've said about the incident. And in fact you yourself have used the term assault in Message 81.
I totally understand the reluctance about calling scissors a deadly weapon was used, but I don't get the hesitancy to call the incident a real assault.
No, they assaulted the guy. "Assault" to some people conjures up horrific imagery, like beating the shit out of somebody. But technically, assault can be from just the way your posturing yourself towards another person.
When I use the word assault, I know what I'm referring to but when I see other people using it, I don't know if they're thinking bloody murder or a gentle shove. When they're using it in hyperbolic spin, it seems like they're crying bloody murder.
Would your opinion be different if the participants were all adults and they held down another adult to cut his hair?
So it'd be ok for Mitt Romney to get a mob together to bully me, but it wouldn't be ok for me to use the law to fight back?
You'd be a real pussy in my opinion if you couldn't make the effort to stand up to some bullies, at a prep school mind you, and instead run to the authorities.
I'm not saying you aren't within your legal right to do it, but seriously, you should man up a bit and handle it.
The notion that the victims of bullies have to sit there and take it...
I'm far from saying you should take it. I'm saying fight back.
It's assault with a deadly weapon because it meets, in every respect, the characteristics of that class of crimes.
Yeah if you wanna be a giant pussy and yell out assualt in that incident, sure, it's assault. Legally assault. But assault can be me pushing you in the mall. Are you gonna run to the cops and yell out assault in that situation too?
Your argument seems to be that it's not technically an assault because it happened 40 years ago, or that the actors involved were all rich kids at prep school, or something. I'm not really clear on your legal reasoning, there.
Look, if I punch you in the face, it's assault. Legally assualt. Call the cops, I get arrested, you can press charges. OR... you can man up and hit me back. You make the call as to what type of man you want to be in life. The kind that runs to the authorities when a bully hits you or the type that stands up to them.
I was raised to do the latter, and I'm thankful for it.
But, yeah, there's your impulse - we couldn't possibly do something so unfair as to bully the 18-year-old son of a governor and his buddies for some prep school pranks, right?
What? No, I didn't even imply something like that. Your mob cuts my hair I return with a bat and brake your legs. Even-Steven.
That's my solution. That's why I call this petty and not worth the time to even discuss. It's not assualt, in my opinion, it's a group of dudes fucking with you. The way to stop that is to handle it like a man and fight back. Not yell out for the authorities like a punk.
I know that's not the popular opinion here, but where I'm from it's how you handle yourself. That's why I find the need for you to call this assualt a weak argument. I can't even imagine telling my dad that some dudes held me down and cut my hair and that I'd like to press charges. Get the fuck out of here man.
Do you have a problem with calling an incident in which several people held a man down an cut the man's hair against his will a real assault?
Because the way crashfrog is presenting it, sounds like media hyped bullshit. A MOB assaulted a young man and attacked him with a DEADLY weapon. Then you read the story and it was a couple of guys at a prep school that held someone down and cut their hair.
He's trying to make it out to be more than it is to make it seem like a worse offense than it actually was. It's pathetic.
Unless you are trying to claim that the assault never happened, the above quoted particular line of reasoning is completely spurious.
Would you mind explaining this? How exactly is this spurious?
Evlreala writes:
That there are other people who have no problem remembering the event is irrelivant to the question of if Romney remembers.
Romney doesn't share the same exact cognitive processes as everyone else involved. That someone else, anyone else, hell, everyone else, has no issues with recalling the incident is irrelivant to if Romney remembers.
Ten people line up and watch a couple having lunch for an hour, if not 2 minutes later, 9 out of the 10 people remember with ease that the conversation the couple had during their meal was about the movie they saw, it does not mean the 10th person necessarily remembers this fact.
Is this for real? Do you honestly think such an incident is forgetable? If it is, then Romney is even scarier than I thought. This makes him a sociopath.
Yes, I honestly think such an incident is forgetable. Your own argument from personal incredulity aside, can you provide a reason why this isn't a possibility?
What about this incident would be so signifigant from Romney's perspective that he could not forget about it in 40 years time?
Everyone else in his group of bullies remembers in detail about the incident. Their stories all match with each other.
Why do you assume that everybody in his group of friends remembering this is signifigant?
They regretted the event and so they remembered it.
Yes, they regret the incident. This is a byproduct of recalling what happened and coming to the conclusion that they were in the wrong, not the other way around. Had they not remembered, they would have no reason to feel regret. Cause and effect. Your line of reasoning is falacious.
Romney, on the other hand, thought nothing of it and that's why he can't remember it.
I'm sure he didn't think anything of it.. Hell, he likely felt like his actions were justified. Why then, would this be overtly signifigant to him, or at least signifigant enough to necessarily be easy to recall after almost an half a lifespan?
So, you're practically saying Romney never had any sense of remorse and so that's why he can't remember such a major event.
I said nothing of the sort, though I do not rule out the possability. Has it occured to you that to Romney, this wasn't a major event? What makes you so sure it was?
Good job in demonizing Romney more than I ever did.
Strawmen are not your friends.
You don't think trying to dodge responsibility for something you caused is a character flaw?
I think your question is irrelivant to the quote you were commenting on. Why dont you explain it's relivance, and I'll answer your question. For referance, here's the quote;
Evlreala writes:
You're claiming that you are judging his character based on this fact, but you've, without evidence* determined he is guilty of lying before assessing his character.
Judging his character before applying the criteria you are claiming to evaluate it from? Isn't that.. backwards?
**The first paragraph was added from the original post the quote came from for clairification purposes.**
So, if he doesn't remember it then Romney has memory problems and therefore he is not fit to serve as president of the US.
So, by your reasoning, if somebody cannot remember an incident from half a lifespan ago, they therefore must have 'memory problems'. And this reasoning follows from..?
I'd be willing to agree that Romney isn't fit to serve as president, but not because he cannot remember something from his adolesence. Thats abserd.
Look, if I punch you in the face, it's assault. Legally assualt. Call the cops, I get arrested, you can press charges. OR... you can man up and hit me back. You make the call as to what type of man you want to be in life. The kind that runs to the authorities when a bully hits you or the type that stands up to them.
I was raised to do the latter, and I'm thankful for it.
In other words, it's okay with Oni to denigrate and humiliate victims of assault, because if they were real men they'd have totally kicked the asses of that big group of guys armed with sharp pointy objects.
Let's turn it around a bit - let's say that a woman was assaulted by a pack of guys, and one of them used scissors to cut her hair.
Should she just "man the fuck up" and fight back? Would calling the cops just make her a "giant pussy?" If they specifically assaulted her because she was a woman, and cut her hair with the specific intent to humiliate and intimidate her for being a woman, would it be fair to call it a hate crime?
The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.
Because the way crashfrog is presenting it, sounds like media hyped bullshit. A MOB assaulted a young man and attacked him with a DEADLY weapon. Then you read the story and it was a couple of guys at a prep school that held someone down and cut their hair.
He's trying to make it out to be more than it is to make it seem like a worse offense than it actually was. It's pathetic.
A group of men did assault the victim.
One of the men was in fact armed with scissors, which can often be classified as deadly weapons.
Intent to use a weapon for lethal force is not at all required for an assault to be classified as assault with a deadly weapon, specifically because of the reckless nature of endangering the victim's life and the increased intimidation and reduced ability to defend oneself from an armed assailant.
Exactly how does this event not describe a group of men armed with a deadly weapon assaulting another man because they perceived him to have a "gay hairstyle?"
You're so obsessed about what a "pussy" you think the victim was, you seem to be completely ignoring the actual facts of the event and how they would be rationally described.
The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.
Romney doesn't share the same exact cognitive processes as everyone else involved. That someone else, anyone else, hell, everyone else, has no issues with recalling the incident is irrelivant to if Romney remembers.
It is not irrelevant that others remember. I agree that the fact that others remember is not absolute proof that Romney also remembers.
What I took issue with is your analogy comparing the incident to some repulsive crap that you described about me that never even happened. If in fact, the hazing incident in which Romney is described as a major participant did not happen, then I agree that it wouldn't matter how many other people claimed to remember it. But since we are not claiming that the incident did not happen, then your example/analogy fails. Your attempted analogy was spurious.
Edited by NoNukes, : Add outrage
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison
In other words, it's okay with Oni to denigrate and humiliate victims of assault, because if they were real men they'd have totally kicked the asses of that big group of guys armed with sharp pointy objects.
No, but nice try.
I'm saying if you want to be a pussy and call it assault you are legally correct in doing so, but the reality is you got jumped by some dudes who ONLY cut your hair. As a man you should be able to handle that without turning to the authorities and pressing charges.
Let's turn it around a bit - let's say that a woman was assaulted by a pack of guys, and one of them used scissors to cut her hair.
Should she just "man the fuck up" and fight back?
Well she's not a man, is she?
But some women will man up, more so then I guess you and crash, and fuck someone up over that.
Would calling the cops just make her a "giant pussy?" If they specifically assaulted her because she was a woman, and cut her hair with the specific intent to humiliate and intimidate her for being a woman, would it be fair to call it a hate crime?
Depends on the woman I guess. But for a man, I say fight back. But again, it depends on the woman. Some are very able to handle themselves because they were taught to do so. But it would be much more understandable if a woman reacted that way. I guess...
She wouldn't call the cops though:
Cut her hair, see what happens.
Maybe in your next scenario it could be someone's grandma so you can really get that "victim" effect you're looking for. Women are much tougher thatn you think.
Check that, I saw a grandma get hit in the face and not go down on youtube. They couldn't even rob her.
Yes, you can repeat it all you want, it will not change that I agree.
One of the men was in fact armed with scissors, which can often be classified as deadly weapons.
So can a pen, have you seen Jason Bourne handle a pen? Dude's awesome with it.
Intent to use a weapon for lethal force is not at all required for an assault...
Dude save the bullshit lawyer talk for the classroom. We're talking about some guys holding another guy down and cutting his hair. In my world that is NOT assault. I get that in YOUR world it is.
Exactly how does this event not describe a group of men armed with a deadly weapon assaulting another man because they perceived him to have a "gay hairstyle?"
Because you're exaggerating the case to make it seem much more than it is using legal terms and courtroom drama. It's a prep school prank on a gay kid.
Gay people can fight back too, I seen it.
You're so obsessed about what a "pussy" you think the victim was
No, I'm obsessed with what a pussy YOU guys are making him out to be. He can handle himself without you guys bringing all this nerdy bullshit about assault and deadly weapons into it.
Was anybody raised to fight back and stand up to bullies around here? Christ...
™ Version 4.2
