Romney the Bully

You were raised wrong. Period.When you're unarmed and outnumbered and one of the other guys has a pair of fucking scissors, you don;t fight back. And you arent a "pussy" for not fighting back. You memorize faces and names, and you call the cops. Because they won't be taught any lesson at all from the few bruises you might be able to give them before they overpower you, and you'll just risk further injury because you're outnumbered and unarmed and they have a pair of scissors.Jesus fucking Christ, your attitude allows people who think it's absolutely fucking fine to intimidate and harass people and bring along sharp objects to get away with it. And your only defense of this position is to fall back on being a comedian, and call teh victim of an assault a pussy.If a group of guys assaulted me and held me down and cut my hair with scissors, I'd feel fucking humiliated, and while it was happening I'd be fucking scared out of my mind that they weren't just going to cut my hair, or that even if that was their intent they'd accidentally cut me or stab me in the fucking eye. They would have absolutely no right to do that and just "fighting back" won't result in anything but additional injury. "Manning up" according to you means dismissing the event, even though those assholes were completely in the wrong and deserve to be arrested for what they did.Nobody has the right to form a group of guys to assault another person. Bringing along a sharp pointy object just makes it worse. Taht their intent was "only" to humiliate and intimidate another person for having a "gay hairstyle" does not in any way diminish what they did - in fact, it makes it a hate crime.If this same goddamned story came out tomorrow at a high school in my city, the perpetrators would be expelled and very likely be facing jail time for perpetrating a hate crime. If I were on the jury at their trial and the evidence clearly demonstrated that the event actually happened as reported, I'd have absolutely no problem voting "guilty" for a charge of assault with a deadly weapon for the entire group of assailants, with sentencing enhanced because it was a hate crime.You're an amoral asshole, Oni, and no amount of comedic bullshit is going to change that. You actually think it's okay to humiliate and denigrate the victim of an assault. Despite your claim to the contrary, it's what you're actually doing every time you say only a pussy doesn't fight back and calls the cops. You're blaming the victim in every single case where that happened. I live out here, in the real world Oni. Apparently you live in a fantasy-land. Because the events, as described, do constitute an assault with a deadly weapon. What else is different in your world, Oni? If a woman says "no" in the middle of what was previously consensual sex, and you continue, is it rape? Or did you know "she wanted it anyway," and she should just "man up?"The law is a real thing, Oni. It doesn't change for you or me. If I get a group of guys to hold you down while I cut your hair with some nice, sharp, pointy scissors, I've committed an assault with a deadly weapon. If I do it to humiliate and intimidate you because you're Hispanic, then it's also a hate crime.Even if you decide not to press charges, that description still fits exactly what happened. Even if we're not in a court of law - the words still have definitions that still apply.By describing the events as an assault with a deadly weapon and also as a hate crime, I am simply describing the events with great precision. If you don't understand those words and inaccurately conclude that I'm describing an attempted murder or that the victim was stabbed, that's not my fault; you are simply making unfounded additional inferences based on incomplete information because you're ignorant of what the words actually mean.He can and could make his own decisions regarding his life. But to describe the events that occurred as an assault with a deadly weapon is simply to be completely honest. Describing the events as teenage bullshit is not accurate. This wasn't just "messing around." "Messing around" would have been just making fun of him for his hair. If they had only called him names or something we wouldn't be having this argument.This went far beyond "messing around." This was assault, possibly with a deadly weapon, in an attempt to humiliate and intimidate a boy for his appearance, almost certainly because he "looked gay." Saying as much doesn't make the victim a pussy or otherwise any less of a man.Take your accusations of "nerdy bullshit" and shove them up your ass, comedian. What happened to that kid wasn't a fucking joke.

Gotta head out and will address the rest later, but... Judging by the rest of the crap you wrote, no I was not. I'm a man, I fight back. I stand up to bullies and I'm quite proud of that.- Oni

And call victims of assault "pussies."You go ahead and keep feeling proud of that.

Would I? When I fight, I fight to win - not to score Man Points. Fighting to win means fighting with every tool at my disposal. And if one of the tools I had at my disposal are a bunch of bruisers in blue with guns, backed up all the way to the steps of the courthouse by a massive institution called "the law", well, I fail to see how that's any different than when Mitt Romney decides that he's not man enough to cut another kid's hair all by himself and incites a mob to help him do it. And I'm saying that one of the ways I would fight back is to get some big burly men to fight for me, so that when I strike I do so with overwhelming force, and I fail to see any way in which overwhelming my opponent with numbers and force is any different than what Romney did. In a fistfight, I might just do that, or I might pull my piece and blow your ass away. It would depend on whether I thought I was in a friendly test of skill and strength, or a fight for my life. If you showed up with overwhelming numbers and brandished a deadly weapon, guess what, I wouldn't "hit you back" - I'd fight with every tool at my disposal to destroy you, including the police, courts of law, legal instruments, knives, guns, whatever. Hell I'd go after your credit rating and rape your mother in front of you if I thought it was something I had to do to eliminate you as a threat. Yeah, maybe. How about you don't fucking push me at the mall, and neither of us will have to find out? Getting the law involved is one of the ways that you fight back.I mean, what you're saying makes no sense. If it's a fight, why wouldn't I fight to win? And if I'm fighting to win, why on Earth would I be so stupid as to take any weapon at all off the table? If you come at me, you better fucking believe that all the force I can muster, beg, borrow, and steal is going to crush you like a kitten in Delaware.

So why tie one of your hands behind your back when you do it? Why on Earth would someone as loathsome as a bully merit that kind of honorable consideration?

Yes. It is irrelivant that others remember, because we are discussing if Romney remembers, not if he is guilty of the act. Correct, the fact that others remember is not absolute evidence that Romney also remembers, in fact, its not any kind of evidence that Romney remembers. For clairity sake, I'll post the comment you are referencing. No, you were taking issue with the line of reasoning, not the content of the scenario. At least, that was your claim...
You're not being very consistant.If your issue is now, that you take offence to the content of the example, I made no claims about you, nor did I attack your character in any way, so if you're offended, deal with it. In what way does it fail? Can you provide the link between person A remembering something and person B necessarily remembering the same thing as a result or person A's remembering? Explain that. You have yet to demonstrate how.

Ok, then if Romney doesn't remember, then he is a sociopath who never gave what he did a second thought.

So, according to you, if someone doesnt remember something from forty years ago they are a sociopath......Do you know what a sociopath is?

Well, depends on what that something is.This conversation reminds me of what happened with the Jamie Leigh Jones case. She was gang raped by 7 of her co-workers while working overseas. But her contract prevented the rapists from being prosecuted. The contract required private arbitration.Anyway, Jon Stewart pointed out something pretty interesting on one of his shows. Republicans referred to the gang rape as "disputes".Jon Stewart Takes On 30 Republicans Who Voted Against Franken Rape Amendment (VIDEO) | HuffPost EntertainmentWatch the video at the bottom. It's pretty funny. Pay particular attention from 2:45.The point is leading a gang of boys to assault a boy during your senior year in high school is not just "something from forty years ago".Just like gang rape is not just another "personal dispute" as described by republicans in the senate.Added by edit.The point I'm trying to make is you're using a tactic most often used by people who lack empathy. The tactic is pretty simple, actually. Don't specifically refer to things you're talking about. Instead, use a general term. So, if it's rape you're talking about, say it was a personal dispute. If it was a drunk driver plowing into a car killing a family of 5, call it a traffic accident. If it was a gang assault, call it a prank or "something". Heck, I'll do you a favor by violating godwin's law here by pointing out that top nazi officials called systematically exterminating millions of jews "statistics".Edited by Taz, : No reason given.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Given that I've explicitly denied such to be my position, why are you asking me to explain that.Whether you wish to believe it or not, the fact that others remember the incident is putative to determining whether Romney is lying. As I've said several times, the fact is not proof. Accordingly lacing your questions with "necessarily" neither advances your argument nor addresses mine.If you believe Romney's statement that he does not remember, you are welcome to hold that belief.

No offense, but I take offense at describing what happened as an "incident" just like I would take offense at describing genocide as statistics or gang rape as "personal disputes".

I can see generally why you'd take that position. But I think you should apply a little context before taking offense. It should be pretty clear that none of the terms I have use to describe the assault have the goal of minimizing what happened. My position on the matter is abundantly clear.

I know. It just bothered me to see you going along with his attempts to minimizing what happened for so long.I must admit, though, that he did a very good job at leading people astray by equating aggravated gang assault with any other action 40 years ago like taking a walk in the park or eyeing a girl.Sir, do you remember downloading child pornography on such and such date?No, I don't.But I have 5 people who swore up and down that they saw you downloading child pornography on such and such date.Well, sir, I do a lot of things since I'm a busy man. Since downloading child porn, a very illegal and immoral act, is just like taking a walk in the park or saying hello to a stranger, I can't be bothered to remember it.

As opposed to right wing character assassination which only seems to consist of lies or reminders that Obama is ... you know ... black. A short glib response from Artemis that adds nothing to the discussion!?I am shocked, SHOCKED to find trolling happening on an Internet forum of all places!

I was just lurking, watching two men argue with a bunch a bitches, it has been hilarious a great thread. What is shocking is that you use name calling to deflect your lack of ability to engage with me.ahh seem the OP is Mitchell Bade too, SHOCKING INDEED!Edited by Artemis Entreri, : i spelz badd