|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3941 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Romney the Bully | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evlreala Member (Idle past 3105 days) Posts: 88 From: Portland, OR United States of America Joined: |
Well, depends on what that something is. Agreed, let's explore what that something is...
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". From the victims perspective, I'm sure it was a traumatic event but why are you assuming it was necessarily memorable for Romney? Why would this stick out from his perspective to the point where there was no possibility that after 40 years, he could not have forgotten?
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". I chose my words with the intent to avoid conflating with the other conversation on this thread. If you are unable to continue this discussion without attacking my character, then you have nothing of worth left to offer. Your assesment of my word choice is disingenuous and frankly childish. With all due respect, grow up. Edited by Evlreala, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4259 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
Ok I can’t help myself and it’s Friday so I have to jump in on this whack logic.
rahvin writes:
Your cluelessness in what Oni is saying is amazing. It is almost as if you are taking him out of context on purpose (I hope so, cause if not you are really ignorant). And you arent a "pussy" for not fighting back. You memorize faces and names, and you call the cops. It’s not pussy to fight a mob who want to cut your hair. Its pussy to be a rat afterwards. It’s a bitch move.
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.
I didn’t read it that way at all. I think you are way off. Calm down girl, don’t get your panties in bind here. You should try and argue against what Oni said instead of jumping to these tangents you have in your head. Calm down, your cussing a lot and misspelling all kinds of stuff (and you come off as really crazy)
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.
I am guess Nancy here has never been in a fight? What are you so scared of? Hate crimes are such PC-Bullshit.
rahvin writes: 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. Hey Oni, I think you just got assaulted on the internet!
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. In the real world I live in, 40 years is well past the statue of limitations, so I will not prosecute this man over something that happened 40years ago. And using scissors to cut hair is not a deadly weapon. Using scissors to stab someone is, but we all know what happened here.
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?" Holy shit, I think I just found the craziest motherfucker on EvC. Coo-Coo. The Liberal Rage in this post is definitely funny as hell though.
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. But 40 years later, it aint shit, just like your pussy ass argument.
Rahvin writes: 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. The gross inaccuracies of what you posted is why I finally had to post something. I find nothing about your last 5 post to being anything close to honest or accurate.
Crashfrog writes: 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. Please keep your weakness in Maryland. BTW: nobody fights for man points, some of us here are men, and some of us aren’t, and it’s very obvious who is who isn't in this one.
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.
Ooh an internet tough guy. Yeah right I know you are going run screaming "HELP ME!" to the cops Edited by Artemis Entreri, : i should proof read Edited by Artemis Entreri, : i should proof read the proof reading
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I just don't think holding a gay guy down and cutting off his hair [with scissors - Dr A] because you don't like the way he looks [gay - Dr A] is accurately described as assaulting him with scissors because you hate gays. Well, that's quite an accurate description. But maybe a little too accurate for comfort, so let's start parsing it. It wasn't because he was gay, it was just because he appeared to be gay. Unless you have a signed affidavit from your victim stating that he's gay and signed by a notary public, then technically you are not doing it "because you hate gays", you're doing it because you hate people whom you suspect of being gay. See, Romney would have done exactly the same thing even if his victim was in fact completely straight and Romney just thought he was gay --- so how can Romney's actions be construed as homophobia? which involves hating on people who have been proven gay beyond reasonable doubt. Why, you might as well accuse a man of being anti-semitic because he beat up a guy whom he thought was Jewish. Unless before the beating the victim showed his attackers a certificate of his judaism signed by his rabbi, that's not anti-semitism at all. Perhaps his attackers were motivated by his hebraic nose, his olive complexion, and the fact that his name was Joshua Goldstein, but they weren't anti-semitic unless he proved to them, before they attacked him, that he was Jewish. Mere circumstantial evidence may have been enough for them to beat the crap out of him, but it's not enough to prove that they're anti-semitic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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. Sometimes I make an effort to mock an idiot, and sometimes I just need to quote him.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
You're right; labeling things as "hate crimes" is stupid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
It’s not pussy to fight a mob who want to cut your hair. Its pussy to be a rat afterwards. It’s a bitch move. Psychopaths are always outraged when their victims complain. This is because psychopaths are mad in the head. "I only led a mob to assault the bitch, and now s/he dares to tell people that I did so. This is so unfair on me. Boohoo! Boohoo!" This attitude does not lead normal people, such as myself, to cry: "OMG, a psychopath's feeling have been hurt! Call a whaaaambulance immediately! Let us give the poor little psychopath the tenderest care, because his delicate self-esteem has been so severely damaged by someone accurately describing what he did."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You're right ... I am. I usually am: my record on being right is good, though I say it myself.
... labeling things as "hate crimes" is stupid. And yet that was not what I said, as you would know if ... well, if you were able to read things written in the English language, a faculty which you appear to have abandoned in the course of your quest to exonerate a criminal assault. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
And yet that was not what I said, as you would know if ... well, if you were able to read things written in the English language, a faculty which you appear to have abandoned in the course of your quest to exonerate a criminal assault. Qué?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Qu? What I said was: "And yet that was not what I said, as you would know if ... well, if you were able to read things written in the English language, a faculty which you appear to have abandoned in the course of your quest to exonerate a criminal assault." I might be able to put some of that into shorter words, if necessary. Which bits of it are giving you trouble?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Which bits of it are giving you trouble? The part where I said that's what you said. The semicolon was intended to seperate independent clauses. You're right. Because of the things that you did say, that were right, it is stupid to label things as "hate crimes", even though you didn't say that it was. Does that help? But regardless, you're arguing against a strawman anyways. I know that technically/legally its accurate to say they assaulted the guy with a deadly weapon and have already admitted that. I've already further explained my reasoning in the susequent posts to the one you replied to. You can quote me from those in your reply to this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
The part where I said that's what you said. I cannot explain your own statements to you. You're on your own there.
Because of the things that you did say, that were right, it is stupid to label things as "hate crimes" ... No. What I said was (let me provide subtitles for the hard of thinking) that it is stupid to exonerate a man of a hate crime on the grounds that he was not absolutely certain, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that his victim was a member of the group that he was attempting to victimize. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
What I said was (let me provide subtitles for the hard of thinking) that it is stupid to exonerate a man of a hate crime on the grounds that he was not absolutely certain, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that his victim was a member of the group that he was attempting to victimize. That's neat... not quite sure why you're saying it to me though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evlreala Member (Idle past 3105 days) Posts: 88 From: Portland, OR United States of America Joined: |
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. That has not been your claim;
I agree that the fact that others remember is not absolute proof that Romney also remembers.
It is indeed relevant that everyone else recalls the incident. The ease with which others remember is evidence that Romney's claim to not remembering is not credible.
Yes there is evidence. That evidence includes the fact that the others involved seem to have no problem remembering the event. You are being dishonest.You seem to have an issue with being consistant. As I've said several times, the fact is not proof. You have said it once, and what you said is that it was not absolute proof, not that it isnt proof.
Accordingly lacing your questions with "necessarily" neither advances your argument nor addresses mine. accordingly [ ə kwrdinglee ]1.correspondingly: in a way that is appropriate 2.in consequence: in accordance with what has been said or with a principle or practice Synonyms: appropriately, suitably, correspondingly, fittingly. So, appropriately utilizing a word within its intended meaning doesn't advance my argument or address yours? No, I would imagine not, however, the joint effort of multiple appropriatly utilized words arranged to form coherant sentences would likely do the trick. If you are going to try and talk down to me, I would advise that you do so in a manner that doesn't make you look dumb. It's counter productive.
If you believe Romney's statement that he does not remember, you are welcome to hold that belief. That is not nor has it been the issue. Stop listening to strawmen, they are not your friends. I'll make this easy for you..How is the fact that others remember the incident evidence in determining whether Romney is lying?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3321 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined:
|
Evlreala writes:
(1) There were 6 boys involved, including Romney. The other 5 boys remembered the event right down to the detail, and all their detailed accounts agreed with each other independently. From the victims perspective, I'm sure it was a traumatic event but why are you assuming it was necessarily memorable for Romney? Why would this stick out from his perspective to the point where there was no possibility that after 40 years, he could not have forgotten? (2) This should have stuck out in his memory because leading a gang of boys to assault another boy during senior year of high school is not an ordinary everyday thing that normal people do. (3) I can accept that Romney indeed do not remember the event because to him it was too ordinary to remember. How many assaults did Romney lead?
quote:With all due respect, I've been taking great offense to your efforts at minimizing aggravated gang assault with your choices of words. Back when I was a cop, there was a scene I showed up to to assist. I ended up not getting involved because there were plenty of other officers too eager to get involve. From my observation, it went like this. It was a guy who had ran into a tree. He was so drunk he didn't know what was going on. He was refusing to get out of the car. A young body builder type officer lost patience, went up to the car, yanked him out of the car, and threw him down to the concrete. The guy ended up with a broken nose, a broken jaw, a broken collar bone, and a concussion. When I finally got my hands on the official police report, I was totally surprised. It said the guy was "escorted" out of his car, "placed" on the ground, and "arrested". On his way down, he broke his own nose, jaw, collar bone, and gave himself a concussion. Technically speaking, every word of it was true. I thought long and hard about it. The point is you, sir, or mam, is what's wrong with our society. To you, gang rape is just a "personal dispute", plowing through a car and killed a family of 5 because you're too drunk to know any better is just a "traffic accident", and leading a gang of boys to assault a suspected homosexual is just "something". I've dealt with your type before I was a cop, while I was a cop, and after I quit that career. You ask me to grow up. I ask you to do the same thing. Besides adults who have no conscience, I can think of plenty of kids who regularly minimize what they or others did to attempt to downplay the seriousness of the situation. Real responsible adults refer to things specifically for what they are, not use an overly generalized term to downplay a serious event. I've been refraining from saying these things because you guys just seemed too involved with this discussion. But now that you think you've called me out on something, then I'm calling you out on this. The reality of the situation is this. Leading a gang of boys to assault a suspected homosexual is not an everyday thing. And to normal people, it should have stuck out. It's not just "something". If anything, this whole Romney "can't remember" thing reminds me of what often happens when rape victims confront their rapists in court. Most of the time, the rape victims expect the rapists to remember them. To the rape victims' surprise, the rapists often times have no idea who the hell the rape victims were. Rapists are sociopaths. They don't consider the rape (or someone like you would like to call it a "personal dispute") that big of a deal. That's why often times they forget the victim. Some of them even can't remember specifically when, where, how, etc. We would call these people sociopaths. So, we're down to 2 possibilities here. Either Romney is lying about not remembering as a political dodge or he truly can't remember which would make me question his sense of right and wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
That's neat... not quite sure why you're saying it to me though. Your state of bewilderment would be of more concern to me if I was a member of your family or a close friend.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024