Dave Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 There is a huge difference - intent. No woman intends to get raped. The guys in that video intended to cause trouble. < sigh > Okay Dave, I'll argue it from the Intent point of view then. Did the Hillbillies know their INTENT Dave? They did not have to know anyone's intent. What crime did the TV Crew commit to warrant the assault (Crime).... I never claimed the film crew committed a crime so that argument isn't going to work. Both sides were extremely rude and childish in their behavior. The actions of both sides are inexcusable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Japedo Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 They did not have to know anyone's intent. Then how are you going to use intent as a defense/justification? Which is what you've been doing this entire thread. What crime did the TV Crew commit to warrant the assault (Crime)....--------------- I never claimed the film crew committed a crime so that argument isn't going to work. Both sides were extremely rude and childish in their behavior. The actions of both sides are inexcusable. No Dave, One side painted some slogans on their car and the other side actually committed a CRIME, why is it you refuse to acknowledge that? One action could cause you getting the finger, or a nod in agreement and the other action can cause you getting jail time and sued. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 They did not have to know anyone's intent. Then how are you going to use intent as a defense/justification? Which is what you've been doing this entire thread. How can you not? I cannot understand why you refuse to acknowledge the film crew were the aggressors and provocateurs? No Dave, One side painted some slogans on their car and the other side actually committed a CRIME If this "crime" was so horrible, then why didn't they call the cops? why is it you refuse to acknowledge that? Where did I refuse to acknowledge that? Why to you refuse to admit that the film crew is not entirely innocent and share some responsibility? One action could cause you getting the finger, or a nod in agreement and the other action can cause you getting jail time and sued. Actions have consequences. The film crew knew this going in and to get attacked was their goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 They did not have to know anyone's intent. Dave, your arguement was destroyed by Japedo. Let it go. If you can show me a law that says you can't intentionally or otherwise piss other people off then you might have a leg to stand on. There are, however, plenty of laws that say you can't throw rocks at those who pissed you off. Case closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trancelation Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 And now the argument is about whether or not they were victims. If you look up the word "victim," there is no distinction in any given definition that intentionally seeking to be victimized makes one LESS of a victim. If the English dictionary does not make the distinction, neither do I. The whole problem here, Dave, is that you never made the distinction that both sides were wrong until I pointed out that you were doing that. If you read all of your posts prior to your responses to mine, you will not find that you ever said that both sides were wrong. Indeed, only one side is really wrong - that of the "rockthrowers". I'm beating a dead horse here, because Japedo has already thoroughly torn into the issue with you. I suppose all that remains is whether or not I intentionally insulted you. Of course, I did not. You took them as an insult, though they never were. And that's that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 I have insulted no one here, What a moron! So you assume the right to dictate what I feel??? But you're right. We know that getting insulted over Davism is not worth our time or energy. Now dave, just to be very clear, this is not an insult to you. If you feel insulted there is something seriously wrong with you, right? No??? Well, principles work both ways. Principles that don't work both ways are not principles. So I guess you have no idea whether or not I felt insulted. nor have I acted like a fundy. Looking into a mirror might surprise you. *shaking my head* This dave guy has things all twisted and backward and mixed up. You dictate what others feel and what others see. What a moron! Only I know what I feel. Only I know what I see in you. If I see you acting exactly like I see fundies act then I say you are acting like my perception of fundies. You don't get a say in the matter. If I feel insulted by something you said then I felt insulted. You get no say in the matter. Now turn those things around. You might have said, "Sorry I insulted you. That was not my intention. I don't think I am acting like a fundy but I cannot really get a clear view of my own behaviour. What am I doing that makes you think I am acting like a fundy." That would be realistic. And proper. All I've done is give my opinion, that you do not have to agree with, that those guys, ON BOTH SIDES, were acting like jerks. Is that so horrible a thing to say that you have to turn into a rock thrower yourself? Yes, Dave, I'm not throwing any rocks. I am just stating my opinion on things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuaiDan Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 Tomorrow I'm going to walk down the streets of Shanghai wearing a t-shirt that says "Long live the Japanese Empire! The rape of Nanking is a myth!" spelled out in chinese and see what happens. Here in China, if you do something stupid and pay the consequences, no one pities you. For all of you here who are implying the victim deserves no blame in this case, don't forget to send flowers to my funeral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramen666 Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 this argument is still going My take again also, the British dudes got a paper it said what to do. They didn't realize what it meant for a while and then figured it out. In no way shape or form I didn't think they knew at first what was going to happen. Then they realized maybe something is up when they got in the highway. I know fundies overreact on a lot of issues but violence is not how it should be handled. This is going back when fundies (I forgot some mathmeataican was real smart) well she was smart and knew math what did the fundies do to her? They got oyster shells and scraped her skin off and killed her because they thought she was a witch or something.True story this is middle aged reactions here with moden weapons. In the United States you have rights and freedoms, even religions to some extent but no way should religous people use violence. Examples : Christians modern day hate crimes against Muslims,illegal immagrants. They do ity all the time and it is WRONG.You need to have some self control lets narrow the situation. Christians seem to believe if you oppose them, in ideas, use violence and kill them. (No wonder where they get the mindset its in the Babble) The dudes just got gas that is when the violence started, The other people did the first move on them. The British guys did not cuss at them or anything they were just getting gas. I see these things on the side of their cars basically as bumper sticker status. In no way was the acts of violence justified no matter how you look at it. The guys were just getting gas they did not pick the fight the other people did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuaiDan Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 but no way should religous people use violence. In an ideal world, no one would use violence, religious or not. But in an ideal world, there would be no religion. I digress. Continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 Tomorrow I'm going to walk down the streets of Shanghai wearing a t-shirt that says "Long live the Japanese Empire! The rape of Nanking is a myth!" spelled out in chinese and see what happens. Here in China, if you do something stupid and pay the consequences, no one pities you. For all of you here who are implying the victim deserves no blame in this case, don't forget to send flowers to my funeral. Well, I'm staying out of the "victim" discussion as it seems pointless to me. And I'm not arguing that what the Top Gear guys did wasn't stupid. Just saying that the punishment/reaction doesn't fit the crime/provocation. I do wonder if your example might be a bit apples to oranges. Since the Chinese personally suffered at the hands of the Japanese, the insult would be much greater than telling rednecks that their sport sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 They did not have to know anyone's intent. Dave, your arguement was destroyed by Japedo. Let it go. My argument has not destroyed by anyone. If you can show me a law that says you can't intentionally or otherwise piss other people off then you might have a leg to stand on. There are, however, plenty of laws that say you can't throw rocks at those who pissed you off. Case closed. Sorry, I didn't know we were in a court of law. However: mitigating circumstances n. in criminal law, conditions or happenings which do not excuse or justify criminal conduct, but are considered out of mercy or fairness in deciding the degree of the offense the prosecutor charges or influencing reduction of the penalty upon conviction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 I have insulted no one here, What a moron! ponk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 And now the argument is about whether or not they were victims. If you look up the word "victim," there is no distinction in any given definition that intentionally seeking to be victimized makes one LESS of a victim. Does it have to? Is a guy purposely stepping into the path of a bus a "victim" of an accident? If the English dictionary does not make the distinction, neither do I. The whole problem here, Dave, is that you never made the distinction that both sides were wrong... And I apologized for not stating the obvious. I'm beating a dead horse here, because Japedo has already thoroughly torn into the issue with you. The only dead horse being beaten here is the idea that it really matters what I, or anyone else, has to say about it. Is it so horrible that I disagree with some of those here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 ... In no way was the acts of violence justified no matter how you look at it. No one here has ever said anything different. The guys were just getting gas they did not pick the fight the other people did. That's where we differ. I believe their express purpose, as they stated themselves, was to provoke an attack. They were not just getting gas, they were trying to pick a fight. intent n. mental desire and will to act in a particular way, including wishing not to participate. Intent is a crucial element in determining if certain acts were criminal. It was their intent to get assaulted. No, it is not to be construed in any way to justify the illegal actions of the rock throwers. But, IN MY LOWLY OPINION, it does remove the "victim" status of the film crew. Nothing in anything I have ever said, here or anywhere else, is to be construed in any manner that would assume you have to agree with anything I've said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rachelness Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 I might have thrown a rock at them too. They were not helping the Atheist "cause" any. Go to England and write "F--- the Queen" on the side of your car and see what happens. Doubt anyone would care tbh. Anyway, that was hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 I might have thrown a rock at them too. They were not helping the Atheist "cause" any. Go to England and write "F--- the Queen" on the side of your car and see what happens. Doubt anyone would care tbh. Anyway, that was hilarious. Well.... it's true that the British are a bit more advanced than our "bible belt" hicks. It's a different world down there. I spent 9 months in the South and that was way too long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trancelation Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 Dave: Does it have to? Is a guy purposely stepping into the path of a bus a "victim" of an accident? A guy getting hit by a bus by purposefully stepping into its path is most certainly a victim of getting hit by a bus. Whether accidental or intentional, the definition of a "victim" is one that has befallen such a situation. And besides that, despite the behavior of the Top Gear crew, I sincerely doubt they were hoping to get rocks thrown at themselves. They sure as hell never made it clear that they WANTED to get rocks thrown at them. So by your own definition, since they were not outright trying to get rocks thrown at themselves, they were victims of rockthrowing. And I apologized for not stating the obvious. You wasted no time in stating that people who look for trouble get what they ask for. And that's pretty obvious. Yet you've not apologized for stating the obvious, either. So I suppose that makes you a hypocrite, Dave. No insult intended. If you feel insulted, grow some fucking balls, man. The only dead horse being beaten here is the idea that it really matters what I, or anyone else, has to say about it. Is it so horrible that I disagree with some of those here? Depends on how you look at it, I guess. I'm just getting a serious kick out of the fact that you are SOOOO sensitive, yet you display this philosophy of Blame The Victim. In truth, the only reason I'm still replying to this thread at all is that I know that you will continue to act like a fundy in your responses. And that makes me laugh. So please, Dave, keep responding. Maybe one of these days you'll live up to that logo that is your avatar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 Dave: Does it have to? Is a guy purposely stepping into the path of a bus a "victim" of an accident? A guy getting hit by a bus by purposefully stepping into its path is most certainly a victim of getting hit by a bus. Then we are using the same word but with different definitions and it doesn't seem that you'll be able to accept that so I'll move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Japedo Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Tomorrow I'm going to walk down the streets of Shanghai wearing a t-shirt that says "Long live the Japanese Empire! The rape of Nanking is a myth!" spelled out in chinese and see what happens. Here in China, if you do something stupid and pay the consequences, no one pities you. For all of you here who are implying the victim deserves no blame in this case, don't forget to send flowers to my funeral. Good luck with that, I didn't realize in Shanghai you were protected under the first amendment of the US Constitution, such as the victims were in Alabama. Ya learn something new everyday I guess. Having generic messages (which were much milder then many bumper stickers) on one's car doesn't fall under the category of "Doing something stupid". Perhaps you think its justified to stone people and their property who advertise their disgust for NASCAR, and their support for Hillary. I'm thankful I'm not in your country if this is just and fairness, seems like a few steps ahead of the dark ages then the Taliban to me. I'm wondering if you believe all the millions of people who have Impeach W, or a W with a line thru it as bumper stickers should be hung or stoned if they happen to reside in a red state? They dare advertise their distain for the current Whitehouse occupants, off with their heads ??? Should they be beatin to a pulp, In Jail??? I dunno, Perhaps Bumper stickers should come with warning labels? Sound stupid? It's about How far you'd have to be willing to go to justify the attackers in this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramen666 Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Bravo Japedo you did a fine post that basically sums this all up in one post. It was on there car not anyone elses they did not vandalize anyone in any shape or form. They didn't even speak to the people at the gas station at first. I don't even know why this is being debated at all this is stupid. The people should have not have had violence used against them end of point. The "jerks" did not pick the fight the other people did and were acting like idiots. Use violence if you don't disagree with a point of view/ or even a joke. Who is the lesser people the ones who had the writing or the ones that reacted? Why is this being debated again? I finally realize why is this even a debate Dave? You are making a fight when it shouldn't be at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Why is this being debated again? I finally realize why is this even a debate Dave? You are making a fight when it shouldn't be at all. Who's fighting? I disagree. Is that such a big fucking deal that everyone has to get all prissy about it? Are we not allowed to disagree around here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Japedo Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Who's fighting? I disagree. Is that such a big fucking deal that everyone has to get all prissy about it? Are we not allowed to disagree around here? Well Dave to use your own measure of justice: You're not a victim, you've brought this on yourself, take your verbal stones you've asked for and deal with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trancelation Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Dave: Just one thing; of course we're all allowed to disagree. What you're getting called out on is the fact that you can't provide evidence to back up your claim. Y'know . . . just like a fundy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbie Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 I honestly did not see that reaction coming at all. I never knew they would really attack....wow....I am in shock. (not really) but its disturbing. Uh.... you go into the lion enclosure in a zoo and start waving at the lions; what do you think would happen? Of course those people were going to get upset, wouldn't you if some stranger showed up and purposely insulted you? And before everyone gets their knickers in a knot, both sides were wrong - in my opinion. These guys purposely went in with the full intent of insulting strangers for the sole purpose of stirring up trouble. They got exactly what they asked for. They acted like jerks and got treated as they deserved. The locals were wrong too; they should have just ignored the fools instead of taking the bait. I completely disagree. Even if it as not their intention, it is perfectly right that they expressed opinions in favour of gay couples etc. In fact, those that disagreed deserved to be insulted because they are hateful, bigoted, stupid bastards with about as much intelligence as a pile of shit. Ignorant fuckers need to me brought into the real world. If tje bible-bashing cunts don't like the fact then oh well, I don''t care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin webmdave Posted February 25, 2007 Author Admin Share Posted February 25, 2007 Who's fighting? I disagree. Is that such a big fucking deal that everyone has to get all prissy about it? Are we not allowed to disagree around here? Well Dave to use your own measure of justice: You're not a victim, you've brought this on yourself, take your verbal stones you've asked for and deal with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts