The Wall

[little2add]

 

[Ash Wednesday]

5 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said:

It wasn't an insinuation. They asked why they couldnt come kill me for no reason.

And if we want to pretend death threats and my tone (which is almost entirely your imagination it would seem) are on the same level... thats so flooping flooped up I am not sure where to start.

How many times have I had to explain that I viewed it as a rhetorical question and NOT an actual death threat? If you keep accusing me of condoning death threats -- when I do not -- then you don't need to decide whether you want to come back, I'll make that decision for you. 

[GreenScapularedHuman]

12 minutes ago, Ash Wednesday said:

How many times have I had to explain that I viewed it as a rhetorical question and NOT an actual death threat? If you keep accusing me of condoning death threats -- when I do not -- then you don't need to decide whether you want to come back, I'll make that decision for you. 

I see... but saying I support rape and murder is okay?

If you want to ban me go ahead... its extremely wrong and you should know that it is extremely wrong. Also extremely unwarranted.

Aside from telling me you dislike me disagreeing with your 'personal opinion' and having a 'tone'... Showed me how fair and equal you were on this matter.

 

Accuse GreenScalpularHuman of condoning murder and rape! Ostensibly threaten to kill him! Okie dokie.

Say I condoned someone ostensibly threatening to kill GreenScapularedHuman? BAN BAN BAN BAN BAN!

I mean good sweet merciful Jesus do you hear yourself? Are you this tone deaf?


I really and truly get you for some reason don't think it was a death threat, despite the fact that if it was uttered even in same context to a cop that would of resulted in an arrest on the spot... or that even if it was written in a letter to the President that you would get at least a visit from the feds/cops..

I mean do you watch/read the news? Teens and other stupid adults go to jail and before judges on a lot less a lot. From quoting rap songs to making off-handed dumb jokes. The US' new 'terroristic threat' doctrine is pretty broad and pretty aggressive.

Being hypothetical, a joke, political speech, or anything like that doesn't change its nature..

Thats fact... thats law...

In fact... the fact that there was a political aim behind it with a political goal behind it... even with the poster saying that they felt all things to ending abortion are secondary... would play strongly into the state's theory that it was a terroristic threat. Since the courts have found that the intention of the maker and not even the receiver's belief that the actual threat be carried out matters.... what DOES matter is there was some intent and/or effect  cause discomfort and/or distress in a manner that was likely to cause undue and unreasonable alarm.

Meaning that under US law if someone called into your job and said that they hope someone doesn't blow the place up. It could of been meant as a joke. It could of meant as a small emotional outburst with no intention of follow-through. It could be argued that the person didn't even threaten it and in fact said they hoped it not happen. Under current standards of terroristic threat just the fact that there was some intent and/or effect to cause discomfort and/or distress makes it a terroristic threat moreover if there was some goal in mind (not that a goal is needed).

So... while you may disagree with US law... disagree with how unreasonable it was... threaten to ban me because you dislike people representing your opinions in ways that you don't very like... but this is BS...

I can tell you are looking for a reason to ban me so stop the higher/better/rationalizing BS... if you are going to do wrong then do wrong. I'm not going to be bullied by someone who wants me to say that shouting murder and rape and a death threat is acceptable. Because it is not. I also don't want to be somewhere where I will be tone policed....

SO if you are going to do it... do it... because it sounds like you already made your decision days ago.

And just so we note... I didn't even bring you into this discussion you sought it out, despite me not naming you, to come in and make an argument. And banning me won't change the quality or factualness of any of my statements. It will also further prove how groupthink, isolated, and insulated phatmass is.

I would like to think that you dislike someone characterizing your innocent or benign opinion as condoning a death threat... I can get that... and I can even respect that... Though it mystifies me that you don't get how I would be offended by someone characterizing me as supporting rape and murder.

Also I find it even stranger that you have decided that I cannot even express my own opinion on this matter...

I would like to think if you calm down and think through this... na... you already want to ban me.... too bad too... I kinda liked the discussions... but I will do you a favor... if you want me to go... or if another Mediator of Meh wants me to go... I will just go and not come back.

I will try to cooperate with and be considerate of other posters here, yes. I will try to cooperate with moderation, yes. But I cannot in good conscience tolerate the wrong of what happened... I would like to think religiously minded persons are more willing and able to understand that... maybe not. We will see. I will watch for a reply.

[Ash Wednesday]

9 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said:

I see... but saying I support rape and murder is okay?

If you want to ban me go ahead... its extremely wrong and you should know that it is extremely wrong. Also extremely unwarranted.

Aside from telling me you dislike me disagreeing with your 'personal opinion' and having a 'tone'... Showed me how fair and equal you were on this matter.

 

Accuse GreenScalpularHuman of condoning murder and rape! Ostensibly threaten to kill him! Okie dokie.

Say I condoned someone ostensibly threatening to kill GreenScapularedHuman? BAN BAN BAN BAN BAN!

I mean good sweet merciful Jesus do you hear yourself? Are you this tone deaf?


I really and truly get you for some reason don't think it was a death threat, despite the fact that if it was uttered even in same context to a cop that would of resulted in an arrest on the spot... or that even if it was written in a letter to the President that you would get at least a visit from the feds/cops..

I mean do you watch/read the news? Teens and other stupid adults go to jail and before judges on a lot less a lot. From quoting rap songs to making off-handed dumb jokes. The US' new 'terroristic threat' doctrine is pretty broad and pretty aggressive.

Being hypothetical, a joke, political speech, or anything like that doesn't change its nature..

Thats fact... thats law...

In fact... the fact that there was a political aim behind it with a political goal behind it... even with the poster saying that they felt all things to ending abortion are secondary... would play strongly into the state's theory that it was a terroristic threat. Since the courts have found that the intention of the maker and not even the receiver's belief that the actual threat be carried out matters.... what DOES matter is there was some intent and/or effect  cause discomfort and/or distress in a manner that was likely to cause undue and unreasonable alarm.

Meaning that under US law if someone called into your job and said that they hope someone doesn't blow the place up. It could of been meant as a joke. It could of meant as a small emotional outburst with no intention of follow-through. It could be argued that the person didn't even threaten it and in fact said they hoped it not happen. Under current standards of terroristic threat just the fact that there was some intent and/or effect to cause discomfort and/or distress makes it a terroristic threat moreover if there was some goal in mind (not that a goal is needed).

So... while you may disagree with US law... disagree with how unreasonable it was... threaten to ban me because you dislike people representing your opinions in ways that you don't very like... but this is BS...

I can tell you are looking for a reason to ban me so stop the higher/better/rationalizing BS... if you are going to do wrong then do wrong. I'm not going to be bullied by someone who wants me to say that shouting murder and rape and a death threat is acceptable. Because it is not. I also don't want to be somewhere where I will be tone policed....

SO if you are going to do it... do it... because it sounds like you already made your decision days ago.

And just so we note... I didn't even bring you into this discussion you sought it out, despite me not naming you, to come in and make an argument. And banning me won't change the quality or factualness of any of my statements. It will also further prove how groupthink, isolated, and insulated phatmass is.

I would like to think that you dislike someone characterizing your innocent or benign opinion as condoning a death threat... I can get that... and I can even respect that... Though it mystifies me that you don't get how I would be offended by someone characterizing me as supporting rape and murder.

Also I find it even stranger that you have decided that I cannot even express my own opinion on this matter...

I would like to think if you calm down and think through this... na... you already want to ban me.... too bad too... I kinda liked the discussions... but I will do you a favor... if you want me to go... or if another Mediator of Meh wants me to go... I will just go and not come back.

I will try to cooperate with and be considerate of other posters here, yes. I will try to cooperate with moderation, yes. But I cannot in good conscience tolerate the wrong of what happened... I would like to think religiously minded persons are more willing and able to understand that... maybe not. We will see. I will watch for a reply.

I no longer live in the U.S. and haven't lived there for over 10 years. But when I did, I never ever heard of anyone being arrested for asking a rhetorical question in a debate like that. I can't imagine anyone being arrested for it in the U.K. where I live. I don't know of anyone else on here who, living stateside and having their own interpretation of law, believes that you were threatened. I have not seen anyone else report anything to me. I don't think we are ever going to reach an agreement about this -- so beyond this we are just going to be beating a dead horse. Again I suggest you mute or ignore anyone you feel is being threatening. 

Where did I ever say I failed to see why you were offended by the insinuation that you supported rape and murder? Of course I understand that. You felt that it was an attack on your character and I fully understand that. By all means, I would like you to stay. Your differences in opinion or even beliefs are not an issue. But if you keep leveling the accusation repeatedly against me that I condone death threats in every thread and attack my character by doing so -- that is what I consider abusive behavior. I am not fussed about the uncharitable things people say in the heat of a debate here and there, but I will not tolerate that kind of repeated attack in every thread, with you bringing it up and throwing it at me every time I'm trying to make a point. I will take issue with this if it becomes a repeated accusation.

What's more, the tangents you are going on are starting to derail threads and taking things off topic by bringing these things up, when I considered the thread in question and matter closed, and you should at this point as well. 

[GreenScapularedHuman]

14 hours ago, Ash Wednesday said:

I no longer live in the U.S. and haven't lived there for over 10 years. But when I did, I never ever heard of anyone being arrested for asking a rhetorical question in a debate like that. I can't imagine anyone being arrested for it in the U.K. where I live. I don't know of anyone else on here who, living stateside and having their own interpretation of law, believes that you were threatened. I have not seen anyone else report anything to me. I don't think we are ever going to reach an agreement about this -- so beyond this we are just going to be beating a dead horse. Again I suggest you mute or ignore anyone you feel is being threatening. 

Where did I ever say I failed to see why you were offended by the insinuation that you supported rape and murder? Of course I understand that. You felt that it was an attack on your character and I fully understand that. By all means, I would like you to stay. Your differences in opinion or even beliefs are not an issue. But if you keep leveling the accusation repeatedly against me that I condone death threats in every thread and attack my character by doing so -- that is what I consider abusive behavior. I am not fussed about the uncharitable things people say in the heat of a debate here and there, but I will not tolerate that kind of repeated attack in every thread, with you bringing it up and throwing it at me every time I'm trying to make a point. I will take issue with this if it becomes a repeated accusation.

What's more, the tangents you are going on are starting to derail threads and taking things off topic by bringing these things up, when I considered the thread in question and matter closed, and you should at this point as well. 

Since you were the one who decided to re-litigate this... it is kinda amusing you accuse me of going on a tangent. Considering I have attempted to at least keep the subject remotely related to the wall proposal by Trump, including immigration issues, the excessive focus on my alleged tone and/or person is not by me nor is it even welcome by me (in fact this is your only contribution to this thread and the other threat). I have reported your post since you seem to take abusing your moderation powers in one way or another, finding flimsy justifications, and otherwise.

But I will move on... I also find it ironic that in your 'this is off topic' you gave me 322 words continuing to argue said point... a point that you could of just left alone. I mentioned references to multiple many other encounters with many other users, almost none by name (moreover you), and multiple other threads. You are quite simply just abusing your Mediator of Meh powers and status, including threatening to ban me, because you dislike and disagree with me. I wrote what I thought of that above.

Since this seems to be abuse of moderator powers I have reported your post. I am ready, willing, and wanting to return to the actual discussion... or allow the thread to return to the actual topic... soon as possible. And have not delineated from that significantly except to respond to you who threatened to ban me.

Looking up the legal standard for the UK... the law states "The defendant does not have to have the intention to kill but there has to be an intent that the person to whom the threat has been issued would fear it would be carried out." That fear only has to be fear based on the person on the receiving end and does not have to be by a reasonable observer. Therego yes under UK law it would still be a threat... https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-incorporating-charging-standard

Edited July 10, 2018 by GreenScapularedHuman

[linate]

coming from another liberal outcast, i think said comment was just provocative at worst.... you'd have to read into it to say it was a threat. it's possible it was a veiled threat, but you have to read too much into it to think that.  i think you could draw analogies to something like "that's a nice body you have... it'd be a shame if someone killed it", but i dont think they are strong enough to make it a strong enough comparison. there's a continuum to what it's comparable to, and i think most of us just don't view it as serious enough to call it a threat. 

Edited July 10, 2018 by linate

[GreenScapularedHuman]

2 minutes ago, linate said:

coming from another liberal outcast, i think said comment was just provocative at worst.... you'd have to read into it to say it was a threat. it's possible it was a veiled threat, but you have to read too much into it to think that. 

It is a typical online and bit radical line of argument used by anti-abortion proponents. It basically goes like this "I say abortion is murder of innocent people. If you think that is okay why can't I murder you then?" Its illogical for a lot of reasons including that it is a loaded question and begs the question. Starts with an unsubstantiated premise including that the other person finds abortion 'okay' when views on the legality of abortion is a lot more complex. It is also obviously an appeal to emotion... the appeal to emotion is where the threat is. It invites the listener to consider a threat to their own life by the speaker. That is by definition a threat. The reason why you don't see this done in public... its almost exclusively online.

Now while I have virtually no doubt that the little bigoted poo who wrote it had no intention or ability to really carry it out, and under the older 'true threat doctrine' for the United States would not be a threat at least under the law, it obviously had the intention to cause emotional distress and to be manipulative... which is sufficient under the new 'terroristic threat doctrine'.

The defense of this threat really falls into a very simple issue...

Either people don't agree with or do not understand the legal standard... or more likely here people do not want to concede that a favorite anti-abortion argument is extremely illogical and a threat.



But to get the topic at least ostensibly on topic I actually decided to pull up some biblical verses relating to the treatment of immigrants.

“There shall be one law for the native and for the alien who resides among you.” Exodus 12:49

“You shall not wrong or oppress a resident alien; for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.” Exodus 22:21

"When the alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.” Leviticus 19:33-34

“You shall not deprive a resident alien of justice.” Deuteronomy 24:17-18

“Cursed be anyone who deprives the alien of justice.” Deuteronomy 27:19

"You are to allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the foreigners residing among you and who have children. You are to consider them as native-born Israelites; along with you they are to be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel." Ezekiel 47:22

“So I will come to put you on trial. I will be quick to testify against against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and deprive the foreigners among you of justice, ” says the Lord Almighty." Malachi 3:5

"Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it." Hebrews 13:2

Just a few... more can be procured.

[Ash Wednesday]

30 minutes ago, GreenScapularedHuman said:

Since you were the one who decided to re-litigate this... it is kinda amusing you accuse me of going on a tangent. Considering I have attempted to at least keep the subject remotely related to the wall proposal by Trump, including immigration issues, the excessive focus on my alleged tone and/or person is not by me nor is it even welcome by me (in fact this is your only contribution to this thread and the other threat). I have reported your post since you seem to take abusing your moderation powers in one way or another, finding flimsy justifications, and otherwise.

But I will move on... I also find it ironic that in your 'this is off topic' you gave me 322 words continuing to argue said point... a point that you could of just left alone. I mentioned references to multiple many other encounters with many other users, almost none by name (moreover you), and multiple other threads. You are quite simply just abusing your Mediator of Meh powers and status, including threatening to ban me, because you dislike and disagree with me. I wrote what I thought of that above.

Since this seems to be abuse of moderator powers I have reported your post. I am ready, willing, and wanting to return to the actual discussion... or allow the thread to return to the actual topic... soon as possible. And have not delineated from that significantly except to respond to you who threatened to ban me.

Looking up the legal standard for the UK... the law states "The defendant does not have to have the intention to kill but there has to be an intent that the person to whom the threat has been issued would fear it would be carried out." That fear only has to be fear based on the person on the receiving end and does not have to be by a reasonable observer. Therego yes under UK law it would still be a threat... https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-incorporating-charging-standard

You're free to report me, I really don't care.  I didn't threaten to ban you because I "dislike" you. You are making this needlessly personal. I threatened to ban you because of your continued attacks on my character. And your refusal to even acknowledge that speaks volumes.

Your overall hostility and insults that you're throwing around like "little bigoted poo"  are disturbing the peace of these boards and I am not going to tolerate it any longer. 

Anyway.

 

No, I do not believe they will build a wall. It is not feasible.

 

[GreenScapularedHuman]

8 minutes ago, Ash Wednesday said:

You're (filtered) to report me, I really don't care.  I didn't threaten to ban you because I "dislike" you. You are making this needlessly personal. I threatened to ban you because of your continued attacks on my character. And your refusal to even acknowledge that speaks volumes.

Your overall hostility and insults that you're throwing around like "little bigoted poo"  are disturbing the peace of these boards and I am not going to tolerate it any longer. 

Anyway.

 

No, I do not believe they will build a wall. It is not feasible.

 

Name one time I personally attacked your character?

Quote it please.

And okay... all personal attacks on me will be reported now... since you find it high priority to do so.

And if you want to warn or ban me I already said go ahead. It doesn't change the fact that shouting rape and murder in the characterization of my argument is exactly what you are allegedly upset about now... and yet you did absolutely nothing then... and yet you are now... that is called hypocrisy.

[linate]

10 minutes ago, GreenScapularedHuman said:

It is a typical online and bit radical line of argument used by anti-abortion proponents. It basically goes like this "I say abortion is murder of innocent people. If you think that is okay why can't I murder you then?" Its illogical for a lot of reasons including that it is a loaded question and begs the question. Starts with an unsubstantiated premise including that the other person finds abortion 'okay' when views on the legality of abortion is a lot more complex. It is also obviously an appeal to emotion... the appeal to emotion is where the threat is. It invites the listener to consider a threat to their own life by the speaker. That is by definition a threat. The reason why you don't see this done in public... its almost exclusively online.

Now while I have virtually no doubt that the little bigoted poo who wrote it had no intention or ability to really carry it out, and under the older 'true threat doctrine' for the United States would not be a threat at least under the law, it obviously had the intention to cause emotional distress and to be manipulative... which is sufficient under the new 'terroristic threat doctrine'.

The defense of this threat really falls into a very simple issue...

Either people don't agree with or do not understand the legal standard... or more likely here people do not want to concede that a favorite anti-abortion argument is extremely illogical and a threat.



But to get the topic at least ostensibly on topic I actually decided to pull up some biblical verses relating to the treatment of immigrants.

“There shall be one law for the native and for the alien who resides among you.” Exodus 12:49

“You shall not wrong or oppress a resident alien; for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.” Exodus 22:21

"When the alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.” Leviticus 19:33-34

“You shall not deprive a resident alien of justice.” Deuteronomy 24:17-18

“Cursed be anyone who deprives the alien of justice.” Deuteronomy 27:19

"You are to allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the foreigners residing among you and who have children. You are to consider them as native-born Israelites; along with you they are to be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel." Ezekiel 47:22

“So I will come to put you on trial. I will be quick to testify against against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and deprive the foreigners among you of justice, ” says the Lord Almighty." Malachi 3:5

"Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it." Hebrews 13:2

Just a few... more can be procured.

what do you think should be done with illegal aliens? undocumented? i used to say get rid of em cause they are dragging down wages, but then i realized it's not feasible to get rid of em. in the end we get rid of less than come here per year, and in the mean time, for practical purposes, they are dragging down the wages for everyone else. that's why i say give them limited legal status with a minimum wage required. 

i also think we should build a wall.... which i never would have thought i'd have supported being pretty liberal myself, but now i do. i think it's as simple as if you have a barrier less people will just walk over, and if you don't have a barrier, more people will walk over. i know there's things to be said about ladders and tunnels, but that's easier to manage than an open border. i mean, we already have a legal wall anyway, which i assume most liberals agree with (as do you?)..... so why not just make it physical too? it's not a proud moment when we're building walls, and it's almost like a defeat or something. but i dont see any other way.  i see you are strongly against the wall, so take it however you will. i'm all open to alternatives, i just dont see the democrats coming up with effective ones. 

edit: actually i was reading about the idea of not building a wall, but just cracking down on employers who hire illegals. for effective purposes, that stops the problem at the source, indirectly. that might be a good enough alternative, i'd have to think about it. 

[Ash Wednesday]

9 minutes ago, GreenScapularedHuman said:

Name one time I personally attacked your character?

Quote it please.

I have already explained this to you quite clearly and we are not continuing this discussion outside of what's on topic further. 

[Anomaly]

Ash, 

You’re being trolled, now. 

Only little2ad cares to engage with gsh for any length of time.   It’s what the web is now. 

[Ash Wednesday]

36 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

Ash, 

You’re being trolled, now. 

Only little2ad cares to engage with gsh for any length of time.   It’s what the web is now. 

It's fine. The off topic tangent in question is finished as far as I'm concerned, and I will make sure it's finished. People are free to bluster about Trump and immigration all they want. Have fun with that.

 

[Ash Wednesday]

Please do not attack and engage. It won't do any good.

Back on topic everyone, please. 

[Seven77]

To get back on topic, I think the Trump supporters should be more vocal about this issue and denouncing  Trump's policy. (I'm talking specifically about separating children, especially those who arrive here with their parents.)

 To say that Obama did it too is a red herring. It seems that those children were already separated for the most part… And even if it is the same as what is happening now, both situations are just as bad. Trump supporters, while condemning abortion--- obviously the right thing to do---- did not condemn Obama's immigration policies which were unjust.  Yes, it's great that Trump is against abortion, but if you voted for him, you have the obligation to call him out on immigration without turning a blind eye to it. Plus, if one is willing to fill Obama under the bus for immigration (as some people are doing all of a sudden to excuse what Trump is doing with immigration), throw Trump under the bus for it too. 

 I believe that if those who are vocal about condemning abortion are also vocal about condemning unjust immigration policies which, granted may not have the same amount of gravity, we will make serious inroads in changing popular opinion about abortion and the other life issues.  People will make connections when they understand that we also condemn other things that jeopardize human dignity--- they will begin to see that abortion too,  jeopardizes human dignity.