4 ms·

The difference between words and physical action only becomes apparent at the point fist connects with face, with is rather too late if you want to avoid being

by makomk 10y ago

The difference between words and physical action only becomes apparent at the point fist connects with face, with is rather too late if you want to avoid being beaten up. This makes the mere threat of violence a very effective weapon. Look up the legal definition of "assault" sometime.

PKop 10y ago
Again, you can tell me till you're blue in the face that "debate of ideas, argument, and discussion", or "having you own opinion on an issue, that isn't popular or that offends" are some how equal to inciting violence, or threatening physical assault... but I won't accept it. Ever. People are not buying this.. they are rejecting it soundly because accepting this premise gives tacit approval to regulate speech, something American culture will never accept, or should never accept in my opinion. Liberals are willingly accepting this in many places, such as college campuses for example, where it seems harder and harder to avoid the safe space mandate to follow approved groupthink. I'm not talking about banning free association for those groups that most desire the safe spaces. I'm saying.. those groups, or anyone shouldn't be allowed to deem the entire University (or other shared space) their private safe space and bar others from exercising their rights to free speech and free association. If the left doubles down with this nonsense, they will push people further away.
throwanem 10y ago
I did: [1] > The act required for an assault must be overt. Although words alone are insufficient, they might create an assault when coupled with some action that indicates the ability to carry out the threat. Granted that that's not the definition in actual use everywhere - but, in that case, you need to specify which jurisdiction's code you're citing, because there is no general coverage of assault in the United States code, but only a few specific cases, mostly related to assault against federal officers and officials in the performance of their duties. [1] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault

by makomk 10y ago

PKop 10y ago

Again, you can tell me till you're blue in the face that "debate of ideas, argument, and discussion", or "having you own opinion on an issue, that isn't popular or that offends" are some how equal to inciting violence, or threatening physical assault... but I won't accept it. Ever. People are not buying this.. they are rejecting it soundly because accepting this premise gives tacit approval to regulate speech, something American culture will never accept, or should never accept in my opinion. Liberals are willingly accepting this in many places, such as college campuses for example, where it seems harder and harder to avoid the safe space mandate to follow approved groupthink. I'm not talking about banning free association for those groups that most desire the safe spaces. I'm saying.. those groups, or anyone shouldn't be allowed to deem the entire University (or other shared space) their private safe space and bar others from exercising their rights to free speech and free association. If the left doubles down with this nonsense, they will push people further away.

throwanem 10y ago

I did: [1] > The act required for an assault must be overt. Although words alone are insufficient, they might create an assault when coupled with some action that indicates the ability to carry out the threat. Granted that that's not the definition in actual use everywhere - but, in that case, you need to specify which jurisdiction's code you're citing, because there is no general coverage of assault in the United States code, but only a few specific cases, mostly related to assault against federal officers and officials in the performance of their duties. [1] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault