3 ms·

I don't think we can have a productive conversation. I told you what I meant, quoted what I was responding to, and linked it. You seem to be insistent on inte

I don't think we can have a productive conversation. I told you what I meant, quoted what I was responding to, and linked it. You seem to be insistent on intentionally misunderstanding or splitting hairs so you can invent some way my comment was wrong ("It wasn't a parent comment! It was a parent of a parent..."). Gaslighting and intentionally misunderstanding strike me as trolling behaviors.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> I told you what I meant, quoted what I was responding to, and linked it. And its not a post by the person who you were accusing, but by someone else, far upthread, whose position the person you are attacking never endorsed. If you want to criticize the person who advocated summary execution for doing so, fine. But its ludicrous to attack someone who explicitly advocated arrest, trial and punishment based on criminal conviction for “gaslighting” for merely saying in a later comment that they were advocating exactly what they advocated earlier in the discussion, and not what someone else had advocated.
- ALittleLight 6y ago
  The penalty for trespassing in the Capitol is not and never has been death. Calling trespass and vandalism treason and sedition and saying that these minor crimes merit the death penalty is egregiously immoral and dishonest. "Summary execution" refers, not only, to police shooting protesters on sight, but also to sham trials with extreme and unlawful sentences. I am criticizing the people who called for summary execution. It's immoral and unlawful.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    > "Summary execution" refers, not only, to police shooting protesters on sight, but also to sham trials with extreme and unlawful sentences. There is an extreme version of a sham trial that could possibly qualify, but they were calling for a normal trial. They were very clearly not calling for summary execution with the phrase "arrested, tried, and if convicted" It doesn't matter if the punishment fits the crime either. If I say convicted jaywalkers should get the death penalty, I am not calling for summary execution. It doesn't matter if I accuse them of the wrong crime either.
    - kortilla 6y ago
      There was no “if convicted”
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > There was no “if convicted” Yes, there was and is: “Everyone identified and involved in this should be arrested, tried, and if convicted executed” https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25661918 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25661918 To which you responded: “You are calling for murder, that’s not appropriate on this forum.” https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25661942 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25661942 Why lie about something so easy to verify?
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > The penalty for trespassing in the Capitol is not and never has been death. “Trespassing in the Capitol” is hardly the only offense committed here, and while it may be the fact that none of them are capital offenses (I don’t actually think they are), its not unreasonable for someone who has a layman's familiarity with the general principles of criminal law in the US but not the specific mess that is the federal criminal code to that felony murder rule along with participation as a principal in an inherently violent group felony which did, in fact, result in deaths would make the principals guilty of first-degree murder. > Calling trespass and vandalism treason and sedition and saying that these minor crimes merit the death penalty is egregiously immoral and dishonest. The acts clearly aren’t treason, but they equally clearly are seditious conspiracy (18 USC Sec. 2384; in relevant part: “If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire […] by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.”) So, no, its neither “egregiously immoral” nor “dishonest” to call them sedition. Even if one ignores that they are a seditious conspiracy (which one should not), the federal crimes are not minor, and include, among others: Assaulting or impeding federal officers (18 USC Sec. 111) Conspiracy to impede or injure an officer of the United States (18 USC Sec. 372: “If two or more persons in any State, Territory, Possession, or District conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave the place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six years, or both.”) Theft of federal property (18 USC Sec. 641) Interstate travel for purposes of riot (18 USC Sec. 2101) Intrusion on buildings or grounds restricted because of the presence of Secret Service protected persons (18 USC 1752, in relevant part: “(a)Whoever— (1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so; [or] (2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions; […] or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). […] (c) In this section— (1)the term “restricted buildings or grounds” means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area— […] (B)of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting”)
  - rorykoehler 6y ago
    I’d just like to clarify something seeing as your reading comprehension is atrocious. I asked why they weren’t shot. I never advocated for it I am merely pointing out the inconsistency in response. There is no doubt in my mind that if these were BLM protestors they would have be fired on with rubber bullets and possibly even live rounds. That is all. I purposefully reserved my own opinion on whether this is desirable or not as it is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> I told you what I meant, quoted what I was responding to, and linked it. And its not a post by the person who you were accusing, but by someone else, far upthread, whose position the person you are attacking never endorsed. If you want to criticize the person who advocated summary execution for doing so, fine. But its ludicrous to attack someone who explicitly advocated arrest, trial and punishment based on criminal conviction for “gaslighting” for merely saying in a later comment that they were advocating exactly what they advocated earlier in the discussion, and not what someone else had advocated.

ALittleLight 6y ago
The penalty for trespassing in the Capitol is not and never has been death. Calling trespass and vandalism treason and sedition and saying that these minor crimes merit the death penalty is egregiously immoral and dishonest. "Summary execution" refers, not only, to police shooting protesters on sight, but also to sham trials with extreme and unlawful sentences. I am criticizing the people who called for summary execution. It's immoral and unlawful.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  > "Summary execution" refers, not only, to police shooting protesters on sight, but also to sham trials with extreme and unlawful sentences. There is an extreme version of a sham trial that could possibly qualify, but they were calling for a normal trial. They were very clearly not calling for summary execution with the phrase "arrested, tried, and if convicted" It doesn't matter if the punishment fits the crime either. If I say convicted jaywalkers should get the death penalty, I am not calling for summary execution. It doesn't matter if I accuse them of the wrong crime either.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    There was no “if convicted”
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > There was no “if convicted” Yes, there was and is: “Everyone identified and involved in this should be arrested, tried, and if convicted executed” https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25661918 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25661918 To which you responded: “You are calling for murder, that’s not appropriate on this forum.” https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25661942 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25661942 Why lie about something so easy to verify?
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > The penalty for trespassing in the Capitol is not and never has been death. “Trespassing in the Capitol” is hardly the only offense committed here, and while it may be the fact that none of them are capital offenses (I don’t actually think they are), its not unreasonable for someone who has a layman's familiarity with the general principles of criminal law in the US but not the specific mess that is the federal criminal code to that felony murder rule along with participation as a principal in an inherently violent group felony which did, in fact, result in deaths would make the principals guilty of first-degree murder. > Calling trespass and vandalism treason and sedition and saying that these minor crimes merit the death penalty is egregiously immoral and dishonest. The acts clearly aren’t treason, but they equally clearly are seditious conspiracy (18 USC Sec. 2384; in relevant part: “If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire […] by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.”) So, no, its neither “egregiously immoral” nor “dishonest” to call them sedition. Even if one ignores that they are a seditious conspiracy (which one should not), the federal crimes are not minor, and include, among others: Assaulting or impeding federal officers (18 USC Sec. 111) Conspiracy to impede or injure an officer of the United States (18 USC Sec. 372: “If two or more persons in any State, Territory, Possession, or District conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave the place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six years, or both.”) Theft of federal property (18 USC Sec. 641) Interstate travel for purposes of riot (18 USC Sec. 2101) Intrusion on buildings or grounds restricted because of the presence of Secret Service protected persons (18 USC 1752, in relevant part: “(a)Whoever— (1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so; [or] (2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions; […] or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). […] (c) In this section— (1)the term “restricted buildings or grounds” means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area— […] (B)of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting”)
- rorykoehler 6y ago
  I’d just like to clarify something seeing as your reading comprehension is atrocious. I asked why they weren’t shot. I never advocated for it I am merely pointing out the inconsistency in response. There is no doubt in my mind that if these were BLM protestors they would have be fired on with rubber bullets and possibly even live rounds. That is all. I purposefully reserved my own opinion on whether this is desirable or not as it is irrelevant to the topic at hand.