Yakuda Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 15 minutes ago, Hodad said: Great. Now look up the definition of "force" which ALSO does not have to be physical. Jeebus. As expected, you clearly will choose to die on the stupid hill. The definition YOU posted contradicted your argument, but still you persist. Talk about silliness. If your ego is too fragile to admit a mistake or gap in knowledge, that's pretty sad. Whenever normal people use the word compel they mean force. I gave example after example of people being held responsible for their own choices. To claim words can compel other people to act is asinine. You seem to know that which is why you feel compelled to attack the messenger and not the message. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodad Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 2 minutes ago, Yakuda said: Whenever normal people use the word compel they mean force. No, they don't. They understand that there is a spectrum of compulsion informed by the context. Again, I refer you to the first definition and example that YOU posted. 1. force or oblige (someone) to do something. "a sense of duty compelled Harry to answer her questions" Nobody thinks that a "sense of duty" physically forced or even explicitly threatened consequences. Quote I gave example after example of people being held responsible for their own choices. To claim words can compel other people to act is asinine. You seem to know that which is why you feel compelled to attack the messenger and not the message. Post after post, you dig a deeper hole. lol Read your own damn definition. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuda Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 5 minutes ago, Hodad said: No, they don't. They understand that there is a spectrum of compulsion informed by the context. Again, I refer you to the first definition and example that YOU posted. 1. force or oblige (someone) to do something. "a sense of duty compelled Harry to answer her questions" Nobody thinks that a "sense of duty" physically forced or even explicitly threatened consequences. Post after post, you dig a deeper hole. lol Read your own damn definition. Sure they do. Anger is a sign of losing control. Fact is if even drunk people are responsible for their actions then only the people who acted at the capitol on J6 are responsible for their actions, no one else not even trump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodad Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 4 minutes ago, Yakuda said: Sure they do. Anger is a sign of losing control. Fact is if even drunk people are responsible for their actions then only the people who acted at the capitol on J6 are responsible for their actions, no one else not even trump. Well, if "they" are people like you who don't know the definition and use of the word, I guess maybe they might. But the rest of the world very much understands that compelling language does not necessitate physical force or threat. Again, try reading your own definition. And you may be unaware, but legally people can indeed be liable for inciting action with compelling language. Obviously that includes things like conspiracy and insurrection, but also slander and libel and things like "fighting words" because they are understood to compel action in response. So your own personal "made-up" definition of "compel" is incompatible with common understanding, with formal definition, and with legal definition. Maybe you should write a strongly worded letter to the rest of the world. Tell 'em you'd like to render the word "compel" meaningless. Good luck with that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herbie Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 8 hours ago, Yakuda said: Yeah freedom is scary to weak minded people As so many of them confuse freedom with the "right" to be an a$$hole. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legato Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 5 minutes ago, herbie said: As so many of them confuse freedom with the "right" to be an a$$hole. I compel you to retract that statement. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 5 minutes ago, herbie said: As so many of them confuse freedom with the "right" to be an a$$hole. Seriously! I called the secretary a fat PIG and got fired! This damn Wokeness is suppressing FREE SPEECH 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffypants Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: Seriously! I called the secretary a fat PIG and got fired! This damn Wokeness is suppressing FREE SPEECH Yeah but you didn't get punished by the government for calling her a fat pig. You can say whatever you want but you can't get away from the consequences which are handled by society. There was a CFO who went to a Chik Fila and berated a drive thru worker over the Presidents views over gay marriage and he proudly uploaded this to YouTube. He probably thought he was going to be treated as a hero buuuuuuut, he went viral angered a bunch of people and they found out who he was and where he worked and called en masse and as a CFO he is a face of the company so he was terminated. Ended up losing everything and living in a trailer park because no one would hire him. Society punished him, not the government. Free speech like anything, it has good and bad and you have to decide what matters to you more. Free speech allows you to challenge the government without being arrested but it also allows people to say awful things to/about each other without being arrested. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herbie Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 oooh that awful govt.... telling us we can't incite riots, shout "Fire!" in crowded theatres or "Kill them n*ggers boys!" in public anymore. our freedumb... our lost freedumbs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 13 minutes ago, Fluffypants said: You can say whatever you want but you can't get away from the consequences which are handled by society. That was the point of a joke that I thought was obvious. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuda Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 1 hour ago, Hodad said: Well, if "they" are people like you who don't know the definition and use of the word, I guess maybe they might. But the rest of the world very much understands that compelling language does not necessitate physical force or threat. Again, try reading your own definition. And you may be unaware, but legally people can indeed be liable for inciting action with compelling language. Obviously that includes things like conspiracy and insurrection, but also slander and libel and things like "fighting words" because they are understood to compel action in response. So your own personal "made-up" definition of "compel" is incompatible with common understanding, with formal definition, and with legal definition. Maybe you should write a strongly worded letter to the rest of the world. Tell 'em you'd like to render the word "compel" meaningless. Good luck with that. We all know what compel means expect for those too weak minded to acknowledge their hatred. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuda Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 1 hour ago, herbie said: As so many of them confuse freedom with the "right" to be an a$$hole. That's the thing though there would be no need for a right to free speech if people could only say what didn't offend weak minded people. I like that some people seem to think they have a right not it be offended. Hilariously stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 On 1/10/2024 at 8:24 AM, Yakuda said: Why wasn't trump convicted of seditious conspiracy like his so called "buddies"? He has not been tried yet. SOP for the DoJ is to target the minions first and work their way up the chain with additional witnesses that flip. SOP for MOB trials to get the BOSS. On 1/10/2024 at 8:24 AM, Yakuda said: How can anyone be held responsible for the actions of others? Trump is charged with conspiracy offenses. SOP for MOB trials. Do you know what conspiracy is? Besides being ILLEGAL in the US CODE. On 1/10/2024 at 8:24 AM, Yakuda said: If I tell you to put $1 million in my bank account are you compelled to comply just because I said it? No because people are responsible for their own behavior. Plan and simple. Nothing ILLEGAL about putting $1M in your account unless I conspire with you to steal it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 On 1/10/2024 at 11:33 AM, Yakuda said: So then then claim that he incited an insurrection was just a left wing lie. No one associated with that day was convicted of insurrection or sedition and trump never will be either. Their discretion is based on the fact that what was claimed never happened. You're playing a semantic game which is BOUND TO FAIL, because you're asking questions that prove you don't understand the LAW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 On 1/10/2024 at 2:58 PM, Yakuda said: They didn't get Capone on tax evasion because it was easier they couldn't get him on anything else. How do you know ^this? Quote On June 5, 1931, Capone was indicted by a federal grand jury on 22 counts of income tax evasion from 1925 through 1929; he was released on $50,000 bail. Capone was then indicted on 5,000 violations of the Volstead Act (Prohibition laws). On 1/10/2024 at 2:58 PM, Yakuda said: That fact is alleging trump incited insurrection was an outright lie. The Co SC has ruled otherwise. Your ^opinion means nothing in that case. The correct term is "engaged in insurrection" which is not a crime, but a civil judgement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodad Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 31 minutes ago, Yakuda said: We all know what compel means expect for those too weak minded to acknowledge their hatred. Geez, we do all know what it means (now) but I was just suggesting you acknowledge the mistake. You've gone overboard. That kind of negative self-talk doesn't help anyone. It's okay to make mistakes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 10 hours ago, Yakuda said: Oh right you're one of those that thinks words compel people to action. If so then put $1 million dollars in my bank account. If the tds crowd had thr goods to charge trump with insurrection they would have done it. They don't they just the narrative, "trump incited insurrection". The narrative is a lie and the left repeated it say after day. Sounds familiar huh? Jack Smith knew that time was of the essence and an insurrection charge was much more complex and prone to delays through Trump's SOP of LENGTHY APPEALS. So he took the most expeditious route, knowing that if Trump was re-elected he could potentially order the entire case to be DROPPED. Pragmatism trumped some of the legitimate charges. And as noted, they are STILL ON THE TABLE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: 6. Googled... some wealthy racist who faced comuppance. Should I feel sorry for him ? Some people don't understand their privilege I guess. Not just any "wealthy racist," former owner of the NBA Clippers which caused a problem cause 90% of his players are black and HE caused a problem for the ENTIRE LEAGUE.. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 2 hours ago, Legato said: I compel you to retract that statement. You're going to have to use MORE COMPELLING words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 (edited) 9 minutes ago, robosmith said: You're going to have to use MORE COMPELLING words. Edited January 11 by Michael Hardner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuda Posted January 11 Report Share Posted January 11 2 hours ago, Legato said: I compel you to retract that statement. It should since you used words Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxme Posted January 12 Report Share Posted January 12 23 hours ago, Hodad said: Sounds easier. And no, he absolutely did incite the insurrection. The only reason those people marched down to storm the Capitol and hunt our legislators is because Trump told them lies for months, riled them up again that day and told them that stopping the certification was an existential crisis for the country. Partisan hacks will equivocate, but that's a fact. What words did Trump say that indicates to you that Trump told his supporters to go cause a riot and an insurrection? All Trump said was go to the capital building and peacefully demonstrate there. Rumors had it that there were some government agents in the crowd that were able to get some of the supporters to penetrate the building. Did anyone set fire in the building or vandalized anything? But we did see those two communist outfits like BLM and Antifa cause riots, vandalized and burn down buildings. Now that was indeed an insurrection. No Trump supporters were there. So, quit with your lying bs. The facts are that you just hate Trump and that is why you want to accuse him of trying to start an insurrection. I am interested to know as to why you personally hate Trump? Did Trump say something that hurt your poor lefty liberal sensitive snowflake feelings in some way? Besides all of that. You listen way too much to demoncrat loving CNN and MSNBC. Go get a real life, will you. 😁 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodad Posted January 12 Report Share Posted January 12 (edited) 1 hour ago, taxme said: What words did Trump say that indicates to you that Trump told his supporters to go cause a riot and an insurrection? All Trump said was go to the capital building and peacefully demonstrate there. Rumors had it that there were some government agents in the crowd that were able to get some of the supporters to penetrate the building. Did anyone set fire in the building or vandalized anything? But we did see those two communist outfits like BLM and Antifa cause riots, vandalized and burn down buildings. Now that was indeed an insurrection. No Trump supporters were there. So, quit with your lying bs. The facts are that you just hate Trump and that is why you want to accuse him of trying to start an insurrection. I am interested to know as to why you personally hate Trump? Did Trump say something that hurt your poor lefty liberal sensitive snowflake feelings in some way? Besides all of that. You listen way too much to demoncrat loving CNN and MSNBC. Go get a real life, will you. 😁 I suspect you know full well that's not all he told them. He did mention peaceful once at the beginning of the speech, but then he spent an hour framing the moment as an existential crisis, to fight (21ish times, iirc) and that if they didn't stop "the steal" (the vote certification) they wouldn't have a country anymore. He told them where to go, what to accomplish and that the urgency was critical and immediate. The insurrectionists interpreted that language exactly as it was intended. All while he was actually plotting to steal the election He's a traitor and a scumbag. Also happens to be guilty of the many charges he's facing. Edited January 12 by Hodad 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxme Posted January 12 Report Share Posted January 12 On 1/10/2024 at 5:53 PM, Hodad said: At this point, I think we know the old saying is not true. We see that words do hurt. They can hurt anyone, but the emotionally vulnerable are particularly at risk. And with the easy reach words have today we've seen an epidemic of young people socially bullied to death. Or you can think of Hitler and the Nazi propaganda machine dehumanized Jews and other vulnerable minorities to the point that an otherwise sane populace came to accept unbelievable atrocities. So words do matter and they certainly can hurt. The idea of a hate crime is that it has the secondary effect of terrorizing the targeted group. It's similar to the way that we think of terrorism and murder differently. Yes, they are both killing, but terrorism (like hate crimes) causes additional harm to the population outside of the direct harm to the victims. Some words may and can hurt some peoples feelings, but that is life. As long as nobody goes beyond that, then all should be okay. I have been called many nasty names in my life time, but i had to learn to suck it up. What? Do you think that we all live in a wonderful loving and caring world? Well, that ain't ever going to happen, pardner. Reality sucks, so we will just have to learn to live with it. A fact of life. My problem with hate laws is that those hate laws can be used to shut down people who may appear to be showing some kind of hate towards another, but in reality, that may not be the case. All the government has to say is that this certain organization or group are showing tendencies towards showing some kinds of hatred towards someone or something else and the government can shut them down even though there was no hatred being shown at all. Just a scenario, but the liberal party can say that the conservative party is showing some signs of hatred towards someone else or group, and the government could designate the conservative party as promoting hate, and possibly shut the conservative party down for good. Some would see hate as extreme hate, while others would say that what was said was not all that extreme. It all depends on what someone else believes is extreme. For myself, hate laws are just anti-free speech and anti democratic laws and nothing more. Just saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxme Posted January 12 Report Share Posted January 12 16 hours ago, Hodad said: I suspect you know full well that's not all he told them. He did mention peaceful once at the beginning of the speech, but then he spent an hour framing the moment as an existential crisis, to fight (21ish times, iirc) and that if they didn't stop "the steal" (the vote certification) they wouldn't have a country anymore. He told them where to go, what to accomplish and that the urgency was critical and immediate. The insurrectionists interpreted that language exactly as it was intended. All while he was actually plotting to steal the election He's a traitor and a scumbag. Also happens to be guilty of the many charges he's facing. Trump was no doubt right when he said that America was living in an existential crisis where Trump believed that the election was stolen from him. Hillary Clinton said that when she lost the 2016 election to Trump she also said that the election was stolen from her. Trump won the election in 2020 fair and square. Bidumb did not. When the vote counting was being tabulated, Trump was leading in five states that night by the tens of thousands. When the voting counting was stopped for the night, to be resumed in the morning, all of a sudden In the morning when the count began again, Bidumb had supposedly won the count by the same numbers as Trump had. So bs to your lies. VP Pence let the demoncrats win the election. Trump made a big mistake when he made Pence is VP. 😇 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.