Ukraine Can't Win the War

[User]

9 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

It does, because freedom of speech isn't limitless, even in the United States.  That's why you can get arrested for harassing or threatening people, among an exhaustive list of other limitations.  

It's not like we saw you supporting the Gaza protestor's freedom of speech either, is it? 

You have gone from your subjective notion of someone having to show you  "need" for speech to harassment and threatening someone. 

That is no longer "speech" but harm to someone. 

My issues with Gaza protestors were when they were blocking roads and taking over public spaces to block access to them. Things that were no longer merely speech.

12 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Because it's absolute nonsense.  Ignoring that JD Vance outright lied (just like he did with the Haitians eating cats and dogs) and no letters were sent out saying you can't pray in your home, the whole idea of people not being allowed to pray in their own home is ludicrous to start.  What is the Scottish government going to do?  Install cameras in everyone's house, and peer through windows to make sure nobody's praying inside? 

That's the sort of silliness you're reduced to when you're defending these goofs.   

Nothing nonsense about it. What was the outright lie?

Letters were in fact sent out, they did in fact threaten people they could not do anything in their own homes or property that could be construed to be some kind of protest against abortion. 

Here we have a man arrested for standing and silently praying near a clinic... why should people think they wouldn't be punished for standing and silently praying in their own home if you could see them standing in the window? On their balcony? Their porch... their garden?

What will the government do? What did they do to this man standing near an abortion clinic? 

There is no silliness here. 

60 Minutes just did a special showing German police sending armed units to peoples homes to arrest them for posting memes on social media. England has been dragging people out of their homes for their social media posts. 
 

 

18 minutes ago, Videospirit said:

This was sufficiently explained why that dude standing around silently praying was stopping people from getting abortions.  If you still believe the argument to be faulty at this point that is a problem with your reading comprehension. If you can't present a counter argument besides "I say reality is wrong" shut up and stop posting. Stop being pathetic.

No, it was not sufficiently explained. I have repeatedly picked apart your baseless claims and bad arguments. 

Irrelevant personal insults are ignored. Again. 

[Videospirit]

55 minutes ago, User said:

No, it was not sufficiently explained. I have repeatedly picked apart your baseless claims and bad arguments. 

Irrelevant personal insults are ignored. Again. 

Stop being pathetic.

[User]

1 minute ago, Videospirit said:

Stop being pathetic.

Nothing of relevance to respond to here. 

Reminder, you are the one saying some dude merely standing and silently praying too close to an abortion clinic should be a criminal act. 

That is pathetic. 

 

[Videospirit]

10 minutes ago, User said:

Nothing of relevance to respond to here. 

Reminder, you are the one saying some dude merely standing and silently praying too close to an abortion clinic should be a criminal act. 

That is pathetic. 

 

This has already been explained. What is pathetic is that you refuse to acknowledge objective reality. There is no way to discuss the issue from there. So either we discuss about what mental issues make you incapable of continuing this discussion, or we chase you out of the room because it is impossible to have a serious discussion with you if you're not able to do so. You have made this discussion entirely personal. It is the only way to continue unless you actually open your mind and accept that you're objectively wrong.

Stop being pathetic.

[User]

4 minutes ago, Videospirit said:

This has already been explained. What is pathetic is that you refuse to acknowledge objective reality. There is no way to discuss the issue from there. So either we discuss about what mental issues make you incapable of continuing this discussion, or we chase you out of the room because it is impossible to have a serious discussion with you if you're not able to do so. You have made this discussion entirely personal. It is the only way to continue unless you actually open your mind and accept that you're objectively wrong.

Stop being pathetic.

Since you didn't bother responding to the point of the discussion and my comment, here you are again:

Reminder, you are the one saying some dude merely standing and silently praying too close to an abortion clinic should be a criminal act. 

That is pathetic. 

[Videospirit]

1 minute ago, User said:

Since you didn't bother responding to the point of the discussion and my comment, here you are again:

Reminder, you are the one saying some dude merely standing and silently praying too close to an abortion clinic should be a criminal act. 

That is pathetic. 

Fact: Protests were being used as a means to intimidate citizens away from being provided access to healthcare

Fact: One of the forms those protests took is Silent Prayer Vigils and it meets the legal definition of intimidation.

Fact: The PSPO zones around facilities which provide access to abortions were created to prevent such harm from continuing

Fact: The man who was asked to leave because of holding a silent prayer vigil inside one of the restricted areas had this explained to him when he was asked to leave, so if you could have questioned his intent before he was asked to leave, once he refused his continued presence was objective proof of intent to cause harm and he was only arrested 2 hours after refusing to leave.

This is objective reality. It is not an argument I am making. It is just an objective explanation of reality. It's irrefutable. Whatever arguments you think you've made to dismiss reality are irrelevant. Whatever your opinions on reality are are irrelevant. You're just wrong, and your continued refusal to accept reality is pathetic.

Stop being pathetic.

[User]

7 minutes ago, Videospirit said:

Fact: One of the forms those protests took is Silent Prayer Vigils and it meets the legal definition of intimidation.

This is not a fact. You are conflating legal definitions of intimidation with your subjective meaning that if anyone feels intimidated, that is wrong. 

There would be no need for any safe zone around an abortion clinic if there were already laws about intimidation being violated. 

9 minutes ago, Videospirit said:

Fact: The PSPO zones around facilities which provide access to abortions were created to prevent such harm from continuing

What harm? You are making baseless assertions. 

9 minutes ago, Videospirit said:

Fact: The man who was asked to leave because of holding a silent prayer vigil inside one of the restricted areas had this explained to him when he was asked to leave, so if you could have questioned his intent before he was asked to leave, once he refused his continued presence was objective proof of intent to cause harm and he was only arrested 2 hours after refusing to leave.

Yeah, we know why he was asked to leave, his presence is not "objective proof" of any "intent to cause harm" This is just a baseless assertion, again. 

10 minutes ago, Videospirit said:

This is objective reality. It is not an argument I am making. It is just an objective explanation of reality. It's irrefutable. Whatever arguments you think you've made to dismiss reality are irrelevant. Whatever your opinions on reality are are irrelevant. You're just wrong, and your continued refusal to accept reality is pathetic.

No, you just wrote a bunch of things and slipped in your same baseless arguments from before, all based on your subjective notion of intimidation and harm. That is not objective reality nor irrefutable. 

 

[Videospirit]

14 minutes ago, User said:

This is not a fact. You are conflating legal definitions of intimidation with your subjective meaning that if anyone feels intimidated, that is wrong. 

Stop being pathetic.

15 minutes ago, User said:

There would be no need for any safe zone around an abortion clinic if there were already laws about intimidation being violated. 

This isn't a counter argument, it's just you complaining about how they chose to resolve the issue, but we haven't talked about this before so I can at least discuss it for the benefit of people with a brain who might be curious why this was needed. The issue with this complaint is that someone committing a crime and proving that they are committing a crime in court is not the same thing. It's rather difficult to prove intent. A massive waste of state resources that won't even guarantee convictions, and most of these criminals are otherwise productive members of society. It's in everyone's best interests to prevent them from committing the crime in the first place. There were already countless victims and the existing laws weren't enough to protect them.

20 minutes ago, User said:

What harm? You are making baseless assertions. 

Stop being pathetic.

22 minutes ago, User said:

Yeah, we know why he was asked to leave, his presence is not "objective proof" of any "intent to cause harm" This is just a baseless assertion, again. 

No, you just wrote a bunch of things and slipped in your same baseless arguments from before, all based on your subjective notion of intimidation and harm. That is not objective reality nor irrefutable. 

Presence wasn't the objective proof, refusal to leave was. When an authority figure informs you "What you're doing is causing harm, you need to stop." and you reply "I refuse to stop doing it." you cannot claim lack of intent to cause said harm. At that point it's objectively intentional.

Someone who intended to take care of their health who was prevented from doing so because of another person's intimidation suffered harm. That's objective. They objectively lost time, their health probably objectively suffered, their mental well being probably objectively suffered, their rights were objectively infringed upon. All of these have an objective legal basis to be considered harm.

As for intimidation, it meets the objective qualifications of what acts can be considered intimidation. Whether or not intent was present has some subjective judgement to it, but it's objectively an act that COULD be intimidation. Although to be frank, I'd find it absurd if you try to claim that people protesting against abortions don't intend for people to not have abortions. Either way, the state has enough of a vested interest in protecting their citizens to declare a PSPO zone even if they can't prove intent.

Stop being pathetic.

[User]

Just now, Videospirit said:

Stop being pathetic.

You missed actually responding to this:

This is not a fact. You are conflating legal definitions of intimidation with your subjective meaning that if anyone feels intimidated, that is wrong. 

1 minute ago, Videospirit said:

This isn't a counter argument, it's just you complaining about how they chose to resolve the issue, but we haven't talked about this before so I can at least discuss it for the benefit of people with a brain who might be curious why this was needed. The issue with this complaint is that someone committing a crime and proving that they are committing a crime in court is not the same thing. It's rather difficult to prove intent. A massive waste of state resources that won't even guarantee convictions, and most of these criminals are otherwise productive members of society. It's in everyone's best interests to prevent them from committing the crime in the first place. There were already countless victims and the existing laws weren't enough to protect them.

LOL, rather difficult to prove intent? You don't say, but your whole shtick here has boiled down to claiming they were intended to cause harm and the subjective use of feeling intimidated. 

You are the one who claimed it fit the definition of a legal term intimidation, now you claim you can't prove that. LOL

There are no "victims" to a man standing on a sidewalk praying silently. 

3 minutes ago, Videospirit said:

Stop being pathetic.

you missed my comment again:

What harm? You are making baseless assertions. 

4 minutes ago, Videospirit said:

Presence wasn't the objective proof, refusal to leave was. When an authority figure informs you "What you're doing is causing harm, you need to stop." and you reply "I refuse to stop doing it." you cannot claim lack of intent to cause said harm. At that point it's objectively intentional.

You already tried to make this argument. 

The only reason he was being asked to leave was because of his silent prayer and standing too close to an abortion clinic. The failure to follow orders is only a secondary crime and that was not all he was charged with, he was charged with the violation of the protective space law. 

You are once again, making a baseless assertion, there is no argument here that refusing to leave is proof of intent to harm. 

And again, your notion of "harm" here has yet to be explained. 

6 minutes ago, Videospirit said:

As for intimidation, it meets the objective qualifications of what acts can be considered intimidation.

This is a circular argument. Saying intimidation is what can be considered intimidation is a meaningless statement. 

This ball is round because this ball is round. LOL

7 minutes ago, Videospirit said:

Stop being pathetic.

The only thing pathetic here is you wanting to criminalize someone standing and silently praying. 

 

[Videospirit]

4 minutes ago, User said:

You missed actually responding to this:

This is not a fact. You are conflating legal definitions of intimidation with your subjective meaning that if anyone feels intimidated, that is wrong. 

LOL, rather difficult to prove intent? You don't say, but your whole shtick here has boiled down to claiming they were intended to cause harm and the subjective use of feeling intimidated. 

You are the one who claimed it fit the definition of a legal term intimidation, now you claim you can't prove that. LOL

There are no "victims" to a man standing on a sidewalk praying silently. 

you missed my comment again:

What harm? You are making baseless assertions. 

You already tried to make this argument. 

The only reason he was being asked to leave was because of his silent prayer and standing too close to an abortion clinic. The failure to follow orders is only a secondary crime and that was not all he was charged with, he was charged with the violation of the protective space law. 

You are once again, making a baseless assertion, there is no argument here that refusing to leave is proof of intent to harm. 

And again, your notion of "harm" here has yet to be explained. 

This is a circular argument. Saying intimidation is what can be considered intimidation is a meaningless statement. 

This ball is round because this ball is round. LOL

The only thing pathetic here is you wanting to criminalize someone standing and silently praying. 

 

Stop being pathetic.

[User]

2 minutes ago, Videospirit said:

Stop being pathetic.

Reminder, you are the one saying some dude merely standing and silently praying too close to an abortion clinic should be a criminal act. 

That is pathetic. 

[Videospirit]

Just now, User said:

Reminder, you are the one saying some dude merely standing and silently praying too close to an abortion clinic should be a criminal act. 

That is pathetic. 

Stop being pathetic.

[User]

Just now, Videospirit said:

Stop being pathetic.

Reminder, you are the one saying some dude merely standing and silently praying too close to an abortion clinic should be a criminal act. 

That is pathetic. 

[Videospirit]

Just now, User said:

Reminder, you are the one saying some dude merely standing and silently praying too close to an abortion clinic should be a criminal act. 

That is pathetic. 

What's it like being mentally incapable of remembering the previous sentence in a conversation? What must your life be like living in a fugue where your grasp of reality slips out of your understanding from moment to moment?

You're pathetic.

[Moonbox]

2 hours ago, User said:

You have gone from your subjective notion of someone having to show you  "need" for speech to harassment and threatening someone. 

That is no longer "speech" but harm to someone. 

That's the whole point.  There is harm.  Vulnerable women feeling harassed/judged/intimidated as they privately seek medical treatment is some (not all) of the harm the legislation is there to prevent, weighed against a protestor's right to "pray" specifically within 100m of the clinic.  The "harm" to free speech is that these poor buffoons have to do their "praying" >101m outside the clinic.  The horror.   

2 hours ago, User said:

Letters were in fact sent out, they did in fact threaten people they could not do anything in their own homes or property that could be construed to be some kind of protest against abortion. 

Yes, letters were sent out.  The letters did not say what JD Vance said they did, which is that private prayer in their homes could be illegal.  That's an explicit lie, just like the Haitians eating cats and dogs was, and you're left trying to rationalize it.

[User]

26 minutes ago, Videospirit said:

What's it like being mentally incapable of remembering the previous sentence in a conversation? What must your life be like living in a fugue where your grasp of reality slips out of your understanding from moment to moment?

You're pathetic.

The comical thing is that you accused me of making this personal while that has been what you have repeatedly continued to do. 

Nothing to respond to here otherwise. 

 

[Videospirit]

9 minutes ago, User said:

The comical thing is that you accused me of making this personal while that has been what you have repeatedly continued to do. 

Nothing to respond to here otherwise. 

 

One might think life is simple for you, but you must face endless frustration. It must feel like nobody ever understands you, when the problem is that your thoughts are extremely simplistic and everyone understands you, but they know you're wrong. Your mental faculties are so poor however, that no amount of explanation can make you understand why you're wrong, and you just conclude that everyone else is wrong.

Truly a sad pathetic state of being. I'd like to explain to you, but as long as you refuse to acknowledge your own incompetence it's impossible.

Edited February 18 by Videospirit

[User]

8 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

That's the whole point.  There is harm.  Vulnerable women feeling harassed/judged/intimidated as they privately seek medical treatment is some (not all) of the harm the legislation is there to prevent, weighed against a protestor's right to "pray" specifically within 100m of the clinic.  The "harm" to free speech is that these poor buffoons have to do their "praying" >101m outside the clinic.  The horror.   

This is all a subjective "harm" in that someones feelings are hurt. There are actual laws regarding harassment. 

Again... this was just the example, as atrocious as it was, for why there is reason to right fear the letter regarding what people can do in their own home or on their own property. 

19 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Yes, letters were sent out.  The letters did not say what JD Vance said they did, which is that private prayer in their homes could be illegal.  That's an explicit lie, just like the Haitians eating cats and dogs was, and you're left trying to rationalize it.

Yes, they did, so does the law. For all the same reasons you just argued above. If someone stands in their own home, in the window, and can be seen silently praying in opposition to abortion... they can be arrested and prosecuted. 

This is a fact. 

 

[User]

10 minutes ago, Videospirit said:

One might think life is simple for you, but you must face endless frustration. It must feel like nobody ever understands you, when the problem is that your thoughts are extremely simplistic and everyone understands you, but they know you're wrong. Your mental faculties are so poor however, that no amount of explanation can make you understand why you're wrong, and you just conclude that everyone else is wrong.

Truly a sad pathetic state of being. I'd like to explain to you, but as long as you refuse to acknowledge your own incompetence it's impossible.

Again, nothing of substance to respond to here. 

 

[Videospirit]

Just now, User said:

Again, nothing of substance to respond to here. 

 

It's fascinating watching your brain short circuit in action. All the explanations are clearly laid out, but your brain has this freakish misconception that "It is impossible to cause harm by silently praying." and your arguments just constantly fall apart as you try to dissect the process that leads from silently praying to harm step by step individually without ever considering how they connect as a whole, and just making a jumbled mess of yourself.

So all we're left is discussing how you can possibly be so incapable. The "argument" has already been won. You've failed to renounce the claims. Now it's just a question of "How come you don't understand you've lost this argument?". Deeply personal, but what recourse have you left us? We've refuted your lies and misconceptions, but you don't accept refutations. It's strange arguing with a disabled person like you.

[User]

3 minutes ago, Videospirit said:

It's fascinating watching your brain short circuit in action. All the explanations are clearly laid out, but your brain has this freakish misconception that "It is impossible to cause harm by silently praying." and your arguments just constantly fall apart as you try to dissect the process that leads from silently praying to harm step by step individually without ever considering how they connect as a whole, and just making a jumbled mess of yourself.

So all we're left is discussing how you can possibly be so incapable. The "argument" has already been won. You've failed to renounce the claims. Now it's just a question of "How come you don't understand you've lost this argument?". Deeply personal, but what recourse have you left us? We've refuted your lies and misconceptions, but you don't accept refutations. It's strange arguing with a disabled person like you.

No, in the end, all you have done is prove that Vance was not lying or pushing misinformation as you originally tried to claim, now all you are doing is trying to justify why some guy silently praying near an abortion clinic should be a criminal. 

 

[Videospirit]

5 minutes ago, User said:

No, in the end, all you have done is prove that Vance was not lying or pushing misinformation as you originally tried to claim, now all you are doing is trying to justify why some guy silently praying near an abortion clinic should be a criminal. 

See? You have learned absolutely nothing from the discussion. Still solidly wearing your ignorance like a badge of honour. Nobody has been arrested for praying. They have been arrested for intentionally causing harm. You can't understand how what they were doing could have caused harm, but we've explained this. You just keep whining and tantruming and failing to present any kind of argument.

Nobody has ever been arrested for minding their own business and silently praying, and the letter sent out never led anyone to believe that might be the case unless a liar like JD Vance told them the letter means that. 

Stop being pathetic.

[User]

2 minutes ago, herbie said:

fixed that for you.
Vance is appeasing Putin suck up just like his Big Orange Boss.

This is absolutely one of the most despicable and dishonest things folks like you can do on this forum. I did not say that and changing the quote to make it look like I did is disgusting. 

I would say you should be ashamed of yourself, but clearly, you would have to have some foundational principles like integrity first. 

 

[User]

5 minutes ago, Videospirit said:

See? You have learned absolutely nothing from the discussion. Still solidly wearing your ignorance like a badge of honour. Nobody has been arrested for praying. They have been arrested for intentionally causing harm. You can't understand how what they were doing could have caused harm, but we've explained this. You just keep whining and tantruming and failing to present any kind of argument.

Nobody has ever been arrested for minding their own business and silently praying, and the letter sent out never led anyone to believe that might be the case unless a liar like JD Vance told them the letter means that. 

Stop being pathetic.

So... what was causing the alleged "harm" here? Silently praying. 

Yes, you keep trying to avoid this fact, and each time I keep pointing out what you are doing. 

This man was in fact arrested for silently praying. 

Yes, the letter sent out did in fact lead people to believe they would be arrested. Here you go:

https://www.christian.org.uk/news/scots-living-near-abortion-centres-risk-legal-action-for-pro-life-support/

You see, I can support my arguments with facts. 

 

 

[Videospirit]

20 minutes ago, User said:

So... what was causing the alleged "harm" here? Silently praying. 

Yes, you keep trying to avoid this fact, and each time I keep pointing out what you are doing. 

This man was in fact arrested for silently praying. 

Yes, the letter sent out did in fact lead people to believe they would be arrested. Here you go:

https://www.christian.org.uk/news/scots-living-near-abortion-centres-risk-legal-action-for-pro-life-support/

You see, I can support my arguments with facts. 

Yeah, the method he used to inflict harm was silent prayer. I can spill a drink on the ground, or I can intentionally spill a drink on the ground near a ledge to cause someone to slip and fall to their deaths. I suppose you'd claim "I was arrested just for spilling a drink on the ground." if that happened. The two actions are both "spilling a drink on the ground" but they're not that same kind of action.

There is a difference between silently praying, and using silent prayer as a tool of harm. 

You cannot claim someone was arrested for doing something, when the reason they were arrested was the intentional consequences of that action not the action itself.

And of course people will try and lie to make people afraid of this law. The possibility that private prayer could be prosecuted under the law was brought up in the legislature when the law was being written even. But the concern was laughed out of the discussion. After all, if someone is privately praying, how is anyone even going to know they were doing that to report them for violating the law?

As for your refusal to accept that there is harm. I'll appeal to authority. You can't take it for absolute truth based on such an appeal alone. But the fact that lawmakers, judges, lawyers, and the municipal governments that instituted the PSPO zones all agreed that they were necessary should, at the very least, make you accept that there was a real issue that made all these individuals consider this necessary. This wasn't some unilateral action by one party. It was an involved legislative process with multiple checks and balances along the way to prevent abuse. If the communities did not feel it was necessary, they can vote out the municipal governments that put these zones in place and have the zones removed, so the entire communities wills are partially reflected in this practice. I'll let your brain gears come up with your own explanation for why all these communities felt this was necessary yourself, you're certainly not going to accept any explanation anyone else gives.

Edited February 18 by Videospirit