Ukraine Can't Win the War

[Videospirit]

12 minutes ago, User said:

The fact that you continue to refuse to understand this is just more dumb and dishonest gamesmanship on your part. 

Just apologize, and do not do it again. 

There is nothing wrong with what I did.

If I had pretended it was your words that would be wrong, but I did not. The post itself said they were a mixture of your words and mine, after I corrected your words.

You are unable to understand this, and frame it as attributing words to you that you have not said. This is a failure on your part, and the blame lies entirely with you.

[User]

1 minute ago, Videospirit said:

There is nothing wrong with what I did.

Yes, there is. When you quote someone and then change their words as if it looks like they said something they did not, that is one of the most dishonest things you can do on a forum like this. 

2 minutes ago, Videospirit said:

If I had pretended it was your words that would be wrong, but I did not. The post itself said they were a mixture of your words and mine, after I corrected your words.

No effort was made to show any distinction in the quote attributed to me for what was my words and what were your words. Just saying it is a mixture of your words and mine is meaningless. 

If you wish to add something, you can simply say that you think something more should have been said without trying to make it look like my words in a quote of my words. 

Be better, just apologize. 

[Videospirit]

2 minutes ago, User said:

Yes, there is. When you quote someone and then change their words as if it looks like they said something they did not, that is one of the most dishonest things you can do on a forum like this. 

No effort was made to show any distinction in the quote attributed to me for what was my words and what were your words. Just saying it is a mixture of your words and mine is meaningless. 

If you wish to add something, you can simply say that you think something more should have been said without trying to make it look like my words in a quote of my words. 

Be better, just apologize. 

Hmm, I suppose I could have made it clearer which words were originally yours and which were originally mine, that's not an unreasonable request. Sorry if that lack of clarity hurt your feelings. I have now edited the post so that only my corrections are bolded, and your words are left as is. The post should be fine now.

[User]

Just now, Videospirit said:

Hmm, I suppose I could have made it clearer which words were originally yours and which were originally mine, that's not an unreasonable request. Sorry if that lack of clarity hurt your feelings. I have now edited the post so that only my corrections are bolded, and your words are left as is. The post should be fine now.

No, you could just not quote me as saying something I did not. That is the solution.

Bolding words doesn't clarify anything in the quote. Your "fix" is just a half-hearted BS offer to continue your dishonest games. 

 

 

 

 

[Moonbox]

12 minutes ago, User said:

Not when you talk about a subjective notion of "need" in the context of having to prove there is some "need" to have the speech you want. 

Nobody said anything of the sort, LOL.  We're talking about reasonable limits, in that you weigh the obvious and explainable benefits and public good the law serves against the utter lack of any harm it causes.     

As we saw in the beginning, your argument is circular and utterly reliant on an absolute-interpretation of free speech that doesn't hold up anywhere.  

To get back on track with the topic of Ukraine, what's especially comical about JD Vance's buffoonish rant is that he while he was berating Europe on free speech, he and his boss were busy promoting the aims and propaganda talking points of the Russian police state.  I've been saying it for awhile, but I'm really curious how you're going to contort yourself trying to rationalize and cope with Trump's pro-Russian agenda.  We're seeing it start now.  

[Videospirit]

1 minute ago, User said:

No, you could just not quote me as saying something I did not. That is the solution.

Bolding words doesn't clarify anything in the quote. Your "fix" is just a half-hearted BS offer to continue your dishonest games. 

The post now clearly explains what my corrections were. There is no possible way anyone who reads the entire post can possibly mistake the bolded words for yours. Are you trying to claim you did not say the unbolded words?

I'm a little confused here. This wasn't even that big of a deal in the first place, as the original post I quoted is right there on the same page, and anyone who wanted to compare the two could do so to see what is different between the original and my corrected version. If the source I was correcting was on another page or even topic the edits I just made to make clear what my corrections were specifically would have been essential, and they were definitely a good idea to include even if the post was on the same page.

But what exactly is the problem with the post in its current form?

[User]

4 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Nobody said anything of the sort, LOL.  We're talking about reasonable limits, in that you weigh the obvious and explainable benefits and public good the law serves against the utter lack of any harm it causes.     

Your notion of harm here is a distinction without a difference. 

What "harm" does it cause to say there is no more speech allowed in any public place, ever again, that is any form of protest, except for one designated "protest" zone in the middle of a forest somewhere that no one can ever see or hear you unless they want to come watch in person. 

There is no harm in that... 

Except, the harm here is that you put this man in jail for standing on a sidewalk and silently praying. That is the harm. That you are subjectively limited his speech to protect the feelings of others. If your standard for silencing speech is subjectively protecting peoples feelings, then there is no limit reasonable or otherwise, to what you support for restrictions on speech other than whomever has the power at any given moment to enforce such restrictions wins. 

Thus... there is no free speech. 

7 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

As we saw in the beginning, your argument is circular and utterly reliant on an absolute-interpretation of free speech that doesn't hold up anywhere.  

No, its not. No where have I argued any such thing. This is your circular strawman, where you make up a position I do not hold and then argue against it. 

8 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

To get back on track with the topic of Ukraine, what's especially comical about JD Vance's buffoonish rant is that he while he was berating Europe on free speech, he and his boss were busy promoting the aims and propaganda talking points of the Russian police state.  I've been saying it for awhile, but I'm really curious how you're going to contort yourself trying to rationalize and cope with Trump's pro-Russian agenda.  We're seeing it start now.  

What is buffoonish, and outrageous, is arresting a man for silently praying on a sidewalk. 

Europe deserves to be lectured. 

I don't think Trump has a pro-Russian agenda, I don't like how he has been characterizing things, but this is his schtick to make a point and I think that is what he is doing to Zelensky and Europe right now. 

Do you think Europe has a pro-Russian agenda because they have done so little to help Ukraine the last 3 years?

Are you even American? What country are you from, Canada? Why have they not done more? Why do they have a pro-Russian agenda?

9 minutes ago, Videospirit said:

The post now clearly explains what my corrections were. There is no possible way anyone who reads the entire post can possibly mistake the bolded words for yours. Are you trying to claim you did not say the unbolded words?

You are still quoting me as saying something I did not. No amount of explanations buried below that someone has to read to then go back and figure out it was not something I said makes up for that. 

What you are doing is dishonest and what you are continuing to is dishonest. 

 

[Videospirit]

49 minutes ago, User said:

You are still quoting me as saying something I did not. No amount of explanations buried below that someone has to read to then go back and figure out it was not something I said makes up for that. 

What you are doing is dishonest and what you are continuing to is dishonest. 

Is the message unclear? Can you not understand what I am communicating in my post? Are the explanations below that unable to explain that it is not your words in some way?

Is there some aspect of this post that makes it impossible for the message of "The message in this quote can be considered true." to not be expressed?

Your desire to suppress my free speech aside, can you not understand the post in its current form?

Because the need to communicate is all that matters in terms of honesty. If the message is comprehensible and any potentially false aspects are clarified in the message itself. it doesn't matter if you don't like the way I said it, it's an honest message.

Edited February 20 by Videospirit

[User]

Just now, Videospirit said:

Because the need to communicate is all that matters in terms of honesty. If the message is comprehensible it doesn't matter if you don't like the way I said it, it's an honest message.

What an preposterously stupid thing to say. Honesty is honesty, the need to communicate is not "honesty"

There is nothing honest about quoting me and then changing my words in the quote to be something I did not say. Your continued dishonest games after and now, only continue to show what a fundamentally dishonest person you are being here. 

 

 

[Videospirit]

4 minutes ago, User said:

What an preposterously stupid thing to say. Honesty is honesty, the need to communicate is not "honesty"

There is nothing honest about quoting me and then changing my words in the quote to be something I did not say. Your continued dishonest games after and now, only continue to show what a fundamentally dishonest person you are being here. 

Heh, now you're misquoting me. Except I actually explained I did it in my post, but you neglected to do so. This is a dishonest message from you, congratulations on being a hypocrite.

If a message is not false, and that message is clearly communicated it is honest.

Was my message, as a whole, clear that the words are not entirely yours yes or no?

Edited February 20 by Videospirit

[User]

7 minutes ago, Videospirit said:

Heh, now you're misquoting me. Except I actually explained I did it in my post, but you neglected to do so. This is a dishonest message from you, congratulations on being a hypocrite.

If a message is not false, and that message is clearly communicated it is honest.

Was my message, as a whole, clear that the words are not entirely yours yes or no?

Whatever man, tired of your stupid dishonest games. 

 

[Moonbox]

11 minutes ago, User said:

What "harm" does it cause to say there is no more speech allowed in any public place, ever again, that is any form of protest, except for one designated "protest" zone in the middle of a forest somewhere that no one can ever see or hear you unless they want to come watch in person. 

You're likening a 100m safe zone around abortion clinics that allows women too seek medical procedures privately and without fear of harassment or coercion, to protests only being permitted in remote forest locations?  That's some utterly ridiculous, slippery-slop reasoning there bud.  

19 minutes ago, User said:

What is buffoonish, and outrageous, is arresting a man for silently praying on a sidewalk. 

He was asked to stop/leave, in accordance with the law. That was it.  There's nothing outrageous about that, is there?  Belligerently refusing to comply and arguing with the officer for two hours is what got him arrested.  You already know that though, so these sorts of reductive and disingenuous statements are puzzling.  

All of this could have been avoided by protesting 101m from the clinic, but NO.  Being able to specifically do it within 100m is what's cardinally important here, and supersedes any concerns of public safety/order and privacy that the law seeks to address, for reasons nobody can explain other than "Muh free speech".  🙄

[Videospirit]

2 minutes ago, User said:

Whatever man, tired of your stupid dishonest games. 

Not trying to offend you, but have you ever spoken to a doctor to be diagnosed for Autism?

Because I know a few people with Autism in real life, and the flaws in your arguments would make perfect sense if you suffer from Autism. You're literate enough that your words are quite articulate, but you really struggle with reading comprehension. Like you can easily read 4 sentences in a row and judge each sentence one by one, but struggle to judge those 4 sentences as one paragraph. And to judge 3 paragraphs as a single message is even harder for you.

I'd been suspecting there's something wrong with you for a long time now, but the way you reacted to being misquoted just now set off all my "I've touched one of my autistic friends reverse scales." alarms and finally made it click for me.

[User]

6 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

You're likening a 100m safe zone around abortion clinics that allows women too seek medical procedures privately and without fear of harassment or coercion, to protests only being permitted in remote forest locations?  That's some utterly ridiculous, slippery-slop reasoning there bud.  

Why not? What harm does that cause?

6 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

He was asked to stop/leave, in accordance with the law. That was it.  There's nothing outrageous about that, is there? 

Yes, as he was not doing anything more than standing there silently praying. 

7 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

You already know that though, so these sorts of reductive and disingenuous statements are puzzling.  

Again, that is secondary. He was only being asked to leave because he was standing there silently praying. 

7 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

All of this could have been avoided by protesting 101m from the clinic, but NO. 

All of this could have been avoided by not criminalizing a man for standing too close to a clinic silently praying. 

But you want to make sure no one getting an abortion has their feelings hurt. Which, to my point, that kind of standard on speech means ANY speech can be regulated ANYWHERE, based on whomever has the power at the time, because... muh fewlings

 

[User]

24 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

All of this could have been avoided by protesting 101m from the clinic, but NO. 

Dammit, you keep ignoring the homes. 

No it is not so simple, this is also including sending threatening letters to people in their own homes. 

 

[Videospirit]

3 hours ago, User said:

Dammit, you keep ignoring the homes. 

No it is not so simple, this is also including sending threatening letters to people in their own homes. 

 

Well, the main reason we ignore that, is because your entire basis for calling those letters threatening, is that there is evidence of that someone was arrested for just "Silently praying".

If that original basis is defeated, the letters weren't threatening.

And the same argument applies to the own homes. Just head inside your house and don't stand near a window if you want to make a huge production of your prayer instead of praying like a normal person. A short prayer isn't going to bother anyone either. Any Christian who feels their religious freedom is impacted by this law certainly isn't devout by most denominations doctrine. Prayer is not something you do for the sake of being seen by others. If anything, from a religious perspective, this law helps protect people from sinning.

Edited February 21 by Videospirit

[Moonbox]

47 minutes ago, User said:

Why not? What harm does that cause?

It only weakens your credibility, so if slippery slope is your game, go for it guess?  😆

48 minutes ago, User said:

Yes, as he was not doing anything more than standing there silently praying. 

It'll be easier to take you seriously when you stop pretending that "silently praying" isn't just a thin disguise for protesting. 

1 hour ago, User said:

Again, that is secondary. He was only being asked to leave because he was standing there silently praying. 

Hilarious.  His going there to "siLeNtLy pRaY" is what's secondary. The only reason he was there was to protest in front of an abortion clinic, and knowingly flaunt the law that he knew prohibited it. 

Primary to the debate is the law itself, for which you still haven't offered any credible or serious criticism.  When you're willing to even try explaining how it's unreasonable for protest activities to be kept outside 100m of abortion clinics, and weigh the imaginary harm that does to would-be protestor's rights against the benefits it offers to the community, let me know. 

Until then, you look pretty silly!

 

[User]

19 hours ago, Moonbox said:

It only weakens your credibility, so if slippery slope is your game, go for it guess?

This is your dumb argument being applied here. 

19 hours ago, Moonbox said:

It'll be easier to take you seriously when you stop pretending that "silently praying" isn't just a thin disguise for protesting. 

I don't care if you label it as a protesting action, that doesn't change my argument. 

19 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Hilarious.  His going there to "siLeNtLy pRaY" is what's secondary. The only reason he was there was to protest in front of an abortion clinic, and knowingly flaunt the law that he knew prohibited it. 

OK, this doesn't change anything. You were trying to say his refusing orders was the issue... no, his being there was the issue, calling it silently praying or protesting, same difference, the issue was his silently praying. 

The fact that it is illegal is not in contention here, that is the whole point of the discussion, to point out how absurd that is. 

19 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Primary to the debate is the law itself, for which you still haven't offered any credible or serious criticism.  When you're willing to even try explaining how it's unreasonable for protest activities to be kept outside 100m of abortion clinics, and weigh the imaginary harm that does to would-be protestor's rights against the benefits it offers to the community, let me know. 

Yes, I have. Its a violation of basic free speech principles just because you don't want someone to get their feelings hurt. 

I already pointed out several times now, that if your position here is that speech should be curtailed for peoples feelings, there is almost no limit to what you make illegal as long as the majority has the power to do it, so be it. 

And once again, as you keep ignoring, it is more than just standing near the clinic, it is that peoples whose homes are too close were also threatened with similar law, where they can't do anything on their own property or in their own homes here. 

 

[Videospirit]

23 minutes ago, User said:

Yes, I have. Its a violation of basic free speech principles just because you don't want someone to get their feelings hurt. 

I already pointed out several times now, that if your position here is that speech should be curtailed for peoples feelings, there is almost no limit to what you make illegal as long as the majority has the power to do it, so be it. 

And once again, as you keep ignoring, it is more than just standing near the clinic, it is that peoples whose homes are too close were also threatened with similar law, where they can't do anything on their own property or in their own homes here. 

Would you please define what you feel is the definition of free speech. Because we've already explained this law does not infringe on free speech as the law understands it. The law this man violated did not criminalize praying silently. It criminalized damages, which has never been considered a violation of free speech.

[Moonbox]

40 minutes ago, User said:

Yes, I have. Its a violation of basic free speech principles just because you don't want someone to get their feelings hurt. 

Trying to frame this as a debate about hurt feelings is deliberately dishonest and disingenuous.  Considering how much time you spend complaining about other people's dishonesty on this forum, you're just embarrassing yourself now. 

When you can explain how this incredibly narrow and limited-scope legislation is an unreasonable limit to free speech, and how would-be protestors are being harmed by having to protest 101m away from, instead of within 100m of, abortion clinics, let us know.  Until then, you're just making a fool of yourself.  

[User]

12 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Trying to frame this as a debate about hurt feelings is deliberately dishonest and disingenuous. 

That is your argument. I am not changing anything. The only harm you are arguing is being prevented here by stopping someone from silently praying is that a person killing their baby might have to see that person and feel bad. 

13 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

When you can explain how this incredibly narrow and limited-scope legislation is an unreasonable limit to free speech, and how would-be protestors are being harmed by having to protest 101m away from, instead of within 100m of, abortion clinics, let us know.  Until then, you're just making a fool of yourself.  

I already have explained this. 

You also continue to ignore that it is not just people on the sidewalk... but people in their own homes too. 

[Videospirit]

18 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

When you can explain how this incredibly narrow and limited-scope legislation is an unreasonable limit to free speech

Why are you even conceding it's a limit to free speech?

[Moonbox]

1 hour ago, User said:

That is your argument. I am not changing anything. The only harm you are arguing is being prevented here by stopping someone from silently praying is that a person killing their baby might have to see that person and feel bad. 

No, that's not my argument at all.  This is you explicitly and obviously lying, which is funny coming from a guy who complains about that constantly.  

I've already provided a substantial list of reasons why protestors outside of abortion clinics are problematic, and pretending that I haven't is a pretty clear indication of how deliberately dishonest you're being.  

1 hour ago, User said:

You also continue to ignore that it is not just people on the sidewalk... but people in their own homes too. 

I've already been over that, so pretending I ignored it is just more of your dishonesty.  The fact that I'm not going to keep circling back on the same useless points you're trying to make doesn't change that. 

As before: 

When you can explain how this incredibly narrow and limited-scope legislation is an unreasonable limit to free speech, and how would-be protestors are being harmed by having to protest 101m away from, instead of within 100m of, abortion clinics, let us know.  Until then, you're just making a fool of yourself.  

[Moonbox]

1 hour ago, Videospirit said:

Why are you even conceding it's a limit to free speech?

Because it is?  It just doesn't matter.  It's so limited in scope and narrow in focus, that the positives outweigh the negatives (which nobody can explain)  by orders of magnitude.  

[Videospirit]

41 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Because it is?  It just doesn't matter.  It's so limited in scope and narrow in focus, that the positives outweigh the negatives (which nobody can explain)  by orders of magnitude.  

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences of speech. The law doesn't criminalize speech, it criminalizes harm. It's not a limit on free speech.