When is Violence Justified?

[A Red]

7 minutes ago, moof said:

Oh, I’d love to mate, but don’t want to give them the moral high ground. You know, because once someone has had a milkshake poured on them, even the most vitriolic, bitter racism becomes palatable in comparison to that horrific act of violence 

In hindsight, for fucks sake dont you try to debate or win an argument with fascists. You go lobbing stuff and do your legitimate law breaking.

 

Leave the adult stuff to the grown ups

 

 

[VladimirIlyich]

1 hour ago, A Red said:

An act of legitimate civil disobedience and it was moof. You cant have a legitimate illegal response.

 

Apart from that, spot on

Without these 'acts of violence' very little would change in the political landscape. The so called 'poll tax' riots helped to bring down the Thatcher government while numerous demonstrations preceded trades unions being founded and accepted into working life. These things had numerous acts of violence during them and helped create a better society,even if only relatively briefly. They also tend to happen when many ordinary people feel they have no voice and are helpless towards shaping their own future. A vile human being being showered with milkshake rather than being punched,kicked or stabbed to death doesn't register as violence with me.

[moof]

40 minutes ago, A Red said:

In hindsight, for fucks sake dont you try to debate or win an argument with fascists. You go lobbing stuff and do your legitimate law breaking.

 

Leave the adult stuff to the grown ups

 

 

The adult stuff, like civilly debating fascists? Alright mate 

[A Red]

18 minutes ago, moof said:

The adult stuff, like civilly debating fascists? Alright mate 

The adult stuff like debating how to legally defeat them. 

[A Red]

35 minutes ago, VladimirIlyich said:

Without these 'acts of violence' very little would change in the political landscape. The so called 'poll tax' riots helped to bring down the Thatcher government while numerous demonstrations preceded trades unions being founded and accepted into working life. These things had numerous acts of violence during them and helped create a better society,even if only relatively briefly. They also tend to happen when many ordinary people feel they have no voice and are helpless towards shaping their own future. A vile human being being showered with milkshake rather than being punched,kicked or stabbed to death doesn't register as violence with me.

These acts of violence you speak of were to change laws. What law are you looking to change here?

 

[moof]

5 minutes ago, A Red said:

The adult stuff like debating how to legally defeat them. 

Debating how to debate them. Cool

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, A Red said:

Youre struggling here a bit, mixing up y'know real life violence and the legal definition of violence. 

 

Legally - Chucking a drink on someone = assault = violence

 

I'm going to accept your "probably" as the best I'm going to get.

How are you not getting this?

 

There are two separate questions  (that you alone have mixed up): Does the law of common assault define milkshaking as violence? Does any normal, everyday definition of violence include milkshaking?

 

The answer to both is "no".

[A Red]

5 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

How are you not getting this?

 

There are two separate questions  (that you alone have mixed up): Does the law of common assault define milkshaking as violence? Does any normal, everyday definition of violence include milkshaking?

 

The answer to both is "no".

Of course the law doesnt, fucking hell how could it? The law would have to list every possible drink or object that could be used.

 

You yourself just said milkshaking was probably classed as common assault under the law, now youve changed your mind it seems.

 

In terms of the definition it would come down to context

 

What do you think Jeremy Corbyn thinks of milkshaking politicians? If he was asked for a response in the media, what do you reckon he would say?

[Boss]

There's no point debating them A Red. They'll just shift the argument continually because they know themselves attacking politicians is wrong. The real point of the argument - that they obfuscate - is that they think it's justified because it's Nigel Farage. If it was Corbyn, the very same people would not be parsing the finer points of violence. They'd just straight up condemn it - like the egg throwing incident. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

6 minutes ago, A Red said:

Of course the law doesnt, fucking hell how could it? The law would have to list every possible drink or object that could be used.

 

You yourself just said milkshaking was probably classed as common assault under the law, now youve changed your mind it seems.

 

I also said (and please pay attention this time, because this bit is important) that both the links we provided say that common assault covers things that are not violent. 

 

Now do you get it?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

9 minutes ago, A Red said:

 

What do you think Jeremy Corbyn thinks of milkshaking politicians? If he was asked for a response in the media, what do you reckon he would say?

I daresay he'd condemn it and say it is unacceptable.  Fair enough; that would be a valid viewpoint. 

 

If he also said that it counts as violence, then I would argue that he's wrong. 

[moof]

11 minutes ago, Boss said:

There's no point debating them A Red. They'll just shift the argument continually because they know themselves attacking politicians is wrong. The real point of the argument - that they obfuscate - is that they think it's justified because it's Nigel Farage. If it was Corbyn, the very same people would not be parsing the finer points of violence. They'd just straight up condemn it - like the egg throwing incident. 

Yes, exactly. 

[A Red]

10 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

I also said (and please pay attention this time, because this bit is important) that both the links we provided say that common assault covers things that are not violent. 

 

Now do you get it?

Yes I do get it, assault includes things such as threats etc that are classed under the law as violence but are in themselves not violent. I said that previously. Chucking an object at a politician is a violent act or anyone else for that matter if the intent is there.

 

I'll repeat and i want you to read it really slowly, chucking a milkshake at farage was an illegal violent act punishable as assault.

[A Red]

18 minutes ago, Boss said:

There's no point debating them A Red. They'll just shift the argument continually because they know themselves attacking politicians is wrong. The real point of the argument - that they obfuscate - is that they think it's justified because it's Nigel Farage. If it was Corbyn, the very same people would not be parsing the finer points of violence. They'd just straight up condemn it - like the egg throwing incident. 

Yep, but sometimes you have to have a go. Dont forget Corbyn and Farage do share some of the same aims

[Rico1304]

2 hours ago, Bjornebye said:

I don't think he was being serious. 

Well;

 

Rape is a statutory offence in England and Wales. According to the law, rape occurs when a man penetrates another person with his penis without the consent of the person being penetrated. If a victim is forcefully penetrated with an object, this is classed as "Assault by Penetration" (section 2).

[moof]

4 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Well;

 

Rape is a statutory offence in England and Wales. According to the law, rape occurs when a man penetrates another person with his penis without the consent of the person being penetrated. If a victim is forcefully penetrated with an object, this is classed as "Assault by Penetration" (section 2).

Fuck off you dumb motherfucker 

[TheHowieLama]

45 minutes ago, moof said:

Fuck off you dumb motherfucker 

See, that is adult debate there.

[moof]

7 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

See, that is adult debate there.

A huge win in the marketplace of ideas, for sure 

[aRdja]

1 hour ago, Boss said:

There's no point debating them A Red. They'll just shift the argument continually because they know themselves attacking politicians is wrong. The real point of the argument - that they obfuscate - is that they think it's justified because it's Nigel Farage. If it was Corbyn, the very same people would not be parsing the finer points of violence. They'd just straight up condemn it - like the egg throwing incident. 

He got punched in the head with someone holding an egg boss. Why downplay it?

[TheHowieLama]

He is not downplaying the egg incident -- he is saying if Corbyn got milkshaked there would be a different reaction. 

Anning was a racist and a right winger as well - certainly being struck in the head from behind was violent.

And as has been pointed out - led to escalation.

 

Officials also concluded Mr Anning had acted in self-defence when he appeared to strike the teenager afterwards.

The teen said the stunt was intended to be a “few laughs with mates” and he did not expect Mr Anning to react as he did to the egging. 

 

Mr Anning appeared to hit the teenager twice after he was egged and his supporters then restrained Mr Connolly on the ground.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

On the subject of self defence, any of the milkshake militia who are charged should argue that as a defence, using the statutory self defence defence under 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967. 

 

It'd probably get chucked out, but it'd be interesting to see if any credence were given to the argument that milkshaking was a legitimate act of statutory self defence to prevent the commission of a crime such as incitement of racial hatred or a racially aggravated public order offence. 

[moof]

Of course the reaction would be different. Corbyn is a decent bloke, and would largely receive sympathy if some blert poured a milkshake all over him. Farage, Robinson, Carl of swindon are utter scum so when it happens to them it’s funny

[TheHowieLama]

3 minutes ago, moof said:

Of course the reaction would be different. Corbyn is a decent bloke, and would largely receive sympathy if some blert poured a milkshake all over him. Farage, Robinson, Carl of swindon are utter scum so when it happens to them it’s funny

I think this is where you are missing the point. Corbyn might well receive sympathy from those who like him - I am sure Farage's supporters do the same.

 

So now you are back to "violence" being ok if you don't like the victim. I do not agree with that.

[VladimirIlyich]

2 hours ago, A Red said:

These acts of violence you speak of were to change laws. What law are you looking to change here?

 

You are the person saying violence is never justified while I am citing examples where it forced change and was considered necessary. There was plenty of law breaking and violence being used to change it. A milk shake being thrown simply wouldn't have achieved any of it.

[moof]

9 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

I think this is where you are missing the point. Corbyn might well receive sympathy from those who like him - I am sure Farage's supporters do the same.

 

So now you are back to "violence" being ok if you don't like the victim. I do not agree with that.

I’m not missing any point mate; my entire point, initially, was that violence against certain people is justifiable. If they are fascists, for example, then I don’t mind if someone punches them, because their hate preaching, and their ideology, makes life unsafe for many many innocent people, and so they deserve it - and hopefully it sends a message. There’s no equivalence to be made between fascists and decent politicians like Corbyn.

 

Are people really becoming radicalised due to sympathy for fascists being punched? If so, fuck those people too