Feds 'black-bagging people' in Portland

We don’t have to take the ‘scientific definition’: you literally asked us to, Kearsen!

Regardless, getting away from sciency shit, just going by mere definitional measures, a punch is not equal to a verbal-insult-directed-to-a-non-involved-third-party.

See how simple that was?

No, the puncher’s choice to punch him got him punched.

Funny, coulda swore I said that. (Granted, it was only the post directly above yours)

Him being there. Him screaming obscenities. Nothing to see here?

As i said, he was exercising his right.

How non involved do you need to be for the victim to have personalized the insult to Fuck YOU instead of leaving it at Fuck Trump?

“It got him punched” might apply if the puncher were a toddler or a developmentally disabled adult. Similar to “it got him bit/kicked” when talking about harassing a snake/horse. Otherwise, no, nothing to see here; functioning adults choose whether to punch or not.

It might. It might also apply to fiery people, people under duress, people angry. Basically, it applies to any instance egregious enough to have a protest about.
The divisive nature of this country is only getting worse but you sitting there blaming the other side and crying about the whataboutism, as if you are free from all blame, is sickening.

Functioning adults are solely responsible for where they put their fists.

My pointing out your failed attempt at injecting Newton’s third law (a concept routinely taught to 14 year olds) into the conversation has little to do with blame or crying.

I haven’t argued otherwise.

Basically the argument comes down to whether you think that no words( racial or otherwise) , sans physical violence, could so inflame someone that it will likely result in you getting punched.

Well? Are there “fighting words” or not?

Maybe the problem is that we are assuming that a Trump supporter is a functioning adult.

We should need to treat them with kid gloves, coddle them and coo to them in order to keep them from exercising their natural violent tendencies?

Solely up to you i suppose, but if you go up to a big burly dude, as non violent liberal, and tell him to go fuck himself or fuck you, or something about his momma, you might get swatted.

There’s but for causation and proximate causation. There’s a reason why we don’t tend to use but-for causation to blame people. Yes, if he had not said those words, he might not have been punched. But that does not meaningfully mean that he caused the punch. Just as, if Jane had not gone out with Steve, he could not have raped her does not mean that she caused him to rape her. My driving a car on a certain day did not cause someone to negligently turn in front of me, so that I crashed into them. This is true even though each of those things is technically a but-for cause – but for that act, the result would have been different.

I think you are a little bit stuck in the good, he deserved it stage I described in my previous post, but you don’t want to admit that, so you are sticking to this but-for cause nonsense. You should stop, or at least think about what you are trying to accomplish here.

Then using words like “complicit” (post #1216) is a poor way to communicate it.

Humans aren’t dice. Your use of the passive voice removes the puncher, who makes a choice to punch or not. I can’t make someone choose what to do with their arm.

You (falsely) wrote earlier that I was " blaming the other side". This has nothing to do with sides; my posts apply equally to someone punching out a nazi.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Party of Personal Responsibility!

Indeed, if only everyone was.

And so then, as a progressive leftist mostly nonviolent woman who is nonetheless still an Oregonian with all that entails, if that burly dude swats me over my words then it’s completely on him and okay and copacetic and understandable when I pull out a pistol and put a full clip right into his ten ring? Because as much as MAGAts refuse to understand it, leftists have guns too and are just as willing to use them albeit less likely to wear them like the world’s worst fashion statement and if escalation is the order of the day then provoking the MAGAts into violence in order to clear them from the world is totes okay, per your apparent policy of excusing it as physics and unavoidable?

Being angry does not allow you to beat people up.

Being short tempered most certainly does not allow you to beat people up.

There was nobody forcing the puncher to punch anybody, so duress has nothing to do with it.

And yes, we have noted that after telling us firmly that science required the punching due to equal-opposite-reaction, when being called on that you’re now denying having said so.

Look: the problem isn’t that we don’t understand that you’re claiming punching is a normal and reasonable response to words. We understand that just fine. The problem is that we disagree with you.

I have run into the concept; in historical novels.

We don’t fight duels any longer, either.

Depends on who “we” are.

…thank you Kearsen1 for joining the nationwide “Punch-a-Nazi” fan-club. The black-bloc antifa who punched Richard Spencer are proud to have you on their team.

No one, and especially not me, has said anything about being allowed (and definitely not required) to do anything. Except the guy that punched the protestor WAS allowed to punch the guy.

I have said repeatedly that is a criminal act. I didn’t call it normal, or reasonable. But then again I don’t find screaming Fuck You to people normal or reasonable either.

If both parties had been normal and reasonable, the punch never would have occurred.