Board 8 > man slowly bumps into protesters blocking intersection, injuring nobody [video]

(+) Yeah! (+)

You know, when a post like that is technically closer to on my side than not, it almost makes me want to re-evaluate my position.
---

SSJBGenkiDama posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

SSJBGenkiDama posted...

It is already illegal to block traffic. When you do you should forfeit any and all criminal and civil rights to court.

It's also illegal to remove the tag on a mattress before it gets to the consumer, clearly those people forfeit their rights and should be shot.

No, but if a vehicle ran them over while they were breaking that law (forced to because of it somehow) I'd have approximately 0 mercy for them and they again should forfeit all criminal and civil action.

no one is forced to run anyone over

lethal force is not a reasonable reaction to an inconvenience
---

Lopen posted...

There was no direct intent to cause harm on either side-- they were just trying to accomplish their goals effectively, but without hurting anyone.

Eh, it's not really fair to equate them entirely like this.

The guy having people step in front of the car and him still driving forward would be equatable if there was a medical emergency in one of the cars and the protesters kept blocking traffic, anyway.

Failure to stop doing something that could cause harm when harm is more imminent is still intent. People were directly in front of the car trying to get him to stop, so at that point, not stopping qualifies as intent. Obviously it gets a bit more sketchy when they started attacking the car, but prior to that, it applies.

Likewise, if he was going "Medical emergency!" and the people were still trying to step in front of his car, that would also qualify as intent.
---

They might not be exactly equal, but trying to say what that guy did was "lethal force" like others are isn't really fair either.
---

Lopen posted...

They might not be exactly equal, but trying to say what that guy did was "lethal force" like others are isn't really fair either.

Fair, but he's not charged with attempted murder, either. He's charged with assault.
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

SSJBGenkiDama posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

SSJBGenkiDama posted...

It is already illegal to block traffic. When you do you should forfeit any and all criminal and civil rights to court.

It's also illegal to remove the tag on a mattress before it gets to the consumer, clearly those people forfeit their rights and should be shot.

No, but if a vehicle ran them over while they were breaking that law (forced to because of it somehow) I'd have approximately 0 mercy for them and they again should forfeit all criminal and civil action.

no one is forced to run anyone over

lethal force is not a reasonable reaction to an inconvenience

It will be soon..... legally...

Lopen posted...

They might not be exactly equal, but trying to say what that guy did was "lethal force" like others are isn't really fair either.

I wasn't referring to this specific incident with "lethal force", I just assume MWC wants to kill people.
---

Sure. I have no issue with the guy being punished by the law. He should be. As should the protesters for that matter. I have an issue with people making it out to be more than it is on his side, or less than it is on the other side.
---

SSJBGenkiDama posted...

MoogleKupo141 posted...

SSJBGenkiDama posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

SSJBGenkiDama posted...

It is already illegal to block traffic. When you do you should forfeit any and all criminal and civil rights to court.

It's also illegal to remove the tag on a mattress before it gets to the consumer, clearly those people forfeit their rights and should be shot.

No, but if a vehicle ran them over while they were breaking that law (forced to because of it somehow) I'd have approximately 0 mercy for them and they again should forfeit all criminal and civil action.

no one is forced to run anyone over

lethal force is not a reasonable reaction to an inconvenience

It will be soon..... legally...

it being legal wouldn't make it reasonable or morally right
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

SSJBGenkiDama posted...

MoogleKupo141 posted...

SSJBGenkiDama posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

SSJBGenkiDama posted...

It is already illegal to block traffic. When you do you should forfeit any and all criminal and civil rights to court.

It's also illegal to remove the tag on a mattress before it gets to the consumer, clearly those people forfeit their rights and should be shot.

No, but if a vehicle ran them over while they were breaking that law (forced to because of it somehow) I'd have approximately 0 mercy for them and they again should forfeit all criminal and civil action.

no one is forced to run anyone over

lethal force is not a reasonable reaction to an inconvenience

It will be soon..... legally...

it being legal wouldn't make it reasonable or morally right

It's MORE THAN reasonable. Morally I would say it is ambiguous depending on situation. A lot of gray there.

Lopen posted...

Sure. I have no issue with the guy being punished by the law. He should be. As should the protesters for that matter. I have an issue with people making it out to be more than it is on his side, or less than it is on the other side.

To be fair, I think most of it was in reaction to the first two posts in the topic being "What a hero!" >_>
---

SSJBGenkiDama posted...

MoogleKupo141 posted...

SSJBGenkiDama posted...

MoogleKupo141 posted...

SSJBGenkiDama posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

SSJBGenkiDama posted...

It is already illegal to block traffic. When you do you should forfeit any and all criminal and civil rights to court.

It's also illegal to remove the tag on a mattress before it gets to the consumer, clearly those people forfeit their rights and should be shot.

No, but if a vehicle ran them over while they were breaking that law (forced to because of it somehow) I'd have approximately 0 mercy for them and they again should forfeit all criminal and civil action.

no one is forced to run anyone over

lethal force is not a reasonable reaction to an inconvenience

It will be soon..... legally...

it being legal wouldn't make it reasonable or morally right

It's MORE THAN reasonable. Morally I would say it is ambiguous depending on situation. A lot of gray there.

it's totally unreasonable. Saving your self some time then isn't worth all the effort it would take to fix the human-shaped dent in your car and wash all the blood off.
---

subject change:

if there was a gunshot victim in one of the cars being prevented from traversing the road and he died due to a lack of medical attention should the protestors be charged with manslaughter?

would the driver have the right to move through the crowd at a low speed due to the emergency at hand?
---

HotDogButts posted...

subject change:

if there was a gunshot victim in one of the cars being prevented from traversing the road and he died due to a lack of medical attention should the protestors be charged with manslaughter?

would the driver have the right to move through the crowd at a low speed due to the emergency at hand?

Yes they should.

Yes he should

HotDogButts posted...

subject change:

if there was a gunshot victim in one of the cars being prevented from traversing the road and he died due to a lack of medical attention should the protestors be charged with manslaughter?

would the driver have the right to move through the crowd at a low speed due to the emergency at hand?

Probably if there's a viable way to do so

Yes, assuming the driver is actually making an attempt to let the situation be known. Shouldn't just start pushing through, though.
---

you already think driving through them is fine though so that's boring
---

StealThisSheen posted...

HotDogButts posted...

subject change:

if there was a gunshot victim in one of the cars being prevented from traversing the road and he died due to a lack of medical attention should the protestors be charged with manslaughter?

would the driver have the right to move through the crowd at a low speed due to the emergency at hand?

Probably if there's a viable way to do so

Yes, assuming the driver is actually making an attempt to let the situation be known. Shouldn't just start pushing through, though.

So willfully engaging in an action that may reasonably result in undue harm to an individual/s (preventing travel in an emergency, for instance) is A-OK up until that situation actually presents itself? What about other potentially harmful behavior?

And assault with a deadly weapon becomes legally justified if you are trying to save the life of another individual? Interesting.
---

You're not thinking about this correctly.

Once this becomes illegal, Id be able to sue the criminal or their remaining relatives for damage to my car.

And I guarantee you that once this is legalized people will still break the law at first... but once someone gets struck by a car a few times and it gets dismissed out of court. Then that would be the end (this is all hypothetical that it becomes legal, but that's looking like a great chance)

HotDogButts posted...

So willfully engaging in an action that may reasonably result in undue harm to an individual/s (preventing travel in an emergency, for instance) is A-OK up until that situation actually presents itself? What about other potentially harmful behavior?

And assault with a deadly weapon becomes legally justified if you are trying to save the life of another individual? Interesting.

Standing in front of a door, stairwell, etc. is also "Willfully engaging in an action that may reasonably result in undue harm to individuals (preventing travel in an emergency, for instance)," so that happens literally all the time.

As for the latter, you didn't ask if it'd be legally justified specifically, so I need to clarify. No, it wouldn't be legally justified, but it'd be a bit more morally so.
---

https://imgur.com/a/E5yIL
---

so you would prefer a man to die due to lack of medical attention than for an individual to drive through a crowd engaging in illegal behavior at a low speed?
---

HotDogButts posted...

so you would prefer a man to die due to lack of medical attention than for an individual to drive through a crowd engaging in illegal behavior at a low speed?

StealThisSheen posted...

As for the latter, you didn't ask if it'd be legally justified specifically, so I need to clarify. No, it wouldn't be legally justified, but it'd be a bit more morally so.

What I think/prefer and what is legally acceptable are two entirely different things.
---

Lopen posted...

I think trying to say puke smells better than crap conveys less information than saying both of them smell bad

That's so wrong.

Obviously you think what you say is a valuable contribution, which is why you say it. I just don't think it is.

But what it comes down to: are you able to take a stand on puke vs crap? I would
---

OliviaTremor posted...

Lol what is this libertarian shit

Lol.
---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

I don't know, I should ask her and probably get a response of "Why are you asking me such a stupid question?" To which I would go "I don't know, some douchebag trying to make a dumb point asked me to ask you that."

Ok great so the 1 question that would let you understand the entire point of protests like these, you dismiss as stupid and don't even TRY to answer it

This is how you turn into a curmudgeon who gets angry at everything they don't understand
---

I think it's a more valuable contribution in this context, where you have a few people saying crap smells good and a bunch of people saying puke smells good. At that point, it becomes "which is the more stupid opinion: thinking crap/puke smells good, or thinking the wrong one of the two smells worse."

Like, I might, if my arm is twisted, be able to pick one, but I just don't think it's terribly insightful or useful. You arbitrarily deciding that it is useful and that the other talking point is not does not mean I'm not making a point.

Whereas, 95% of the time, I actually can claim you're not making a point, because you are quite literally, not making a point. It's not "you're not making the point I want to hear" like it is when you say I'm not.
---

Yeah you see a bunch of people arguing and you think that no one has ever considered that both sides are stupid, so you feel the need to come in and say so. That's what I'm saying is dumb. Everyone knows that opinion exists already and is very common and will inevitably be posted by some boor. Like mansplaining basically.

Lopen posted...

Like, I might, if my arm is twisted, be able to pick one

Then do it. I obviously think the protesting is better. What's yours?
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Everyone knows that opinion exists already and is very common and will inevitably be posted by some boor. Like mansplaining basically.

Really? It was that obvious? Then how come no one was saying it? How come no one was, not saying the exact opposite of that, in fact? Everyone was eager to pick a side, and not condemn their own, focusing instead on how the other side was awful-- which frankly, I found stupid, because I didn't think either one was actually awful. Do you deal in Lasa's horoscopes as well when reading posts?

Hell, I still don't know whether you actually agree it's a crap vs puke matter at all, because you haven't actually made that viewpoint very clear. Just taking some ambiguous stance that condemns the car driver (but is wholly non-committal about the protesters). It's a good thing you have no concern about how people will react to your opinions, nor any concern about being perceived as intelligent or not!

If my arm is twisted, the car driver is more in the wrong, for sure. That being said, people's representation of what the car driver was doing was further off base, so I feel more compelled to argue for the car driver in this particular topic, because yeah, he what he was doing really wasn't that dangerous as fun as it is to be hyperbolic and call it some sort of intent to kill is. Because as said, in this context, the distinction of who is more in the wrong is just not an interesting talking point.
---

Lopen posted...

Really? It was that obvious? Then how come no one was saying it?

that doesn't mean anything. it's like how if a politics topic is a 100 posts underway and some pretentious douchebag comes in saying "well actually democrats and republicans are BOTH bad that's why i'm a moderate because i'm super nuanced and smart." that's incredibly predictable even if nobody in the topic has said it yet. just because nobody has said it yet doesn't mean it's a super original and insightful and non-obvious stance.
---

Okay, but please explain to me how a stance is supposedly obvious if all the people in the topic are saying the exact opposite of the supposed obvious stance.

Like we've got people saying "people have the right to protest" and we've got people saying "the car driver is a hero" but supposedly "they're both idiots" is the obvious thing.

You guys are horoscoping really hard here to try and fake a point rather than just admitting foolmo is a hypocrite
---

Lopen posted...

Like we've got people saying "people have the right to protest" and we've got people saying "the car driver is a hero" but supposedly "they're both idiots" is the obvious thing.

not THE obvious thing, it's obvious that people have this stance.

like, i just explained it?

it's like saying "democrats and republicans were yelling at each other for 100 posts and somehow being a moderate is the obvious thing?" yes, it's an obvious thing.
---

apparently humans have regressed to one of the animals dumb enough to stand in the middle of a road that they know cars will drive down
---

Okay?

And it's obvious that some people think the car driver is more in the wrong. And it's obvious that some people think the protesters are more in the wrong.

Let's just not non-shitpost at all! Everything's obvious!

Like, the whole moderate analogy just doesn't work because in a politics topic, that probably isn't the direct discussion and just mentioning it out of nowhere would be a non-sequitur which, yeah, just makes you come off as a douche.

But if people are explicitly claiming that one side is right, and other people are explicitly claiming another side is right, and it's an explicitly two side discussion where you can conclusively say there is in fact no "right" side here-- there is in fact a point to posting about that!

Like a moderate is a moderate not because they think democrats and republicans have nothing valuable, but rather that the priorities aren't quite in the right order. So if you say "I'm not a democrat, I'm a moderate" it has no real value to the discussion if it isn't provoked first because you probably do, as a moderate, agree with some aspects of the democrat, and the republican, whereas I do not agree either side did the right thing whatsoever, so yeah, it's just a failure of an analogy all around.
---

Lopen posted...

Okay?

And it's obvious that some people think the car driver is more in the wrong. And it's obvious that some people think the protesters are more in the wrong.

Let's just not non-shitpost at all! Everything's obvious!

Like, the whole moderate analogy just doesn't work because in a politics topic, that probably isn't the direct discussion and just mentioning it out of nowhere would be a non-sequitur which, yeah, just makes you come off as a douche.

But if people are explicitly claiming that one side is right, and other people are explicitly claiming another side is right, and it's an explicitly two side discussion where you can conclusively say there is in fact no "right" side here-- there is in fact a point to posting about that!

Like a moderate is a moderate not because they think democrats and republicans have nothing valuable, but rather that the priorities aren't quite in the right order. So if you say "I'm not a democrat, I'm a moderate" it has no real value to the discussion if it isn't provoked first because you probably do, as a moderate, agree with some aspects of the democrat, and the republican, whereas I do not agree either side did the right thing whatsoever, so yeah, it's just a failure of an analogy all around.

well, they did just get you to demonize the stance of taking a reasonable/moderate position over an extreme one. so I wouldn't say that the conversation has had no value. if the intention was to increase the hostile environment of constantly escalating conversations to extreme viewpoints then getting you to cede that point was certainly a step toward that end.
---

I don't think I demonized taking the moderate viewpoint. I hope I didn't.

I demonized mentioning being a moderate for no reason the conversation directs you to. It only sounds similar!
---

Lopen posted...

And it's obvious that some people think the car driver is more in the wrong. And it's obvious that some people think the protesters are more in the wrong.

Let's just not non-shitpost at all! Everything's obvious!

well yeah, just saying "the driver is right" or "the protesters are right" doesn't add anything either.

but looking back at your post you didn't just say that both sides were wrong, you were saying it because you wanted to make clear that you didn't side with the driver. so yeah, i'll concede that foolmo was being unnecessarily harsh on you.
---

The only concession of value to me is conceding foolmo is a hypocrite. You can keep your lesser concessions.
---

I don't know why you guys bother with these topics. I could have predicted what stance every single person in this topic would take. Not a single person was convinced in the slightest, not a single thing was gained but a whole lot of time was lost.

Just like the protesters and the people stuck waiting for them.

God I hate myself for reading this this topic
---

Quick someone make a snide comment about Colegreen in a shallow attempt to feel better about themselves
---

Lopen posted...

Really? It was that obvious? Then how come no one was saying it?

Because they proved how stupid they think the argument is by not posting and not reading the topic

Lopen posted...

If my arm is twisted, the car driver is more in the wrong, for sure.

But fine this makes your position more credible
---

snide comment about Colegreen

thinly veiled cheap shot at Lopen for inspiring me to do something dumb
---

Lopen posted...

Quick someone make a snide comment about Colegreen in a shallow attempt to feel better about themselves

Colegreen_c12 posted...

I don't know why you guys bother with these topics. I could have predicted what stance every single person in this topic would take. Not a single person was convinced in the slightest, not a single thing was gained but a whole lot of time was lost.

Just like the protesters and the people stuck waiting for them.

God I hate myself for reading this this topic

I know you are but what am I....

I got you Lopen

oh god the anime cru is here
---

cole you can't predict me

I am beyond your comprehension, mortal
---

Lopen posted...

The only concession of value to me is conceding foolmo is a hypocrite.

eh, i can't agree with that since i don't think shitposting is the same thing as attempting to add something to a conversation and failing.

like, if i called the moderate guy in my analogy out for not adding anything to the political debate and he would say "but lasa you've shitposted in a lamejokealt topic! you're such a hypocrite!" i wouldn't think that would be a fair attack.

you can think it's all the same but i do think there's a difference. the shitposter isn't being pretentious.
---

foolmo isn't pretentious? Now I know you're fortune cookieing it up.
---

foolmo's a jackass, but I choose to believe that he bullied shm into closing his account so he's good in my book
---

I would definitely identify as pretentious
---

Reg posted...

foolmo's a jackass, but I choose to believe that he bullied shm into closing his account so he's good in my book

lmao I didn't even think of this until now

He literally closed his account cuz my gun analogy was too good
---

he can be pretentious but he's not when he's shitposting.
---