One simply has to hand it to some bloggers. The meaning of the word hypocrite simply never seems to penetrate their skulls, even while they're in the act of making one out of themselves.
And sometimes it starts with something so simple as forgetting the lessons that we're taught in the most formative years in our lives -- or making a conscious choice to discard them entirely.
Consider the recent case of various left-wing bloggers who approved of the assault on 69-year-old Ed Snell.
Their basic argument, in the end, has basically boiled down to "well, we had it coming."
And in their minds, it's an argument that we suddenly accept. Accept that we don't.
It behooves us to remember that Nathan Richardson, the 69-year-old Snell's assailant, was 23 years old -- a full 46 years Snell's junior. Clearly, Richardson is much younger, bigger, and stronger than Snell -- something that only serves to underscore the shameless brutality of Richardson's assault.
It's the very same principle why our society condemns violence by men against women. Generally, men are much bigger and stronger than women. It's why many women demand stronger domestic assault laws, to protect women.
But there are defenses that we simply don't accept. Arguments such as "she had it coming".
Provocation is rejected by almost anyone as a defense in the case of violence perpetrated by a man against a woman and, normally, against a senior citizen. But swap that woman for an elderly man with political opinions that the individual in question finds offensive, and the response suddenly changes from one of condemnation to something like the following:
"If you're going to stand on top of your car yelling at people, yeah, someone's probably going to take you down a peg." -PedgehogSuddenly, these are the kinds of defenses these people believe should be accepted.
"Guys like Snell are the moral equivalent of fraudsters who deliberately step into the path of an oncoming car and then fake their "injuries" to be worse than reality, hoping for a financial payoff. In Snell's case, he was hoping for a legal payoff.
Too bad the judge didn't drop his sorry ass into a cell." -Chimera
"Does one have the right to follow up a verbal assault with a physical one?
If there is no other way to end the verbal assault, you're damn right you do. It may not be legal, but it was absolutely the right thing to do." -Realitybites
"Would it be terribly improper of me to point out that Mr. Richardson is quite the hotty, and is welcome to push me down any time he wants?" -Realitybites
"My feeling (and I'm guessing probably most peoples' feeling) is that Snell poked a stick through one too many fences expecting beagles to be behind them, and eventually came up with a rottweiller. That doesn't make the rottie a good guy, it just makes Snell a dummy who it's extremely hard to sympathize with, and easy to ridicule. Some would say he had it coming." - JJ
"I'd have kick the old fart in the nads while he was down for good measure - make him think twice about harassing my wife or girlfriend (don't tell my wife about her) during such a time." -Mike
"That's precisely the reason why not following up with a kick to the head was a bad thing to do." -Chimera
"I couldn't care less if the old guy disagreed with my POV -- he was being an asshole, for the umpteenth time in his life, and he got what was coming to him." -JJ
"Snell got what he deserved. Like I said at JJ's, I would have kicked him in the nuts a few times while he was down. It would have been worth it." -Mike
But if we don't accept the "he had it coming" defense from nine-year-olds who beat up on five-year-olds... if we don't accept them from men who beat up on women, why on earth would any rational, sane adult accept them on behalf of 23-year-old men who beat up on 69-year-olds?
We don't. Then again, these aren't rational, sane, well-adjusted people. It's become entirely evident that this particular faction of the pro-abortion lobby has completely lost their minds.
It's all rather sad. One certainly doesn't have to approve of Snell's views, or of the method he chooses to express them, in order to admit that the violence perpetrated against him was wrong.
And it was. Indisputably -- whether these hateful psychopaths want to admit it or not.
The funny thing is that as soon as an abortion clinic doctor is targeted by an act of violence, it's used to paint the entirety of the anti-abortion lobby with the same terroristic brutality, despite the fact that many members of the anti-abortion lobby are willing to come out and condemn such violence.
Yet when violence is perpetrated against an anti-abortion activist -- even in the course of a confrontation as lop-sided as this one -- they approve. If one were to treat these individuals as they evidently imagine themselves -- as representatives of their movement -- it becomes hard to believe that the entire movement doesn't carry the very brutal, violent edge that they imagine -- and condemn -- in their anti-abortion opponents.
It's all the more reason for, whenever these particular crazed extremists of the pro-abortion lobby rant and rave about the latest outrage perpetrated by anti-abortion terrorists, their condemnation should be greeted with nothing but scorn. Sympathy should be extended to the victims and their families, but the cowardly, shameless hypocrites who approve of and, make childish excuses for, violence perpetrated against their anti-abortion opponents deserve to be treated with nothing but contempt.
We will not accept those arguments from men who beat women, and we will not accept them from young men who assault septuagenarians.
So...you'd be okay with a septuagenarian's getting in your face and screaming epithets at you and members of your family, blocking your way, taunting, teasing, and generally making a nuisance of himself and his "right" to "free speech?"
ReplyDeleteWell, let me put it to you this way: I'm much bigger and stronger than a septuagenarian, and can probably walk away from him much faster than he can follow.
ReplyDeleteAnd he has freedom of speech. I don't have to like what he has to say, and he isn't obligated to say only things I want to hear.
But let me, ask you a question: when a man beats his wife because she said something he didn't like to him, do you say she "had it coming"?
So, you'd allow him to chase you away from your perfectly legitimate business in order to accomodate his freedom to harrass the hell outa you?
ReplyDeleteYou're far nobler than I am. And no, that's not a snark. I just don't have the patience to put up with anyone's impeding me in my legal and personal pursuits. I don't care who they are, how they vote, how they pray, how old they are, what color skin they have, or what language they speak. If they get in my way, I'm very likely to shove them away. And if that topples them off the roof of a car, well, the roof of a car is not the safest place to be, is it?
If Snell had been standing on the ground, he wouldn't have fallen off the car. His responsibility.
And then there's the question of whether or not one's age automatically makes one fit or unfit, physically speaking. But that's another take altogether.
Wife-beating? Not relevant to this topic. Not gonna go there.
"So, you'd allow him to chase you away from your perfectly legitimate business in order to accomodate his freedom to harrass the hell outa you?"
ReplyDeleteThat's the beauty of doors. They close. Sometimes, they even lock.
"You're far nobler than I am. And no, that's not a snark. I just don't have the patience to put up with anyone's impeding me in my legal and personal pursuits. I don't care who they are, how they vote, how they pray, how old they are, what color skin they have, or what language they speak. If they get in my way, I'm very likely to shove them away. And if that topples them off the roof of a car, well, the roof of a car is not the safest place to be, is it?"
Now you're dissembling.
Nathan Richardson didn't "push Snell out of his way". He climbed an eight foot fence, ran up to him, and shoved him.
He went out of his way to assault Snell when he should have just walked away.
"If Snell had been standing on the ground, he wouldn't have fallen off the car. His responsibility."
Hmmmm. Interesting. So clearly you think that a woman who continues to associate with a man who beats her is taking responsibility for her beatings.
Interesting.
"And then there's the question of whether or not one's age automatically makes one fit or unfit, physically speaking. But that's another take altogether."
Viewing the pictures of Snell that are in circulation, it becomes evident he walks with the aid of a walker.
His physical fitness isn't much unlike your average 69-year-old, who probably couldn't defend themselves against Richardson's girlfriend, much less Richardson himself.
There's a reason why elder abuse is becoming such a concern for our society. But I guess there's no point in alerting you to this -- not only do you condone elder abuse, you applaud it.
"Wife-beating? Not relevant to this topic. Not gonna go there."
There's nothing irrelevant about it. We condemn men who beat their wives because they abuse someone who isn't strong enough to defend themselves against it.
We condemn able-bodied men who assault the elderly for the same reason -- provided that we aren't hypocrites.
So either you condone violence against women, or you're a hypocrite. No middle option. Take your pick.
"...it becomes evident he walks with the aid of a walker."
ReplyDeleteSo wotthehell was he doing on the roof of a car???
And if he can't defend himself adequately, why on earth would he be picking a fight with someone who could clearly do more physical damage than merely knock him off a car roof?
"'If Snell had been standing on the ground, he wouldn't have fallen off the car. His responsibility.'
"Hmmmm. Interesting. So clearly you think that a woman who continues to associate with a man who beats her is taking responsibility for her beatings."
I don't get how you made a connection between two decidedly different scenarios. I'm only dealing with the first. I have no interest in the second.
"Now you're dissembling."
It's called clarifying.
When did you bring in the subject of elder abuse? And what does it have to do with Richardson's trying to teach Snell some manners?
Do you think Snell has the right to use his age and infirmity as an excuse to abuse another human being? Because that's what he was doing on the roof of that car -- a place of danger he chose for himself, by the way.
Or, given that I am much closer to Snell's age than I am to Richardson's (and I do walk with a walker -- courtesy of scoliosis as well as hip, knee, and plantar problems), perhaps you'd be okay with it if I had done the pushing off the car roof when Snell started to abuse me and my friends?
"So wotthehell was he doing on the roof of a car???"
ReplyDeleteLikely, getting there with some difficulty. Probably, with some help. It isn't particularly relevant.
"And if he can't defend himself adequately, why on earth would he be picking a fight with someone who could clearly do more physical damage than merely knock him off a car roof?"
There's no indication in the story whatsoever that he was "picking a fight" with anyone. He said something Richardson didn't like, and Richardson assaulted him.
Those are the relevant facts.
"I don't get how you made a connection between two decidedly different scenarios. I'm only dealing with the first. I have no interest in the second."
There is no difference between them, and you know it. Snell couldn't defend himself against Nathan Richardson anymore than the average woman can defend herself against her husband, boyfriend, or men in general.
"It's called clarifying."
I prefer to call it what it really is: lying. Snell wasn't in Richardson's way, and you know it. To try to pretend otherwise is a lie, and you know it.
"When did you bring in the subject of elder abuse? And what does it have to do with Richardson's trying to teach Snell some manners?"
Right about the time I pointed out the difference in age between Snell and Richardson. Which was at the very beginning. Now pay attention.
You clearly also excuse bodily harm being inflicted by men on women if the woman happens to be "rude".
This is becoming a very interesting window into all kinds of disgusting, misogynistic views you evidently hold.
"Do you think Snell has the right to use his age and infirmity as an excuse to abuse another human being? Because that's what he was doing on the roof of that car -- a place of danger he chose for himself, by the way."
Don't you dare lecture me about abusing people. The company you keep, and the abuses they heap on their political opponents, speaks volumes for itself.
And by your same line of argument, a woman who continues to associate with a man who hits her is also "choosing a place of danger for herself".
Do you excuse her abuser? Yes or no?
(I mean, the answer is evidently "yes", but I'll grant you an opportunity to make even more of a hypocrite of yourself by lying and saying "no".)
"Or, given that I am much closer to Snell's age than I am to Richardson's (and I do walk with a walker -- courtesy of scoliosis as well as hip, knee, and plantar problems), perhaps you'd be okay with it if I had done the pushing off the car roof when Snell started to abuse me and my friends?"
You'd still deserve to be locked up, just as Richardson does, but at least it would be a little more of a fair fight.
Let me ask you this: if you attend a pro-abortion lobby, and an anti-abortion lobbyist 40 years your junior pushes you down because you say something that makes them mad, do you think they should be excused?
"You clearly also excuse bodily harm being inflicted by men on women if the woman happens to be 'rude'."
ReplyDeleteWhen? Where? Link? Oh, never mind. I already said more than once that that subject does not interest me. Put it in a different post and we'll talk about it there. But I really do not like multitasking. It dilutes the discussion.
"Don't you dare lecture me about abusing people."
Was I lecturing? 'Scuze me -- I thought I was asking a question: Does Snell's age give him license for bad behavior?
"Let me ask you this: if you attend a pro-abortion lobby, and an anti-abortion lobbyist 40 years your junior pushes you down because you say something that makes them mad, do you think they should be excused?"
I'd never attend such a rally.
But, in the wild fantasy we're apparently inhabiting at the moment, if I did go to such a rally, I sure as hell wouldn't pick a fight with anyone while he was metaphorically driving a steamroller, and then stand in front of him so he couldn't possible miss me. But then, I don't believe in martyrdom.
"The company you keep..."
The "company" I "keep" (I take it you mean the blogs on which I sometimes comment) is under no compulsion from me -- or I from them -- to behave in any particular way. They have their opinions. I have mine. We're not all joined at the hip, and none of us is accountable for our behavior to any of the others.
Have I heaped any abuse upon you?
Patrick, if you take the time to separate your reactions to the others from the topic at hand in the here and now, we could actually have a discussion without veering into the hysteria of name-calling, pigeon-holing, and erroneous generalizing.
Or I could simply go away and call it a day.
Your choice.
"When? Where? Link? Oh, never mind. I already said more than once that that subject does not interest me. Put it in a different post and we'll talk about it there. But I really do not like multitasking. It dilutes the discussion."
ReplyDeleteWell, of course you have no interest in that subject matter. Then you'd have to admit you're a hypocrite, and I really get the sense that you believe that you aren't a hypocrite so long as you don't admit to it.
Unfortunately for you, that's not the case.
"Does Snell's age give him license for bad behavior?"
Once again, you're dissembling. Snell's opinions, nor the way he goes about expressing it, doesn't give anyone the right to assault him.
I'll remind you that Snell is one who's been the victim of an actual crime here.
Do you also support the sexual history of rape victims being admissable in court?
If you want to put victims on trial in the course of discussing their victimization -- which is exactly what you're trying to do here -- you can't do it selectively.
So either you do, or you don't. Which is it?
"But, in the wild fantasy we're apparently inhabiting at the moment, if I did go to such a rally, I sure as hell wouldn't pick a fight with anyone while he was metaphorically driving a steamroller, and then stand in front of him so he couldn't possible miss me. But then, I don't believe in martyrdom."
Once again, in order to make this particular narrative stick, you'd have to prove that: A.)Snell picked a fight with Richardson -- no evidence of that -- and B.)Snell "stood in front" of Richardson -- which is directly contradicted by the facts of the case that you are so dishonestly choosing to ignore.
So if I were you, I'd stop dissembling. It's only making you all the more transparent.
"Patrick, if you take the time to separate your reactions to the others from the topic at hand in the here and now, we could actually have a discussion without veering into the hysteria of name-calling, pigeon-holing, and erroneous generalizing."
Interesting. But somehow you don't expect anyone to object to your characterizations of Mr Snell.
If you could produce something to conclusively suggest that Snell conducted himself in the manner you allege -- that he deliberately provoked the assault on his person -- that would be one thing. But not only can you not do that, but the facts of the case actually contradict it.
Beyond that, I'm bringing to your attention the peril of the views you're expressing. If you're consistent in their application, then suddenly you find yourself condoning all sorts of things that well-adjusted adults simply do not condone.
But if you legitimately hold these views and don't apply them in all the cases where they would apply, you're making a hypocrite of yourself.
It's pretty simple: if you condone the violence that Richardson perpetrated against Snell, you in turn grant credibility to those who condone violence by men against women. You grant credibility to those who condone violence against senior citizens. You do so especially when you use the same excuses that they typically use.
And don't try and convince me for two seconds that you can't be judged by the company you keep. The company you keep says a lot about you. If you don't like what that says about you, I'd suggest you change it.
I will talk about the Snell/Richardson case without trying to compare it with any other case, real or imagined. Period. Each case has its own unique circumstances, and I will not try to equate one with another.
ReplyDeleteSnell has a history of provoking people with his nasty, intimidating, aggressive, and wholly noxious behavior. His neighbors hate him and his gallery of death.
Snell travels around the country with his "protests" looking to get attention and/or arrested. What kind of sane man would do that?
This is not the first time someone has physically turned on him. He deliberately invites retaliation. He shouldn't complain when someone takes him up on it.
In this particular case, Snell was not simply peacefully protesting. He was standing on top of a car so he could aim his vitriol over an 8-foot-high fence that surrounded the clinic. What kind of fool do you have to be not to know that an 8-foot-high fence means they don't want anyone looking into the clinic and pestering the clients? And his standing there was pre-meditated -- he knew he was deliberately going to invade their privacy when he put that platform on top of the car!
He had no way of knowing the reason for Richardson's girlfriend's being there. It was entirely possible that she was about to miscarry, or was having any of a number of problems with her pregnancy. It's a medical clinic that serves women in a number of ways, not just abortions. He verbally assaulted her, anyway. Nasty piece of goods, he is.
Richardson quite predictably went into protective mode and toppled the bugger off his car.
Now. Put yourself in Richardson's place for a moment and think about it. You're escorting your emotionally fragile girlfriend into a women's clinic because...maybe she's spotting, and thinks she's about to miscarry, and she's terrified. A nasty little man pokes his head over a privacy screen and starts making odious comments, upsetting her even more. She's about to become hysterical.
You gonna let the little prick get away with that?
Or are you gonna go teach him some manners?
Snell was not seriously injured.
The felony charges were dropped.
Maybe he's learned his lesson? I hope so, because next time, he might go after someone who will not stop until he's dead.
"And don't try and convince me for two seconds that you can't be judged by the company you keep. The company you keep says a lot about you. If you don't like what that says about you, I'd suggest you change it."
I "keep company with" an awful lot of diverse people, Patrick. Killers and priests. Literally. And everyone in between. Why I should want to change it, I don't know. I don't particularly care what anyone else thinks it says about me. After all, I'm here trying to make conversation with you, so I can't be all that bad, can I?
In truth, there are so far only two bloggers with whom I absolutely cannot get along -- and it sure wasn't for lack of trying on my part.
"I will talk about the Snell/Richardson case without trying to compare it with any other case, real or imagined. Period. Each case has its own unique circumstances, and I will not try to equate one with another."
ReplyDeleteYou've already indulged yourself in some imaginings. It's too late to stop now.
You're trying to dodge the questions about your views because you can't answer them. Period.
"Snell has a history of provoking people with his nasty, intimidating, aggressive, and wholly noxious behavior. His neighbors hate him and his gallery of death."
The record hardly shows that. If anything, it shows that Snell isn't discouraged in the face of violence directed at his person.
If Snell held pro-abortion views, I have no doubt you tend to call him resolute, even courageous.
I'm not interested in what his neighbours think of him. My sole interest in this case is the violence directed at him, your attitude towards it, and how it translates into equivalent situations.
And that is not a flattering picture. I'd try to dodge the questions too, if I were you.
"Snell travels around the country with his "protests" looking to get attention and/or arrested. What kind of sane man would do that?
This is not the first time someone has physically turned on him. He deliberately invites retaliation. He shouldn't complain when someone takes him up on it."
You've made it pretty clear at this point that all of this is your assumption. I don't buy into that. I see Snell as a person who is interested in going to some unique lengths in order to voice his views. I certainly don't agree entirely with his methods, but free speech grants him that right.
I see no evidence that Snell is deliberately provoking anything. What I do see is a history of violent behaviour against him by pro-abortion advocates who seem to think they can justify it by citing his views and how he chooses to express them.
"In this particular case, Snell was not simply peacefully protesting. He was standing on top of a car so he could aim his vitriol over an 8-foot-high fence that surrounded the clinic. What kind of fool do you have to be not to know that an 8-foot-high fence means they don't want anyone looking into the clinic and pestering the clients? And his standing there was pre-meditated -- he knew he was deliberately going to invade their privacy when he put that platform on top of the car!"
Once again, you're basing this entirely on your own assumptions. You evidently weren't there, so you don't know what Snell said.
Beyond that, yes, Snell was peacefully protesting. Unless you have some kind of evidence that he resorted to violence first, but the record simply doesn't reflect that.
"He had no way of knowing the reason for Richardson's girlfriend's being there. It was entirely possible that she was about to miscarry, or was having any of a number of problems with her pregnancy. It's a medical clinic that serves women in a number of ways, not just abortions. He verbally assaulted her, anyway. Nasty piece of goods, he is."
Once again, there's no evidence of any verbal assault on his part. If you want to insist he was verbally assaulting Richardson's girlfriend, you'll have to prove it. Otherwise, I reject that assumption.
"Richardson quite predictably went into protective mode and toppled the bugger off his car."
Right. Coming back to your previously-stated assumption that Snell was somehow in Richardson's way, despite the fact that he and Richardson were on opposite sides of an 8-foot fence.
Richardson went out of his way to assault Snell. That is a fact -- one you have yet to admit to. Refusing to admit that doesn't make it any different.
"Now. Put yourself in Richardson's place for a moment and think about it. You're escorting your emotionally fragile girlfriend into a women's clinic because...maybe she's spotting, and thinks she's about to miscarry, and she's terrified. A nasty little man pokes his head over a privacy screen and starts making odious comments, upsetting her even more. She's about to become hysterical."
"You gonna let the little prick get away with that?"
It seems to me that you simply don't possess the mores that the vast majority of people in our society possess. But in our society, the stronger of two individuals is the one expected to show restraint.
That's one of the reasons why violence by men against women -- again, something you evidently condone -- is condemned. We expect men to show restraint against women, just as we expect the young to show restraint against the elderly.
Or at least most of us condemn such violence. You, evidently, condone it.
"Or are you gonna go teach him some manners?"
If Snell has gone this life without learning any manners, he isn't about to learn now. Aside from that, I think I'll forego going to jail, thank you -- and Richardson is probably almost certain to spend up to five years behind bars for this particular feat.
"Snell was not seriously injured."
Once again, not what the record states. The record states that Snell suffered serious head injuries, and almost died -- which is not surprising considering what was done to him.
"The felony charges were dropped."
Once again, to point out another assumption that you and your cohorts have made in error, the reduction is common in Pennsylvania court of law. And the judgment in question says nothing about provocation, merely that the prosecution hasn't proven "extreme indifference to human life" (again, arguable point).
"Maybe he's learned his lesson? I hope so, because next time, he might go after someone who will not stop until he's dead."
And you'd like that, wouldn't you? You've made that pretty evident at this point.
"I'm not interested in what his neighbours think of him. My sole interest in this case is the violence directed at him, your attitude towards it..."
ReplyDeleteOkay, my attitude is that the violence directed towards him did not come from nowhere. He provoked the violent response. He has done it before. He has been physically replied to before. He has a history of such provocative taunting. He has been arrested for it, and spent time in jail for it. There are lots of news stories that pointed this out, and that's one of the reasons the felony charges against Richardson were dropped.
"...and how it translates into equivalent situations."
I don't think there are any equivalent situations, Patrick. Every situation is unique, and every one needs to be resolved on its own merits.
"If Snell held pro-abortion views, I have no doubt you tend to call him resolute, even courageous."
It's not his views and opinions with which I take issue. It's his right to hold whatever views and opinions he wants. It's his provocation of someone else to violence, then whining about being attacked with which I am concerned. I don't care what he thinks. I don't care what he believes in. It's his actions and refusal to take responsibility for the logical results that I hold in such complete contempt.
"You've made it pretty clear at this point that all of this is your assumption."
It's all in news stories, which are legion. Are you looking for links to them? All you have to do is Google "Richardson, Snell" and voila!
"Coming back to your previously-stated assumption that Snell was somehow in Richardson's way, despite the fact that he and Richardson were on opposite sides of an 8-foot fence."
Ah, yes. Not an assumption, but a faulty memory, revealed to be erroneous by further checking. I had confused his contretemps with Richards with another case in which he actually did block someone's way, and got smacked down for that, too.
My error. My apologies.
"...the stronger of two individuals is the one expected to show restraint."
In an ideal world, maybe. But in a ideal world, old men wouldn't harrass law-abiding young women because the old men assume the young women are going to do something the old man believes to be not illegal, but simply "morally" wrong.
Again, I have to point out the eight-foot-high privacy fence. Snell put himself in a position to breach that privacy, and he didn't do it by accident. Where do you begin to take his actions into acount?
But how do you define "stronger?" There were not just two people involved in this, Patrick, there were three. Are you forgetting about the girl? If you expect Richardson to allow Snell to abuse him and his girlfriend because Snell is "weaker," then should you not equally castigate Snell for his attack on the girl?
I don't necessarily condone violence, but I do understand it.
I also understand thoroughly the protective instincts of the male toward the female. Richardson acted predictably toward an attack on his mate. Snell was counting on that.
"The record states that Snell suffered serious head injuries, and almost died..."
I didn't find that anywhere in all the news items I read. I read that he suffered some head trauma, but was released a few days later. They wouldn't have released him if they thought he was in any serious difficulty.
"And you'd like that, wouldn't you? You've made that pretty evident at this point."
Now, that's a blatantly unfair characterization of me, Patrick. Have you not yet figured out that I'm not out to zing you?
I wasn't going to say this , but I decided that maybe I should point it out again, with a little elaboration, just to make sure you understood me the first time:
ReplyDeleteI don't have "cohorts."
I don't travel in a pack. I hate cliques. Groups give me an itch. I don't lead and I don't follow.
I don't like herd mentality. It's undignified, thought-less, and tedious. It's also uninteresting. Me-too is boring.
I don't always agree with anyone. My very first comment on JJ's blog was in disagreement with one of her comments. And I don't always disagree with you, either.
All in all, I'm pretty straightforward. My words have precise meanings, without translations or paraphrases. I guess it might take some getting used to, in a world where almost everyone hides behind obfuscatory language, but there ya go. I don't run with the pack.
"Okay, my attitude is that the violence directed towards him did not come from nowhere. He provoked the violent response. He has done it before. He has been physically replied to before. He has a history of such provocative taunting. He has been arrested for it, and spent time in jail for it. There are lots of news stories that pointed this out, and that's one of the reasons the felony charges against Richardson were dropped."
ReplyDeleteThe point that you seem to missing is: provocation or no provocation, Richardson is much bigger and stronger than Snell. It's up to him to show some restraint, and you and your little fringe of lunatics really seem to be the only ones who think so.
"I don't think there are any equivalent situations, Patrick. Every situation is unique, and every one needs to be resolved on its own merits."
That's a nice attempt to dodge the implications of your attitude. But that doesn't change them.
"It's all in news stories, which are legion. Are you looking for links to them? All you have to do is Google "Richardson, Snell" and voila!"
It's pretty evident that I'm the only one here actually reading these stories. I recall that you didn't seem to know that Snell has to walk with the aid of a walker, and yet there's a picture of him with a walker right in many of those stories.
So, quite to the contrary: there is nothing in the news stories to suggest that he insulted Richardson's girlfriend, or verbally assailed her. Except perhaps on some pro-abortion lunatics' websites, but I'm not paying any attention to that. I'm not even paying any attention to the anti-abortion lunatics' websites. Personally, I'm using the MSM as a filter for these various claims, and the MSM has yet to say anything about Snell verbally assailing the woman in question.
Thus, I refuse to accept your argument, and will continue to refuse to accept your argument.
"Ah, yes. Not an assumption, but a faulty memory, revealed to be erroneous by further checking. I had confused his contretemps with Richards with another case in which he actually did block someone's way, and got smacked down for that, too."
No. I refuse to accept that excuse. That's just another disproven assumption, not much unlike your assumption that Snell was calling Richardson's girlfriend names.
We've already demonstrated your lack of familiarity with the case, and I'm not letting you off the hook for it.
"In an ideal world, maybe. But in a ideal world, old men wouldn't harrass law-abiding young women because the old men assume the young women are going to do something the old man believes to be not illegal, but simply "morally" wrong.
Again, I have to point out the eight-foot-high privacy fence. Snell put himself in a position to breach that privacy, and he didn't do it by accident. Where do you begin to take his actions into acount?
But how do you define "stronger?" There were not just two people involved in this, Patrick, there were three. Are you forgetting about the girl? If you expect Richardson to allow Snell to abuse him and his girlfriend because Snell is "weaker," then should you not equally castigate Snell for his attack on the girl?"
Once again, Chimera, your assumption that Snell verbally assailed Richardson's girlfriend is not reflected by public record, and will not be accepted here.
Here's the thing that you just don't seem to be cluing into here: you don't have to approve of Snell's actions to condemn the violence against him.
Then again, considering that you actually applaud the violence against him, it's unsurprising to me that you wouldn't understand that.
And don't pretend that you don't applaud the violence against him. You actually suggested that Snell, the victim in this case, should be the one to go to jail.
Which is a cute idea, frankly. Maybe we'll just go ahead and start jailing rape victims if they "provoke" their sexual assaults by dressing sexy.
Another implication of your attitude in regards to this matter. But just go ahead and hide from it. I guess whatever makes it easier for you to sleep at night.
"I don't necessarily condone violence, but I do understand it."
That's nonsense. Either you condone the violence, or you don't. But you can't make excuses for it -- even incredibly lame excuses like "bitch had it coming" -- then claim you don't condone it.
"I didn't find that anywhere in all the news items I read. I read that he suffered some head trauma, but was released a few days later. They wouldn't have released him if they thought he was in any serious difficulty."
And you don't think head trauma is a serious injury? You don't think almost dying at the hospital entails a serious injury?
Give your head a shake.
"Now, that's a blatantly unfair characterization of me, Patrick."
No. It isn't. It's entirely characteristic of the attitude you've been exhibiting toward Mr Snell and the assault he suffered.
If you don't like that, change your attitude. I suggest you start with the words "yes, the assault on Ed Snell was wrong."
"It's pretty evident that I'm the only one here actually reading these stories. I recall that you didn't seem to know that Snell has to walk with the aid of a walker, and yet there's a picture of him with a walker right in many of those stories."
ReplyDeleteI saw the walker. It's not a factor in my opinion that he brought about his own toppling. I, too, walk only with assistance. Would that give me the license to scream insults at someone and expect them not to retaliate?
Seriously, would it?
"You actually suggested that Snell, the victim in this case, should be the one to go to jail."
Where did I say that? I don't think he was a victim. He was a willing combatant, albeit the loser. The only victim in this case was the girl, which everyone, including you, seems to be forgetting.
"You don't think almost dying at the hospital entails a serious injury?"
Where does it say that?
What you don't seem to want to understand here is that I do not see this incident as being a black-and-white issue. There is cause and effect.
"That's a nice attempt to dodge the implications of your attitude."
I'm not attempting to "dodge" anything -- I'm outright refusing to go there. This case and this case alone are what I'm willing to talk about.
Anything else is another topic altogether.
"I saw the walker. It's not a factor in my opinion that he brought about his own toppling. I, too, walk only with assistance. Would that give me the license to scream insults at someone and expect them not to retaliate?
ReplyDeleteSeriously, would it?"
Nothing about that would change the way we would condemn someone who does turn around and attack you.
"Hey, Nate, you're a big man. Walk away."
Sticks and stones and all of that.
And by the way, you tried to reject the idea that Snell wasn't able-bodied enough to defend himself against Richardson. The walker, I'll remind you, is direct evidence otherwise.
"Where did I say that? I don't think he was a victim. He was a willing combatant, albeit the loser. The only victim in this case was the girl, which everyone, including you, seems to be forgetting."
You want to lie now? OK. Fair enough. I'll point it out to you -- somehow, I have to point everything out to you. You said it back at JJs, when you said "Too bad the judge didn't drop his sorry ass into a cell."
Those are your words, Chimera. I'm not making them up. And I'll bet you remember them, too.
What else are you lying about?
And beyond that, a willing combatant? You you fucking stupid? Take one look at Snell, take one look at Richardson, and you tell me how fair a fight you think that is.
If Snell had actually thrown a punch first -- not likely in his condition -- you would almost have a point here. But the facts of the case are clear: he didn't and you don't.
"Where does it say that?
What you don't seem to want to understand here is that I do not see this incident as being a black-and-white issue. There is cause and effect."
Read the fucking story. What the fuck is wrong with you?
"I'm not attempting to "dodge" anything -- I'm outright refusing to go there. This case and this case alone are what I'm willing to talk about."
You're refusing to go there so you don't have to face the implications of your attitude in regards to this matter.
Your refusal to own up to it changes absolutely nothing. These are the disgusting, often misogynistic attitudes you hold.
Either disavow them, or start coping with them. But I am not letting you off the hook.
"Too bad the judge didn't drop his sorry ass into a cell."
ReplyDeleteYou're right. I did say that. Those exact words. Do you know why?
"The walker, I'll remind you, is direct evidence otherwise."
Um...evidence of what? And when? I said a saw the walker. I don't know when the picture was taken, or if he has to use it all the time, or if it's just another one of his many props with which he tries to garner sympathy.
But even if he has used a walker for his entire life, I don't consider it a factor in his own behavior. It has nothing to do with his mean spirited verbal attacks on people who are simply trying to go about their own private, personal, and completely legal business...into which he insists on inserting himself without invitation and against all protest that he cease and desist.
"...you tell me how fair a fight you think that is."
Of course it wasn't fair. It wasn't supposed to be "fair." It was supposed to look like what you're taking it to be -- an "unprovoked" attack by a healthy young stud on a helpless old man.
Snell is no virgin at this game. He knew precisely what was going to happen. He knew that Richardson would come at him. He simply miscalculated the speed and force of the retaliation, is all. He's not dead or crippled for life. He's lucky. I hope for his sake he stays lucky, and stops putting himself in the path of people will will not take his interference lightly.
Not quite sure how you see my refusal to agree that Snell is a victim with my being a misogynist, either. Also not quite sure what you mean by the "implications" of my "attitude." Or what you mean by my "refusal" to "own up to it."
Own up to what?
"Um...evidence of what? And when? I said a saw the walker. I don't know when the picture was taken, or if he has to use it all the time, or if it's just another one of his many props with which he tries to garner sympathy."
ReplyDeleteEvidence that he isn't as able-bodied as you seem to assume -- again, you and your assumptions.
"But even if he has used a walker for his entire life, I don't consider it a factor in his own behavior. It has nothing to do with his mean spirited verbal attacks on people who are simply trying to go about their own private, personal, and completely legal business...into which he insists on inserting himself without invitation and against all protest that he cease and desist."
Again, Snell's the victim in this case. His behaviour is not on trial.
Richardson's behaviour -- and that of those who applaud his behaviour (again, people like you) -- is.
I am never going to accept your assumptions. Ever. You're just wasting every facetious breath you use to voice them.
"Of course it wasn't fair. It wasn't supposed to be "fair." It was supposed to look like what you're taking it to be -- an "unprovoked" attack by a healthy young stud on a helpless old man."
You know, I've been over this with you about a dozen times now, and it's really starting to dawn on me that you're simply either too stupid or amoral -- or both -- to understand it, but provocation is not accepted as an excuse. Not in a court of law, not on a six-year-old's playground, not in a kindergarten class room, and most certainly not here.
"Snell is no virgin at this game. He knew precisely what was going to happen. He knew that Richardson would come at him. He simply miscalculated the speed and force of the retaliation, is all. He's not dead or crippled for life. He's lucky. I hope for his sake he stays lucky, and stops putting himself in the path of people will will not take his interference lightly.
Not quite sure how you see my refusal to agree that Snell is a victim with my being a misogynist, either. Also not quite sure what you mean by the "implications" of my "attitude." Or what you mean by my "refusal" to "own up to it.""
Because your excuses look awfully familiar to anyone who's actually paying attention to them:
"Snell had it comin'!"
"Snell provoked it!"
"Snell wanted it!"
Where else do we see these things?
An awful lot of the time, in rape trials.
"Bitch had it comin'!"
"Bitch provoked me!"
"Bitch wanted it!"
And yet, we see when we look at sexual assault cases, we see they never really do.
You're just making the assumptions that benefit you the most. But anyone with a speck of common sense and common decency immediately rejects them. Because we know where these attitudes lead.
Your refusal to own up to it changes nothing. These are the attitudes you hold. You certainly won't disavow them.
But you can't disavow them without disavowing your entire argument in regards to Snell.
So good luck with that. Personally, I'll be looking forward to seeing what you do.
"Evidence that he isn't as able-bodied as you seem to assume -- again, you and your assumptions."
ReplyDeleteI'm assuming nothing at all. I'm being very deliberate in not assuming anything. Snell's able-bodiedness, or lack of it, is not a factor.
"His behaviour is not on trial."
Maybe not, but it should be a factor in the cause-and-effect of the outcome. He was the instigator, not a victim. If he had kept himself to himself -- or even if he had simply protested peacefully instead of deliberately and maliciously intruding on someone's privacy -- it's very likely that Richardson would have ignored him.
As for disavowing what you call my attitudes -- when your intitial assumptions are wrong, I'm not going to disavow anything, because nothing would be served by leaving you with the wrong information.
You assume "facts" not in evidence, by erroneously extrapolating from brief statements, that I would necessarily equate one kind of assault with another, that I don't view verbal assault as an actual assault (and please note that I'm not saying that it's equivalent to physical assault any more than a slap is equal to a punch) and that I see all physical encounters as being equal to all other physical encounters.
Your assumptions are wrong. Therefore your conclusions about my attitudes are wrong.
"I'm assuming nothing at all. I'm being very deliberate in not assuming anything. Snell's able-bodiedness, or lack of it, is not a factor."
ReplyDeleteWrong. Your entire argument is based on nothing but assumptions: the assumption Snell provoked the attack. The ludicrous assumption that Snell wanted to be assaulted.
It's time for you to either start being honest about this, or start living up to your own words and divesting yourself of these assumptions.
"Maybe not, but it should be a factor in the cause-and-effect of the outcome. He was the instigator, not a victim. If he had kept himself to himself -- or even if he had simply protested peacefully instead of deliberately and maliciously intruding on someone's privacy -- it's very likely that Richardson would have ignored him."
Snell was protesting peacefully. Unless you want to state right here and now that you somehow think Snell threw the first punch despite being all the way on the other side of the fence.
Really, good luck with that.
"You assume "facts" not in evidence, by erroneously extrapolating from brief statements, that I would necessarily equate one kind of assault with another, that I don't view verbal assault as an actual assault (and please note that I'm not saying that it's equivalent to physical assault any more than a slap is equal to a punch) and that I see all physical encounters as being equal to all other physical encounters."
You're missing the point. This isn't about what assaults are equivalent to other assaults. It's about how your attitude toward this is equivalent to the attitudes used to excuse other manners of assault because they originate from the same thuggish, small-minded semiotic space that those attitudes originate from.
"Your assumptions are wrong. Therefore your conclusions about my attitudes are wrong."
They're aren't assumptions. I'm merely working with what you, yourself, have demonstrated about your own attitudes.
Like I said before, if you aren't comfortable with what your attitudes say about you, disavow them, and change them.
"It's time for you to either start being honest about this, or start living up to your own words and divesting yourself of these assumptions."
ReplyDeleteAre you saying I'm not being honest? How do you figure that? I'm working from exactly the same information from which you're working. I simply see different foci of the issue. And "living up to" what words?
"...your attitude toward this is equivalent to the attitudes used to excuse other manners of assault..."
I don't know how you can say that with what I assume is a straight face (although I may be assuming wrongly, as you point out) when you don't have the first clue how I view other manners of assault. I have not said, nor will I say, what my views on other, hypothetical, cases are unless we discuss them on an individual basis, each one on its own merits. I have told you before -- and more than once -- that each case is separate from every other case. There is no equivalency. They are not all the same.
"They're aren't assumptions. I'm merely working with what you, yourself, have demonstrated about your own attitudes."
Are they not? You take my answer to one question and apply it to all other questions, despite my warnings that it will not apply across the board, and you think you have the key to all my attitudes?
Well, it's up to you what you think, of course. You'll be wrong, but you have the right to be wrong, and it's not me who will suffer for that. If you feel comfortable going through life with the wrong information, who am I to try and force you to educate yourself? It's exhausting enough trying to keep up with your synaptic calesthenics.
Patrick, I don't care what you think my attitudes are, or what you think they say about me. My personal foibles are not the issue, here. It would seem, however, that you have allowed yourself to become distracted from the original issue (Snell and Richardson -- remember them?) by a hunger to solve a puzzle which would have no useful answer for you -- How Chimera Sees The World.
It doesn't matter how I see it. It has nothing to do with you. It is simply my opinion. You are free to agree or disagree, as you choose. And if you want to discuss, we can discuss. But you'll only be doing yourself a disservice if you assume wrong information to be correct. Problem is, unless I try to correct your wrong impressions, I'll be doing myself a disservice by following you into that black hole of disinformation.
"Are you saying I'm not being honest? How do you figure that? I'm working from exactly the same information from which you're working. I simply see different foci of the issue. And "living up to" what words?"
ReplyDeleteThat's precisely what I'm saying. You keep claiming that you haven't made any assumptions about this particular case, despite the fact that some of your assumptions have already been disproven right here.
Remember your assertion that Snell was "in Richardson's way"? While Snell was on the other side of the fence?
Yet to continue to claim that you haven't made any assumptions. It's dishonest, considering that you and I both know entirely different.
Either stop voicing your disproven and rejected assumptions, or admit that you're making assumptions. Not that an admission or denial makes any difference -- this has already been proven.
"I don't know how you can say that with what I assume is a straight face (although I may be assuming wrongly, as you point out) when you don't have the first clue how I view other manners of assault. I have not said, nor will I say, what my views on other, hypothetical, cases are unless we discuss them on an individual basis, each one on its own merits. I have told you before -- and more than once -- that each case is separate from every other case. There is no equivalency. They are not all the same."
The attitudes are precisely the same. You're trying to treat Snell's past history of being assaulted for voicing his opinions in the same way that an unscrupulous defense lawyer scrutinizes the sexual history of a rape victim. "The end argument? The victim is impure!"
Impurity doesn't make the victim any less a victim.
"Are they not? You take my answer to one question and apply it to all other questions, despite my warnings that it will not apply across the board, and you think you have the key to all my attitudes?"
Because you are using those excuses in the exact same way that these other scumbags defend some other things that are, frankly, indefensible.
"Well, it's up to you what you think, of course. You'll be wrong, but you have the right to be wrong, and it's not me who will suffer for that. If you feel comfortable going through life with the wrong information, who am I to try and force you to educate yourself? It's exhausting enough trying to keep up with your synaptic calesthenics."
There's nothing wrong about it. You won't disavow these attitudes toward Snell, and they come from the exact contextual attitude that we use to defense some other thuggish and criminal acts.
"Patrick, I don't care what you think my attitudes are, or what you think they say about me. My personal foibles are not the issue, here. It would seem, however, that you have allowed yourself to become distracted from the original issue (Snell and Richardson -- remember them?) by a hunger to solve a puzzle which would have no useful answer for you -- How Chimera Sees The World."
The puzzle's solved, Chimera. You won't disavow these attitudes, so at this point we can say pretty safely that they very much do represent your views.
"It doesn't matter how I see it. It has nothing to do with you. It is simply my opinion. You are free to agree or disagree, as you choose. And if you want to discuss, we can discuss. But you'll only be doing yourself a disservice if you assume wrong information to be correct. Problem is, unless I try to correct your wrong impressions, I'll be doing myself a disservice by following you into that black hole of disinformation."
You did yourself -- and the entire pro-abortion movement -- a disservice when you suggested that Ed Snell should be jailed for being the victim of a crime.
You did yourself -- and the entire pro-abortion movement -- a disservice when you defended Richardson's thuggish act.
You did yourself -- and the entire pro-abortion movement -- a tremendous disservice when you resorted to the same defenses used to try to excuse rapists and wife-beaters.
You did all of this yourself. I didn't do any of it for you.
"The attitudes are precisely the same."
ReplyDeleteThe same as what? You have no idea about my attitudes towards any other situation, because I have not told you about my attitudes towards any other situation.
"...You're trying to treat Snell's past history of being assaulted..."
No, no, no, no, no.
It's Snell's past history of instigating behavioral meltdowns that I brought up -- his history of forcing himself uninvited into someone else's personal and private business.
"Remember your assertion that Snell was "in Richardson's way"?"
Remember my correcting that?
"Either stop voicing your disproven and rejected assumptions..."
And which ones would those be?
"Because you are using those excuses in the exact same way that these other scumbags defend some other things that are, frankly, indefensible."
How do you know that? You're being very vague. "Some other scumbags (are you calling me a scumbag?)?" "Some other things?" A little more specificity, please.
Oh...and keep in mind that I keep saying each situation is different from every other situation. You cannot tag everything with the same label. There is no "exact same way" that relates either to any two scenarios or any two people who reply to such scenarios.
You really ought to stop generalizing and start getting specific.
"...we use..."
I am not "we." I am me. Do not include me in the same category with anyone else, because I do not fit.
"The puzzle's solved, Chimera."
Is it, by Jove! Good-oh, then! Jolly well done, and all that!
So. What's the answer, then, lad?
You can say what you like. You can think what you like. But when push comes to shove, if you ever tangle with me for real, you are gonna be oh, so, surprised. But hey! be my guest!
"...you suggested that Ed Snell should be jailed for being the victim of a crime."
That's not what I said. I said the judge shoulda landed his ass in jail for starting the whole mess in the first place. He don't get no points from me for being a victim because he was not a victim.
"...you defended Richardson's thuggish act."
I said his actions were predictable. And they are. And understandable. I understand them perfectly. But then, I usually tend to understand those who protect their loved ones from vicious and unwanted and uninvited hatred.
"...you resorted to the same defenses used to try to excuse rapists and wife-beaters."
Well, now, since I have no idea what defenses rapists and wife-beaters use, I have to say that I have no idea if you're right or wrong on this one. But since I'm not going OT, I guess you'll really never know, will you? And I'm not interested.
By the way...when did this thing you call the "pro-abortion movement" get involved? If there is such a thing, I'm not part of it, you know. So I guess there's no "disservice" thing happenin'.
"You did all of this yourself. I didn't do any of it for you."
Ain't I amazing? Wow, I had no idea...
"The same as what? You have no idea about my attitudes towards any other situation, because I have not told you about my attitudes towards any other situation."
ReplyDeleteNonsense. Your remarks in regards to Mr Snell have been very illuminating, indeed.
"It's Snell's past history of instigating behavioral meltdowns that I brought up -- his history of forcing himself uninvited into someone else's personal and private business."
You would first have to demonstrate a history of instigating "behavioural meltdowns" -- something you have yet to even attempt, let alone accomplish.
More of your assumptions, Chimera? We've been talking an awful lot about your assumptions.
"Remember my correcting that?"
So then stop trying to claim you aren't making any assumptions. You've been caught making them, been called on them, had them disproven right before your very eyes, and yet continue to claim you aren't making any assumptions.
Give it up. It won't fly. As a matter of fact, the very next time you try to claim you aren't making any assumptions, I'm going to remind you of this again.
"And which ones would those be?"
As I just said: the assumption you made (were called on, and had disproven right before your very eyes) that Snell was "in Richardson's way". Despite the fact that he was on the other side of the fence.
If you aren't intentionally being intellectually dishonest, it leads me to think that maybe you're just stupid.
Which is it?
"How do you know that? You're being very vague. "Some other scumbags (are you calling me a scumbag?)?" "Some other things?" A little more specificity, please."
Try not to think of it as me callinng you a scumbag. Try to think of it as me bringing to your attention that you are, in fact, a scumbag.
And I've been nothing but specific. So cut the shit.
"Oh...and keep in mind that I keep saying each situation is different from every other situation. You cannot tag everything with the same label. There is no "exact same way" that relates either to any two scenarios or any two people who reply to such scenarios.
You really ought to stop generalizing and start getting specific."
The situation doesn't have to be the same for your attitude toward them to be the same. Particularly, when your attitude toward the assault on Snell is formulated in the exact same way that wife-beaters and rapists try to excuse themselves -- simply put: put the victim on trial.
"I am not "we." I am me. Do not include me in the same category with anyone else, because I do not fit."
When your behaviour is practically identical? You bet you fit.
"That's not what I said. I said the judge shoulda landed his ass in jail for starting the whole mess in the first place. He don't get no points from me for being a victim because he was not a victim."
So then are you now going to pretend that Snell wasn't pushed off the roof of a car? That he wasn't taken to hospital? That he didn't almost die? That he wasn't assaulted?
I think you realize that you rhetorically can't affford to allow Snell to be recognized as a victim. That's why you want him to be the one who's put on trial, in regards to the person who actually committed a crime in this particular case.
Well, too bad. The fact of the matter is that Snell is the victim in this case. No attempt at character assassination on your part can change that.
"Well, now, since I have no idea what defenses rapists and wife-beaters use, I have to say that I have no idea if you're right or wrong on this one. But since I'm not going OT, I guess you'll really never know, will you? And I'm not interested.
By the way...when did this thing you call the "pro-abortion movement" get involved? If there is such a thing, I'm not part of it, you know. So I guess there's no "disservice" thing happenin'."
Suuuuure you aren't involved. You just make use of their rhetoric, and are trying to demonize Ed Snell (on ideological grounds), just as the pro-abortion lobby does. But you aren't part of that?
Go sell that particular lie somewhere else.
A lot of this just leads me to believe you just aren't paying attention. It would almost make me think you were uncomfortable to hold the same attitudes as those who seek to excuse rapists and wife beaters -- if it wasn't for the fact that you use the exact same excuses.
And you really need to stop trying to decieve yourself on this one: you do use the exact same excuses. It's detestable, and it's entirely shameful that you seem to think it's somehow acceptable when it comes from you, and those who think like you.
I'd suggest you should be ashamed of yourself, but I really think you lack the capacity for shame.