Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Edge-]

If someone attacks you, you don't have the ability to intentionally do anything, you could call it instinct.

This is complete and total fiction from someone who has never been attacked but spent a whole lot of time apparently fantasizing about being attacked.

[Endus]

I'm not arguing anything, though. You're arguing against the dictionary definition of violence.

I can't be, since you've cited no such definitions whatsoever, and every dictionary definition I bothered to check directly contradicts what you're saying.

Take your pick;

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic...glish/violence
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/violence
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/di...glish/violence
https://www.oed.com/oed2/00277885

I'll even go with encyclopedic definitions, if you like;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence
https://www.britannica.com/topic/violence

Literally none of these back you up. They all contradict you.

- - - Updated - - -

What this comes down to is that: you don't support the right of a person to defend themselves., because defense is violence. And you don't support the country to defend it's borders, because that too is violence.

So, what are you supposed to be allowed to do if someone attacks you?

What you apparently are unable to grasp is the point of my original comment that sparked this off for you;

Violence is not inherently "bad". Violence can, in many cases, be justifiable or even "good". Which means pointing to something and saying "that's violent, and therefore bad" can be dismissed as a nonsensical statement; an appeal to emotion that attempts to escape the responsibility of actually describing why that particular violence is "bad".

We support self-defense and defending the nation's borders and (responsible) policing of crimes. We recognize those things are "violent" by nature. That doesn't cause any contradictions for us, because we don't hold an indefensible belief that "violence is inherently bad" in the first place, because that's a silly-ass statement.

[Endus]

There you go. The use of force SO AS TO injure...

And?

That doesn't support you at all.

If someone's threatening to shoot my family, and I throw a rock at his head and tackle him to the ground, I'm absolutely doing my damndest to use force to injure that someone. And I'd be perfectly justified in doing so. And it would be entirely intentional; I had to find that rock and pick my target and then choose to charge and tackle that guy; it's not all happening by happy accident or something.

[gondrin]

Defense is not violence. Securing the border, is not violence. Police action against a cartel is a defensive action.

Stand your ground is defense. Castle doctrine is defense.

Giving people the right to defend themselves with equally deadly or violent force is not "calling for violence."

Defense is violence. It is justified violence because EVERYONE has the right to defend themselves.

Police action against a cartel is violence. One again, it is justified violence against a group of people who chose to also instigate violence against other people and communities

Stand your ground is a violent viewpoint as you are potentially using violence to defend yourself against an attacker and therefore justified violence. It only becomes unjustified when someone uses it to intimidate others due to some perceived slight against them like harsh words used against them.

Castle doctrine is a violent viewpoint as you are potentially using violence to defend your home. It is justified because everyone has the right to defend their property, themselves and their family against all people who wish to harm those things.

Just because something is violent doesn't mean it isn't justified. Violence can be justified in certain situations. However, any action, regardless of who is the one using it, causes harm against someone else is violent. Some are justified due to circumstances.

[Edge-]

What this comes down to is that: you don't support the right of a person to defend themselves., because defense is violence.

This is a straight up lie I have never once said.

And you don't support the country to defend it's borders, because that too is violence.

Also a lie. If you note, both Endus and I were specific that neither of us objects to all violence. We're objecting to your dishonest framing of violence.

- - - Updated - - -

There you go. The use of force SO AS TO injure...

Yes, and are you intentionally trying to injure an attacker to disable them and prevent them from hurting you?

Yes, yes you are.

Welcome to how words and definitions work.

[Mekh]

Reminder: this whole discussion is a retarded derailing. The things we are talking about like securing borders or having police take down criminals is violence. Yes, the state can legitimately use violence. There is even a term for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

[gondrin]

This is complete and total fiction from someone who has never been attacked but spent a whole lot of time apparently fantasizing about being attacked.

The fact that someone could think that there is an "instinctual" reaction to someone being attacked by them defending themselves is comical at best. The instinctual reaction is to generally run away from whatever is causing the violence. You generally have to be trained to actually not run away and cause justified harm to another person that is trying to attack them.

Anyone in a war that is trying to defend off an attacking force is a good example of this. Most definitely those soldiers are scared and don't want to be there. Nobody wants to be fired upon. However, they go against their instinct to get away and instead to try and remove said attacking force.

[unfilteredJW]

Again, violence implies intent. Defense doesn't have the intent to cause harm for harm's sake.

When the word violence is too hard a concept for someone.

Reading further bro thinks he's John Wick with the "instinct action" shit. LOL.

[Edge-]

Alright, well anyways, getting back to reality - https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/11/manh...stigation.html

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg on Tuesday filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block a House Judiciary Committee subpoena issued to a former prosecutor who played a key role in Bragg’s criminal investigation of ex-President Donald Trump.

Bragg’s lawsuit names as defendants Rep. Jim Jordan, the Ohio Republican who is Judiciary chair, the committee itself, and Mark Pomerantz, the prosecutor who resigned last year from Bragg’s office amid the Trump probe.

The suit accuses Jordan and the Judiciary Committee of an “unprecedently brazen and unconstitutional attack by members of Congress on an ongoing New York State criminal prosecution and investigation of former President Donald J. Trump.”

Bragg is suing Jordan and the Judiciary committee for what he views are attempts to interfere with an ongoing investigation.

[unfilteredJW]

No, you are not.

- - - Updated - - -



What else do you call something where you don't think you just do? Instinctual? Unintentional?

Fiction is the word you are looking for.

[gondrin]

Alright, well anyways, getting back to reality - https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/11/manh...stigation.html



Bragg is suing Jordan and the Judiciary committee for what he views are attempts to interfere with an ongoing investigation.

Someone should sue Jordan for trying to weaponize the government against political opponents. I mean, isn't that what he is investigating.

[callipygoustp]

Today's topic seems to be chasing around one user who doesn't understand the definition of a word

[Huehuecoyotl]

Today's topic seems to be chasing around one user who doesn't understand the definition of a word

Well, someone who is pretending not to understand the definition of a word anyway.

Actually, I'm not sure which is worse, that he's pretending to try and derail a discussion that isn't going well for his worldview, or that he genuinely doesn't understand what words mean.

[TACOshake]

Today's topic seems to be chasing around one user who doesn't understand the definition of a word

That's been the same daily quest here for like 3 years straight.


MEanwhile... Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg just filed a LAWSUIT against Jim Jordan to block his interference and obstruction of the DA's criminal case against Donald Trump.


I feel like BRagg really embodies the national mood. Not taking shit anymore, after years of it. Ya, stop chasing these a-holes around in circles. Call their bluffs and always forward.

[Breccia]

Not taking shit anymore

Jordan's exercise has no standing in actual law. Bragg issuing a "fuck off" order is defending a fair and legal investigation and prosecution. Jordan's more than welcome to fuck around and find out, but I still haven't seen a single thing Jordan's proposed that gives him any hint of leverage at all.

[TACOshake]

*Me wishing that Alvin Bragg would come over and moderate the GEN-OT forums

[Edge-]

Multiple users ganging up on one user because they refuse to accept the dictionary definition.

No, you're just wrong. But that's all I have left to say on the topic since I'm not interesting in rehashing how you're wrong for you to continue to ignore it and demand that we all accept your personal definition for a word.

Weird that conservatives keep treating, "being told you're factually incorrect by multiple people." as if they're some kind of victim of unfair criticisms. I mean...it's not really weird at all, it's been happening for years and it's dishonest as fuck. But it sure is "weird".

Anyways https://theintercept.com/2023/04/05/...ls-hush-money/

Intercept is hit or miss, but they have a fun article on how Trump could have just like, paid off Stormy Danield and others without breaking the law and could have avoided this whole thing with felony indictments happening right now. lol

[Edge-]

Glad you came to the conclusion that the 34 felonies was nonsense on your own.

Intercept is hit or miss, but they have a fun article on how Trump could have just like, paid off Stormy Danield and others without breaking the law and could have avoided this whole thing with felony indictments happening right now. lol

Yes, he has 34 criminal felony indictments. Thanks for the reminder -

https://manhattanda.org/district-att...onald-j-trump/

District Attorney Bragg Announces 34-Count Felony Indictment of Former President Donald J. Trump

Straight from the man himself.

[Shadowferal]

Bragg is suing Jordan and the Judiciary committee for what he views are attempts to interfere with an ongoing investigation.

Bragg wants to get all in his face. And I can only applaud.

- - - Updated - - -

On top of that, it doesn't stop Trump from running or winning the election.

Like the last time he ran?

[Myradin]

Should a crime only matter if it can stop someone from getting elected?

He's an American citizen, there's evidence to suggest he committed felonies, thus he should be tried.

Glad you came to the conclusion that the 34 felonies was nonsense on your own.

Because Trump could have done it a legal way doesn't mean doing it the illegal way is A-Okay.