"To gather signatures for the letter, Gold and Barke partnered with the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), a doctors' group that advocates for less government interference in the relationship between doctors and patients, and notably has taken part in legal challenges against the Affordable Care Act and advocated to allow doctors to use hydroxychloroquine on themselves and their patients."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doctors-raise-alarm-about-health-effects-of-continued-coronavirus-shutdown

"The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a conservative non-profit association founded in 1943. The group was reported to have about 5,000 members in 2014. The association advocates a range of scientifically discredited hypotheses, including the belief that HIV does not cause AIDS"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons

Stay alert! If anyone tries to get more than 2m away from you, chase them to a crowded beach!

Yeah, the other version is the one I think I first heard but then I forgot it and could only find this one online. Anyway, gotta love the Z. :wink:

There's this Zizek joke about a Slovenian farmer who is given two wishes by a magic fairy. He tells the fairy that his first wish is that his neighbour's cow drops dead. The fairy grants the wish and says, "Ok, what next? You have one more wish". The farmer says, "now I want my cow to drop dead". The fairy says, "well, ok, but why such a weird wish?" The farmer shoots her a contemptuous look and says, "so, if my neighbor comes to me for milk, I don't have to give him any!"

=American politics.

I just presumed he meant Hanover.

Rapacious capitalism combined with authoritarianism and social conservatism. No thanks.

Can something similar not be done here ? — Amity

You mean in terms of the making the copyright clear? I imagine so. We'll need to look into it as we develop the article section, which has just recently been put back up. Cheers. :up:

My point is only that the 'court argument' for voting for Biden isn't total bs. The reason for saying that is in part a self-correction because I was ripshit when Biden became the clear nom, and angrily declared never to vote for him. I still won't but I've come to think its more nuanced a question if you've something at stake. — csalisbury

Yes, the Dems fucked over the best candidate (for a second time) and nominated the worst. If they were planning to lose the election by alienating as many supporters as possible, they couldn't have done a better job. And yet not voting Dem is still understandably a very difficult step for many progressives to take. Absolute shit show. Of course, the Dem leadership will just sleepwalk into the election pretending everything's fine like they did with Hillary.

If Arbery could have avoided the altercation, do you believe he was required to, or do you believe he had the right to stand his ground? — Hanover

Depends on presence, relative level, and direction of threat. E.g. If I have a gun and the other guy doesn't but is threatening me, I'm in considerably less danger than if he had one, and I should be obligated to avoid/de-escalate a potentially lethal altercation if reasonably possible. If the tables are turned (the case with Arbery), I should be free to do whatever is most effective in defending myself. (I don't know the ins and outs of stand your ground laws btw, so I'm not commenting specifically on them.)

Do you believe If Arbery was not threatened by the gun, but just went to grab it because he was pissed off at Billy bad ass with his gun, do you think the shooter should still be prosecuted? — Hanover

If someone who is unthreateningly open-carrying is attacked and has reasonable justification to believe that shooting the attacker is the only effective means of self-defence, that option should be legally available to them. That doesn't imply they should have an unqualified right to shoot dead anyone who tries to take their gun even if they believe them to be a threat. As per my previous answer, the level of threat and the opportunity to neutralize it or deescalate the situation short of deadly force would need to be examined. In this case, I believe Billy bad ass was must have been more of a threat to Arbery than vice versa, in which case, yes, he should be prosecuted. It's not absolutely inconceivable he wasn't more of a threat. But that seems to me at least to be very implausible.

Do you believe Arbery is guilty of trespassing even if he didn't steal anything and even if others entered that site without permission from time to time? — Hanover

I don't know if he's technically guilty of trespassing. My claim was he did nothing wrong, which he didn't. The owner of the property confirmed that. We can be technically guilty of jaywalking when we cross a road with no cars around, but who cares?

Do you think hate is a protected right and should not add to or subtract from the seriousness of a crime? — Hanover

I'm pro hate-crime legislation whereby it's not hate per se that's outlawed but its violent expression against minorities. That's an important distinction, which your question obscures. Racists can go hate themselves into pretzels for all I care. That is, I accept their right to stew in corners over perceived/imagined grievances should be protected.

Incidentally, not only did Arbery do absolutely nothing wrong, people were going in and out of the site he supposedly trespassed at regularly, including the same day he did. But @Hanover appears to think it's his own fault he's dead because the racist was just standing there threatening him with a gun without actually waving it in his face (though actually we don't know he didn't do that too) and Arbery did a "kamikaze" run at him (also no evidence for this). I say a more plausible explanation given the evidence available is that Arbery was threatened, realized his life was at risk, and tried to defend himself.

"Threat, criminal threatening (or threatening behavior) is the crime of intentionally or knowingly putting another person in fear of bodily injury. "Threat of harm generally involves a perception of injury...physical or mental damage...act or instance of injury, or a material and detriment or loss to a person."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimidation

why the allegation by Baden he was "waving the gun in his face" isn't a quibble, but is a critical distinction. — Hanover

Misrepresentation. I clarified that that from the video we can't actually know that he literally "waved a gun in his face'.

Whether or not they actually waved the gun or pointed it at him before he tried to grab it is not discernible from the video I've seen. — Baden

But it's fairly obvious he threatened him with a gun. I also asked you to clarify your position in several follow up posts. E.g. You claim the gun wasn't waved at him.

He came toward the threat that was not being waved at him. — Hanover

Where's your evidence for that? It appears you just made it up. Also, here you acknowledge a threat. So I think we agree that an unarmed black man was threatened with a gun by a racist and tried to neutralize that threat by removing the gun. Now tell me why that means it was his fault that he got shot and not the racist's with the gun?

Of course, that won't stop us.

There's the philosophically and ethically significant issue. — Banno

But if we talk about that we'll be accused of not being American enough to contribute. Which is a recurring theme lately.

the evidence — Hanover

Again, you must have evidence I don't. Because the video I've seen does not show what you claim it shows (i.e. that they did not threaten him with a gun but he instead threatened them).

I still maintain that he didn't stand his ground but that he pursued a guy with a gun in the street, but that's my interpretation of the evidence, not the law. — Hanover

Your interpretation of this is that Arbery pursued a guy with a gun in the street and so was legally shot or not? (On the basis of the evidence you've seen. What is your call?)

He came toward the threat that was not being waved at him. — Hanover

You're telling me you know from the video that a gun wasn't waved at him? Please share the link to the video that shows that. I've said in the last couple of posts he was "threatened" with a gun. It's clear they had guns and they were using them to try to stop him, which involves "threat" (otherwise why would he stop?). Whether or not they actually waved the gun or pointed it at him before he tried to grab it is not discernible from the video I've seen.

That's what it looked like to me. — Hanover

Is this what it's going to come down to in the court? Whether or not he was a kamikaze?

How come these turdish folk almost got away with murder? — Banno

Well, according to Hanover, it's apparently fine to threaten people with guns and then blow them away when they try to neutralize the threat. I would say that's a bit of a problem with the law right there.

You think he was in reasonable fear for his life at the time he ran around the truck toward the gun? — Hanover

You don't? What's your theory then? He felt in no danger but decided to risk death on the off chance he could get to murder these two guys?

Anyway, answer the question.If he was in fear of his life, could he legally defend himself or not?

Could an answer to my last question to you bounce out of your mouth, perchance? Why is it illegal for me to defend myself against someone threatening me with a gun by taking that gun from them? Or why is it legal for them to shoot me for doing so?

See, here's how it works, when posters ask me questions, I answer them (usually). You can ask me questions too, but you're not required to care about their questions.

Yeah, but who cares what psychoanalytic musings you arrive at? — Hanover

Banno, I presume. As he asked me the question, originally. Why can't you keep up? Pay attention!

That's not what happened. But, hypothetically, no. — Hanover

According to the video, it is. They threatened him with a shotgun when he was doing nothing other than jogging through the neighbourhood.

So, the question is whether a racist moron is in violation of the law when someone tries to wrestle his loaded shotgun from him and the guy gets shot? I say not if he has reason to believe the cuckoo wrestler man intended less than a kind gesture after he got the gun in his possession. — Hanover

So by law you are allowed to threaten someone with a gun and then shoot them when they try to defend themselves? Why? You've initiated the confrontation. Why should they not be allowed to defend themselves?

I said "some" for a reason. I'm guessing something like that may have applied in this case. Although there are other less charitable explanations that are also plausible.

I think the myth of the self-made individual, that puts the blame for lack of success on lack of effort and even on lack of moral fortitude has a large part to play. Hence a failed family has to prove theor strength and hence worth to those around them. — Banno

Yes, in the US there's an unusual amount of social stigma attached to not being a "success" (i.e. not being rich) but there's also an unusual amount of social capital to be had by toting a big gun (in some circles). The latter being considered somewhat compensatory for the former.

:lol: Another candidate for the Presidential Medal of Freedumb.

I think guns act as a substitute for some American's lack of power over their own lives. They're weak, confused, and somebody out there (probably a brown dude or at least not of their ilk) is doing it to them.

If a racist is having his shotgun wrestled from him, does that change his right to fire it? — Hanover

Do you think you have an absolute right to wave your shotgun in someone's face? It seems to me that wrestling a shotgun from someone who is threatening you with it is justified self-defence and may be your only chance of staying alive. So, no, he didn't deserve to be shot. The vigilantes should not have been there.

Good, I hope they take over some government buildings.

You were referring to a hypothetical shooting? — Hanover

I was giving a generic example, obviously. You're working hard to be confused here.

If my post were irrelevant, then why spend several more posts responding to it? — Hanover

I questioned the relevance of one comparison in your post and emphasized that with further examples pointing to its absurdity.

And yet the next several posts of yours express your disbelief that I'd say what I said as if I'm missing your sense of conscience. — Hanover

You've inserted "conscience" in there. The comparison is absurd. I haven't made a judgement on why you would make such an absurd comparison. Awaiting your explanantion.

Are we now talking about a real event or a hypothetical one? I hypothesize the same result as if they were white. — Hanover

You think if Black Lives Matter protesters armed with assault rifles took over government buildings, the police would ignore them and the President would congratulate them? Again, that's absurd.

But we're making no headway now, so back to the OP. With all the video evidence we have, do you convict for murder or not? If the races reversed, do you convict? If they're all the same race, do you convict? — Hanover

Nobody here can say for sure whether there should be a conviction of murder until all the evidence has come out. I very much doubt though, along with Banno, that these guys would be hunting down a white jogger and I find the idea that anyone can legally be accosted by armed buffoons simply because they trespassed on a construction site a further symptom of America's diseased notions of liberty.

Not very hard to spot the difference, really:

Unbelievable by the way that you would compare unarmed protesters risking their lives for the cause of racial equality to a bunch of spoilt bitches with huge guns fighting for the right to spread a deadly virus to the old and vulnerable.

And yes, the second part of my original post was hyperbolic, but the first was simply describing a fact.

The sandwich shooting — Hanover

I wasn't referring to any specific shooting.

The famous Woolworth sit ins in the 60s by those fighting for liberty did result in some arrests - of white counterprotestors. — Hanover

Relevance?

You don't better understand it than me and your sense of compassion is not more advanced than mine. — Hanover

Quote me where I claimed that. Or even mentioned you.

But you're seeing it as the cause of any bad thing that comes the way of any minority is just blind bias. — Hanover

Quote me where I claimed that.

This is getting boring. There is nothing at all of substance in your post.

Anyhow, do you believe armed militia groups should be allowed to take over government buildings? Let's try that with Black Lives Matter and see what happens.

Yep. Dumb white liberty freaks can literally take over government buildings while armed with assault rifles and the police do nothing. A black guy with a foil wrapped sandwich on the other hand, immediate threat, gun him down.

Intellectual hygiene. — fdrake

:100:
Great stuff, I regularly screw up on these and then afterwards realize something is wrong but can't always articulate it. A list like this is gold. Stick it together and pin it in the learning centre!

I have a feeling Obamagate is going to turn into Ohbummergate when everyone just laughs and walks away. I give it a week, max.

Eh, let's not make it a cartoon version. — Xtrix

Never mind. frank hasn't been following the conversation.



To a degree, I agree. If Trump really were about to, let's say, start a nuclear war then there would be an argument that just about anyone with a pulse would be a better option and in order to avert that disaster, they should vote for them. But I just don't see that level of difference. I see a regular GOP vs Dem election with the GOP candidate being a horrible boor with zero morals peddling shitty policies, but not one likely to start a war and not one capable of single-handedly destroying the planet (or America). There are other progressives who would go further and say Trump is actually better than Biden in some ways, just like they thought he was better than Hillary. I'm not making that argument and I wouldn't even criticize progressives for holding their noses and voting for Biden, seeing as there are likely practical benefits to doing so. I've only been arguing against the idea that progressives are obligated to give the Democrats their vote simply because Trump is a bad candidate. I see that as a form of blackmail. Nobody owes their vote to anyone. It has to be earned.

:lol:

Perhaps I should have said you're "essentially casting a vote for Trump," — Xtrix

You're not in any way casting a vote for Trump.

Thus you've inadvertently helped Trump win — Xtrix

Yeah, very different thing. The language matters because it's about responsibility. The only people directly responsible for Trump being in office are those who vote for him.