Originally Posted by Ooloo[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
No that literally is protected speech, you're just conveniently conflating it with "violently blah blah". Nobody disagrees that actual violence is bad, but jan 6th is a blip on the radar compared to what the left has perpetrated over the last 24 months. It's not even close.
Speaking as a lawyer, it's literally not protected speech. And even if there were any shred of an argument that it was, once they shifted to the act of actually storming the capital, the idea of protected speech goes away. One of the reasons people have been able to be charged with certain things as a result.
Originally Posted by cd288[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Speaking as a lawyer, it's literally not protected speech. And even if there were any shred of an argument that it was, once they shifted to the act of actually storming the capital, the idea of protected speech goes away. One of the reasons people have been able to be charged with certain things as a result.
Yes yes, implicit threat of violence is terrorist speech, by definition
Originally Posted by Jibartik[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I could say the same about 100 days that lead up to it. Rioters use hyperbole.
Go look up some riots, youll find they often have effigies of the presidents. Both sides.
Or you can go ahead and tell me that what you saw on jan 6th is unlike anything you have ever seen before and Ill continue to think you are completely full it because it happened in 36 separate goverment buildings that year and those were called "mostly peaceful protests".
People defending the counting of ballots in a free and fair election were murdered by people trying to get in to stop the counting of ballots in a free and fair election. Where's the hyperbole?
Originally Posted by Gwaihir[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I've been a homeless man. It has its challenges, which can be sorted out but it also has its pitfalls which work against aims of recovering therefrom. For one thing, you are incredibly vulnerable to injustices enacted by the state, and fellow homeless alike.
Glad you were able to come out of that. Not many internet trolls understand how difficult it is to get gainful employment without an address, bank account, phone number, email address and work history. They look at the homeless as aimless bums, but if someone took all of those things away from them they'd have a real hard time of it.
Originally Posted by Jibartik[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Ok so you are seriously trying to tell me you would take a homeless mans word on everything relating to homelessness over anyone else.
If I was an actor with a role in something like Waiting For Godot? Yes, but many homeless people rather than one. Go directly to the source of something to understand it. Cut out the news, the statistics, etc.
Down and Out in Paris and London is the first full-length work by the English author George Orwell, published in 1933. It is a memoir[2] in two parts on the theme of poverty in the two cities. Its target audience was the middle- and upper-class members of society—those who were more likely to be well educated—and exposes the poverty existing in two prosperous cities: Paris and London. The first part is an account of living in near-extreme poverty destitution in Paris and the experience of casual labour in restaurant kitchens. The second part is a travelogue of life on the road in and around London from the tramp's perspective, with descriptions of the types of hostel accommodation available and some of the characters to be found living on the margins.
Quote:
Orwell fell seriously ill in March 1929 and shortly afterwards had money stolen from the lodging house. The thief was probably not the young Italian described in Down and Out. In a later account, he said the theft was the work of a young trollop that he had picked up and brought back with him;[7] it has been submitted that "consideration for his parents' sensibilities would have required the suppression of this misadventure". Whoever reduced Orwell to destitution did him a good turn; his final ten weeks in Paris sowed the seed of his first published book."[8] Whether through necessity or just to collect material, and probably both, he undertook casual work as a dishwasher in restaurants. In August 1929 he sent a copy of "The Spike" to the Adelphi magazine in London, and it was accepted for publication. Orwell left Paris in December 1929 and returned to England, going straight home to his parents' house in Southwold. Later he acted as a private tutor to a handicapped child there and also undertook further tramping expeditions, culminating in a stint working in the Kent hop fields in August and September 1931. After this adventure, he ended up in the Tooley Street kip, which he found so unpleasant that he wrote home for money and moved to more comfortable lodgings.[9]
It's a good read. IIRC Anthony Bourdain recommended it years ago because there's cooking in it, well, using the term loosely. Cooking with quotation marks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibartik[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Not only that you're saying you unconditionally believe, regardless of what the topic is if it's related to homelessness, that a homeless person is more qualified to speak on it.
Your words, not mine. There are exceptions as always, so believing any one person based solely on their background is not advisable. People have motives, biases, etc. Roll for perception.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibartik[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
If it is about feeding a nation? No pass, its more important to listen to people who have never fed or helped anyone on how to feed a nation.
A homeless person would know what all resources were available in their area, from professionals and others without homes, but they wouldn't necessarily have the know-how in order to feed others on a large scale.
Originally Posted by Jibartik[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
How about health and medical interests? No, why would a DOCTOR know more than a homeless person, the homeless person knows what they have to deal with.
Picking and choosing things the average person wouldn't know, homeless or otherwise, while overlooking what information one would need to have when on the street.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibartik[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Why would a doctor know any better than any of us about vaccines, its OUR bodies, WE live in them, they are just critics!
The human body is still very much beyond our complete understanding, particularly the brain. Bodies aren't experiences but an evolved means through which we experience such external things as homelessness, which are evident. Doctors still take into account feedback from their patients and patients can seek out a second opinion, because not all doctors are good at what they do and each body/brain varies with a complex personal and familial history. But the scientific community is a reliable enough source of information because they devote their time to that. There aren't people who are scienceless, not even those who are science-deniers. Similarly, it would be absurd to call homeless people home-deniers.
Originally Posted by Horza[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Chanting "Hang Mike Pence" while violently storming the Capitol to stop the peaceful transfer of power isn't speech.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ooloo[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
No that literally is protected speech, you're just conveniently conflating it with "violently blah blah". Nobody disagrees that actual violence is bad, but jan 6th is a blip on the radar compared to what the left has perpetrated over the last 24 months. It's not even close.
08-19-2021, 06:10 PM
Linear Mode
