Leftists Assault Woman For Wearing A Hat, Chase Down People And Beat Them!
The video does not show who sprayed the woman, obviously then, no actual motive or perpetrator identified …
Dishonest post.
Already told who the Berkeley perpetrators are.
Anarchists from around the Bay Area, NOT Cal students, were the ones who demonstrated violently last night in Berkeley. Utilizing typical black bloc techniques, they hijacked last night’s peaceful student protest of a certain speaker and turned it into the uncomfortable display that was aired throughout the nation.
So, we need proof but you don't? Sorry, there is no evidence that the rioters were not students, just an assertion by the university. However, someone wearing a MAGA hat is assaulted during an interview? We all know who did it.
The presumption of innocence is often mentioned when discussing the argumentum ad ignorantiam .
The presumption of innocence, if present, effectively removes the possibility that the accused may be both guilty and unproven, from consideration in judgment, and as such the accused is considered as innocent unless proven guilty. (See decision table below)
Innocent and guilt is unproven. Judged as innocent.
Innocent and guilt is proven. Judged as guilty. (Jury is biased, misled, makes error; false evidence fabricated etc.)
Guilty and guilt is unproven. Judged as innocent. (Presumption of innocence)
Guilty and guilt is proven. Judged as guilty. ( Innocent unless/until proven guilty is a summary of this and easier to remember.)
I think A mac makes a good point , IF this were a court of law.
but it is not , it is the court of public opinion, and we all know how that works , even with all the inherent biases and false leads. and burdens of proof shift and change continually.
I will always support the right of protest , as long as it is peaceful , non damaging and non violent, that in the words of a movie line is advanced citizenship.
the problem I DO see is the provacatures that would destroy that right through the subversion of otherwise right to voice disagreement , through introduction of violence on any level.
It has been pointed out that those that are protesting legally have to somehow distance themselves from those outside themselves that only wish to forment riotous activities , don't ask me how , because I haven't a clue other than to say disavow them and leave when they show up.
But like it or not , as long as it happens , those that will do violence will also paint those that abhore violence if it is done during their protests, such is the animal called public opinion, which is what until the law catches the perps , that's the court it will be tried in the public opinion one, and it is not helping the protesters cause, IMHO.
As for the woman sprayed in the face , it was reported ( assumed) it was some form of pepper spray, I think we should all just be glad it wasn't something that could have been far worse , and far more caustic and damaging permanently. IS that sort of escalation/ cost worth making sure a message is heard and not ignored? I would hope very few would say yes .
I think A mac makes a good point , IF this were a court of law.
but it is not , it is the court of public opinion,
Whether our interactions take place in a court of law, on a street corner, or, in cyberspace, in a civilized society, if it those interactions continue to take place in "a house divided," …
"If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand."
The power brokers need a "divided house" as it can be conquered … and because we allow them to play to our fears, they win … we lose.
No, NT(et al) is not a court of law, but would be best served were we to interact as if in one in order to maintain some level of civility, integrity or reason?
Should we disregard law and fairness and common sense any/every/all-of-the-time we can't formally be charged with "contempt" -- this, when we discuss our differences? Is badgering, insulting, disregarding the obvious and/or not knowing or acknowledging when we have reached an impasse, beneficial to our well-being, or is it wearing down any desire for healthy disagreement the objective?
If cyberspace functioned like a court of law, it wouldn't be as exciting, or, as much fun as it is at times … but more often than not, while the bullshit and acrimony and bad feelings exist, resolutions based on proof and facts would prevail or fail by virtue of "truth or consequences".
The pronouncements and ugliness and relentless shit-flinging on NT are in many ways manifestations of ignorance, bias and a cyber-delivery system of such; we, the country and the world are "shitting-where-we-eat" (to borrow a phrase).
Actually, you have an equal responsibility to prove it's insiders.
From FOX News …
At least six people were injured. Some were attacked by the agitators — who are a part of an anarchist group known as the “Black Bloc” that has been causing problems in Oakland for years, said Dan Mogulof, UC Berkeley spokesman.
Here is the reality; WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE … but I try to post at least one or two reports contrary to what is "reported" in a known, biased source … Breibart "News" "reportng" on a protest against … Breitbart's current editor.
And every usual right-wing source runs the same (alleged) report.
Beyond this, look at some of the inane comments … the usual dismissive, sometimes danger-advocating, ugly, partisan bashing/scapegoating.
I try to be part of "discussions" on NT, but others are just here to agitate … WHILE IRONICALLY, IN THIS THREAD, REPUDIATING AGITATORS.
In our age there is no such thing as 'keeping out of politics.' All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.
Time and time, again, I have read where it is "outsiders" causing the problems of rioting. Have I read anything that it is for a fact? No. Do I have proof that it isn't outsiders? No.
So, to conclude that it is outsiders is just as factual as me saying.....it isn't.
Is paying outside rioters the same thing as paying day laborers? With a day laborer you get an honest day's work. With a paid rioter you get destruction. Do they get paid after the job or before the job? Do they get transported in or are they living among the peaceful protesters? Does one sign up?
I don't give a shit if it was insiders or outsiders or who the fuck it was. What I'm bent about is the complete lack of condemnation from the left. Not just lack, but in many instances, the left's leadership has encouraged such violence.
Walk softly and carry a big stick .357 or larger. Avoid gun free zones they target the unprotected.
It is disgusting and nothing will be done. These hoodlums wear face masks which proves what cowards they are.
Wearing a mask in public should be sufficient grounds to be shot.
You mean like this one? This one is for Mardi Gras...
Not everyone wearing a mask is a bad guy...
Even the Lone ranger couldn't enter a bank...
Maybe not, but I bet Zorro could... And I allow hordes of these masked hooligans come up to my door, every halloween!
Leftists Assault Woman For Wearing A Hat, Chase Down People And Beat Them!
The video does not show who sprayed the woman, obviously then, no actual motive or perpetrator identified …
Dishonest post.
Already told who the Berkeley perpetrators are.
Anarchists from around the Bay Area, NOT Cal students, were the ones who demonstrated violently last night in Berkeley. Utilizing typical black bloc techniques, they hijacked last night’s peaceful student protest of a certain speaker and turned it into the uncomfortable display that was aired throughout the nation.
So, we need proof but you don't? Sorry, there is no evidence that the rioters were not students, just an assertion by the university. However, someone wearing a MAGA hat is assaulted during an interview? We all know who did it.
Dishonest arguments again.
there is no evidence that the rioters were not students, just an assertion by the university.
Not how it works in America; the burden of proof is on the one making the allegations …
Principles in law [ edit ]
The presumption of innocence is often mentioned when discussing the argumentum ad ignorantiam .
I think A mac makes a good point , IF this were a court of law.
but it is not , it is the court of public opinion, and we all know how that works , even with all the inherent biases and false leads. and burdens of proof shift and change continually.
I will always support the right of protest , as long as it is peaceful , non damaging and non violent, that in the words of a movie line is advanced citizenship.
the problem I DO see is the provacatures that would destroy that right through the subversion of otherwise right to voice disagreement , through introduction of violence on any level.
It has been pointed out that those that are protesting legally have to somehow distance themselves from those outside themselves that only wish to forment riotous activities , don't ask me how , because I haven't a clue other than to say disavow them and leave when they show up.
But like it or not , as long as it happens , those that will do violence will also paint those that abhore violence if it is done during their protests, such is the animal called public opinion, which is what until the law catches the perps , that's the court it will be tried in the public opinion one, and it is not helping the protesters cause, IMHO.
As for the woman sprayed in the face , it was reported ( assumed) it was some form of pepper spray, I think we should all just be glad it wasn't something that could have been far worse , and far more caustic and damaging permanently. IS that sort of escalation/ cost worth making sure a message is heard and not ignored? I would hope very few would say yes .
I think A mac makes a good point , IF this were a court of law.
but it is not , it is the court of public opinion,
Whether our interactions take place in a court of law, on a street corner, or, in cyberspace, in a civilized society, if it those interactions continue to take place in "a house divided," …
"If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand."
The power brokers need a "divided house" as it can be conquered … and because we allow them to play to our fears, they win … we lose.
No, NT(et al) is not a court of law, but would be best served were we to interact as if in one in order to maintain some level of civility, integrity or reason?
Should we disregard law and fairness and common sense any/every/all-of-the-time we can't formally be charged with "contempt" -- this, when we discuss our differences? Is badgering, insulting, disregarding the obvious and/or not knowing or acknowledging when we have reached an impasse, beneficial to our well-being, or is it wearing down any desire for healthy disagreement the objective?
If cyberspace functioned like a court of law, it wouldn't be as exciting, or, as much fun as it is at times … but more often than not, while the bullshit and acrimony and bad feelings exist, resolutions based on proof and facts would prevail or fail by virtue of "truth or consequences".
The pronouncements and ugliness and relentless shit-flinging on NT are in many ways manifestations of ignorance, bias and a cyber-delivery system of such; we, the country and the world are "shitting-where-we-eat" (to borrow a phrase).
Objection, your Honor.
That premise is getting old. Wherever these riots take place the same old excuses are heard.....it was outsiders!
So, prove, it was outsiders!
So, prove, it was outsiders!
Actually, you have an equal responsibility to prove it's insiders.
From FOX News …
At least six people were injured. Some were attacked by the agitators — who are a part of an anarchist group known as the “Black Bloc” that has been causing problems in Oakland for years, said Dan Mogulof, UC Berkeley spokesman.
Here is the reality; WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE … but I try to post at least one or two reports contrary to what is "reported" in a known, biased source … Breibart "News" "reportng" on a protest against … Breitbart's current editor.
And every usual right-wing source runs the same (alleged) report.
Beyond this, look at some of the inane comments … the usual dismissive, sometimes danger-advocating, ugly, partisan bashing/scapegoating.
I try to be part of "discussions" on NT, but others are just here to agitate … WHILE IRONICALLY, IN THIS THREAD, REPUDIATING AGITATORS.
In our age there is no such thing as 'keeping out of politics.' All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.
_ George Orwell
Interesting to note,
One side says....
"Prove your assertion!"
the other side says.....
"YOU FIRST!"
The response is...
"The Law says the one making the allegation bears the burden of proof!" (usually said as justification for not providing proof)
The response to that is...
"I already have" (but impossible to find or discern out of the mess)
Bringing forth....
"So have I" (again, impossible to find or discern out of the mess)
Which leaves us with......
NOTHING! just a back and forth that has no real value.
Someday, someone is going to floor everyone with a cogent statement and response.
I sincerely hope it comes sooner rather than later.
Time and time, again, I have read where it is "outsiders" causing the problems of rioting. Have I read anything that it is for a fact? No. Do I have proof that it isn't outsiders? No.
So, to conclude that it is outsiders is just as factual as me saying.....it isn't.
Is paying outside rioters the same thing as paying day laborers? With a day laborer you get an honest day's work. With a paid rioter you get destruction. Do they get paid after the job or before the job? Do they get transported in or are they living among the peaceful protesters? Does one sign up?
I don't get it!
I don't give a shit if it was insiders or outsiders or who the fuck it was. What I'm bent about is the complete lack of condemnation from the left. Not just lack, but in many instances, the left's leadership has encouraged such violence.