Yakuda
Verified User
It doesn't but leftist half wits always do this. They either change direction or they respond to what they think you say and not what you actually say. Pay attention when you read their posts. They do it all the time.
WHITE SUPREMACIST gives speech at Arizona State University
- Thread starter Text Drivers are Killers
- Start date
It doesn't but leftist half wits always do this. They either change direction or they respond to what they think you say and not what you actually say. Pay attention when you read their posts. They do it all the time.
Thought is inaction. Speech is an action of thought.
Yakuda
Verified User
But does that amount to an act of terrorism?
Depends on your definition. Some include the “use of violence” and the “threat of violence”.
Did this guy threaten violence himself? Not that I can see. I didn’t hear or read the entire speech.
Yakuda
Verified User
I don't think it's relevant. Trump is said to have incited an insurrection with his words. I am uncertain how another person's words compel me to action.
Perhaps someone’s words don’t incite YOU to action, but that’s not true for many.
I am as WASP as it gets.
Nothing but 'white' in my family as far back as you can go (though that is starting to change going forward).
But you are nothing but amoral scum.
The faster you and your incredibly stupid, fellow human maggot, racist scum leave this Earth?
The better.
Yakuda
Verified User
I'm not sure how it's true for anybody. Another person's words alone can't compel anyone to act.
Yakuda
Verified User
Are you not sure you're on the earth?
“Compel” might not be the correct word. “Incite” is more appropriate.
Make no mistake about it. Words matter. They can be used to inspire people to do good or bad.
Yakuda
Verified User
No compel is the only word that would make someone's words responsible for the behavior of others.
I didn't say words don't matter. Show me where I did. They may "inspire" by they don't compel. People decide for themselves what they will and will not do.
Compel = force
Incite = encourage
Note the difference. One may not compel a riot, but they can incite one.
Yakuda
Verified User
I know the difference quite well. Unless someone is forcing (compelling) me to act the decision to act is entirely my own. My father "encouraged" me to not do drugs. Want to guess how that went? If you aren't responsible for your choices who is?
Poor analogy.
A person can be charged for inciting a riot.
A person can also be charged for participating in that same riot.
Yakuda
Verified User
Its a perfect analogy and you haven't shown how it isn't. You said incite is to encourage, my father incited me to not take drugs so why did I?
It's irrelevant what someone can be charged with I am asking how anyone's words compel the actions of others. Unless they do compel others to act with their words it's really improper to charge someone with such a crime.
Participating in a riot is an entirely separate matter and not pertinent to the discussion.
Last edited:
Per your post #26, the discussion is about inciting a riot. I merely added the part about participating in one after being incited to do so. So, drop that part if you’d like.
Whether you like it or not, whether you think it’s improper or not, inciting a riot IS a crime.
Yakuda
Verified User
I added to my last post after tiu responded here and it shows that inciting doesn't lead to the incited (encouraged) action. My actions are independent not your words unless I decide otherwise.
My point is merely that action is participation but the question who is responsible for my participation?
It was once a crime for two men have sex. So what? The question isnt the law but the logic of the law.
Argue all you want about the logic of any law. The fact is it’s illegal to incite a riot. Period.
OK. I wasn't sure by your comment. It was the College Republicans that invited the speaker.
"Sunshine is the best disinfectant."
Yakuda
Verified User
Lmao. Good for you for taking a knee. I like how you don't want to be burdened with having to defend your position but prefer to just stammer, "It's illegal". You think logic shouldnt factor into law making? Too scary?