Penn Judge: Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting Mohammad

[tradingjournals]

Quote from gwb-trading:



If a person dressed up as a Jesus Christ zombie in a parade then would it be acceptable for an offended Christian to beat him?

If someone punches you on the nose and you defend yourself, are you beating or self defending?

If you say it is self defense, it would mean that you may view as "punching" only what you consider as "punching" . The nose could be something else, and the punch could be an other act. Both may not be apparent to your eyes, and you may disagree with, but that is irrelevant.

It is the judge who matters, because he has the intellectual capacity to see what you cannot see or want to see, and the moral upstanding, independence to reach a right decision.

 

[gwb-trading]

Quote from tradingjournals:

That judge should be given a medal of honor. He is teaching people that an injury can be caused by non physical means, that that an injury is decided not by what an idiot thinks, but by the actual consequences an action may have on the receiver. If there is injury the receiver is entitled to justice and self defense.

Oh Great, I now have a free pass to beat the living hell out of anyone I find offensive. Fat People in Walmart [that's a beating], Slow Drivers in the left lane [that's a beating], Jesus freak preachers on a campus [that's a beating], Sponge Bob outfits [huge beating], Politicians [beat the stuffing out of them]. Yeah all - all of these people cause me "injury" by non-physical means, their actions offend me and have "actual consequences" on me as a receiver. Glad you and judge have given me free reign to mete out justice as I see fit.

 

[tradingjournals]

Quote from gwb-trading:

Oh Great, I now have a free pass to beat the living hell out of anyone I find offensive.

Not what I wrote.

1. The purpose is not to beat, but to defend. You view it as beat.

2. Defense against injury, not against something one find offensive. Injury is judged by a judge, and substantiated by evidence.

 

[gwb-trading]

Quote from tradingjournals:

If someone punches you on the nose and you defend yourself, are you beating or self defending?

If you say it is self defense, it would mean that you may view as "punching" only what consider "punching" is . The nose could be something else, and the punch could be an other act. Both may not be apparent to your eyes, and you may disagree with, but that is irrelevant.

It is the judge who matters, because he has the intellectual capacity to see what you cannot see or want to see, and the moral upstanding, independence to reach a right decision.

There is a huge difference between a physical punch in the nose, which is an illegal form of assault which in most states that I am allowed to defend myself against, and a non-physical action (verbal, dressing up, holding a sign, etc.) that does not physical violence. This is very relevant under the law in the U.S. unless you are in front of a judge who needs to be removed from office asap.

 

[gwb-trading]

Quote from tradingjournals:

Not what I wrote.

1. The purpose is not to beat, but to defend. You view it as beat.

2. Defense against injury, not against something one find offensive. Injury is judged by a judge, and substantiated by evidence.

If the person did not make physical contact and assault you then you can not "defend" yourself by physically attacking them. In this case the "offended muslim" was the attacker who physically beat the person who was the zombie in a parade.

 

[trefoil]

Quote from tradingjournals:

That judge should be given a medal of honor. He is teaching people that an injury can be caused by non physical means, that an injury is decided not by what an idiot with lower intellectual capacity thinks, but by the actual consequences an action may have on the receiver. If there is injury the receiver is entitled to justice and self defense.

Far out.
You get the prize for the dumbest post of the year so far, and the second dumbest one I've ever seen on ET.
You aren't an American citizen, I hope?

 

[Eight]

Quote from tradingjournals:

If someone punches you on the nose and you defend yourself, are you beating or self defending?

If you say it is self defense, it would mean that you may view as "punching" only what you consider as "punching" . The nose could be something else, and the punch could be an other act. Both may not be apparent to your eyes, and you may disagree with, but that is irrelevant.

It is the judge who matters, because he has the intellectual capacity to see what you cannot see or want to see, and the moral upstanding, independence to reach a right decision.

I think you are kind of a f%^ked up person. Have you sorted out your MBTI personality type? It might be INFJ.. some of the types are just naturally f%^ked up. Of course I mean f%^ked up in only the most proactive, loving, conciliatory, most positive possible sense of the wording.

I guess if i told the judge that the beating I meted out to a Christ-zombie was an act of love because the person would have learned something from it then i'd get a medal instead of jail..

 

[a_person]

Quote from tradingjournals:

That judge should be given a medal of honor. He is teaching people that an injury can be caused by non physical means, that an injury is decided not by what an idiot with lower intellectual capacity thinks, but by the actual consequences an action may have on the receiver. If there is injury the receiver is entitled to justice and self defense.

How do we deal with your muslim ilk when they burn american flags and the effigies of american presidents? They cause an injury to patriotic americans, don't you think?

 

[tradingjournals]

Quote from gwb-trading:

There is a huge difference between a physical punch in the nose, which is an illegal form of assault which in most states that I am allowed to defend myself against, and a non-physical action (verbal, dressing up, holding a sign, etc.) that does not physical violence. This is very relevant under the law in the U.S. unless you are in front of a judge who needs to be removed from office asap.

Some ore points are:
1. injury: visible by naked eye vs. by other means.
2. Physical cause vs. non-physical cause.
3. Intentional cause vs. intentional.

There are a lot of cases to discuss. Let us consider one you may have excluded so far.

Imagine a room full of people including some older people with weak legs, and some nut decides he wants to exercise what he think is his right to speech, and utter the word: "fire".

Imagine there is a stampede, and there are injuries. I would say the nut has caused injuries, yet the nut would tell me he is entitled to his speech, and it is not written anywhere that he cannot utter the word?

 

[Scataphagos]

Quote from a_person:

"... They cause an injury to patriotic americans, don't you think?

Such assaults on non-muslims don't count.