Support NeoGAF

[Subpar Scrub]

Everyone saying "just let her go, what she did is fine" needs to link to the relevant legislation that forms the basis of a valid defence against her charge. Anyone who wants the shitstain preacher charged needs to also link to the relevant legislation that would prosecute him and source the evidence to support that charge... Also, are none of you worried about such a ruling setting a precedent for common law?

I'm not going to condone this violence, but I understand.

This too. Absolutely can't condone violence unless it's for self-defence purposes, regardless of how awful this dude is.

 

[Got]

the crack of the bat sound would make a good text tone.

 

[Psychoward]

I also love how people are saying "intent to kill!"


he could walk and talk fine after it and even the adult that was talking to him was like "I told you so"

 

[Freshmaker]

I also love how people are saying "intent to kill!"


he could walk and talk fine after it and even the adult that was talking to him was like "I told you so"

You hit someone in the head with a baseball bat, you're rolling the dice.

 

[Realyn]

I also love how people are saying "intent to kill!"


he could walk and talk fine after it and even the adult that was talking to him was like "I told you so"

People are arguing just because someone was "fine" the "intent to kill" couldn't have happened in the first place. It's remarkable how someone can say or type this without feeling like the biggest idiot around. Really is.

 

[Psychoward]

You hit someone in the head with a baseball bat, you're rolling the dice.

People are arguing just because someone was "fine" the "intent to kill" couldn't have happened in the first place. It's remarkable how someone can say or type this without feeling like the biggest idiot around. Really is.

We don't have any video evidence of how hard the strike was, and judging by the nonchalant reaction of the sane adult that was standing right there I'm gonna assume it wasn't with the intent to kill.

I'm also thinking if your intent is to kill the person you should maybe hit them more than once?

 

[Realyn]

We don't have any video evidence of how hard the strike was, and judging by the reaction of the sane adult that was standing right there I'm gonna assume it wasn't with the intent to kill.

This has 100% nothing to do with what you just said. You tried to argue just because "he could walk and talk fine after it" it's not possible for her intending to kill him. For the record, I don't think she was. This logic is just so ridiciously stupid and on a level of a 4th grader.

 

[Psychoward]

This has 100% nothing to do with what you just said. You tried to argue just because "he could walk and talk fine after it" it's not possible for her intending to kill him. For the record, I don't think she was. This logic is just so ridiciously stupid and on a level of a 4th grader.

the other stuff was implied because we knew she only hit him once and we knew the reaction was either ambivalence or straight up cheering but I guess I had to spell everything out so I didn't get called a 4th grader. Thanks

 

[Valkerionseven]

Deserved it.

Why the school did not get a restraining order against the guy is another thing too. Though I would say the lady took it too far simply because she could have seriously harmed him even more by accident.

 

[Realyn]

the other stuff was implied because we knew she only hit him once and we knew the reaction was either ambivalence or straight up cheering but I guess I had to spell everything out so I didn't get called a 4th grader. Thanks

Yeah you see it's good to make sense if you want people to take what you're saying seriously. Because it's quite hard to grasp how the cheering or his condition relates to her intentions before doing it.

 

[Psychoward]

Yeah you see it's good to make sense if you want people to take what you're saying seriously. Because it's quite hard to grasp how the cheering or his condition relates to her intentions before doing it.

Well I'd say the fact that she only hit him once and the fact that the court ruled that she wasn't planning murder were pretty good ideas. If her intent was to kill she wouldn't have stopped when he was still able to talk and walk away which was my original point. You're right though, I should have laid everything out for the people who think she was going around trying to end this guy's life because they clearly didn't bother to watch the video or read the court's decision.

 

[Realyn]

Well I'd say the fact that she only hit him once and the fact that the court ruled that she wasn't planning murder were pretty good ideas. You're right though, I should have laid everything out for the people who think she was going around trying to end this guy's life because they clearly didn't bother to watch the video or read the court's decision.

It could've helped to argue any of those things instead of saying "look, he's fine! he can walk!". That automatically neglects any bad intentions right. Probably would've made more sense yeah.

 

[Psychoward]

It could've helped to argue any of those things instead of saying "look, he's fine! he can walk!". That automatically neglects any bad intentions right. Probably would've made more sense yeah.

There is literally zero logical difference between saying "her intent wasn't to kill because he was walking away fine"

and "her intent wasn't to kill because she didn't follow up and finish him off"

the only difference is wording

 

[Spoiled Milk]

And what of preventing hatred...

you gonna beat the hatred out of them? lol

 

[afternoon delight]

I am actually shocked about how many people are taking this guy's side. The quotient of impartial hall monitors itt is appalling.

Right click save as.

 

[excelsiorlef]

you gonna beat the hatred out of them? lol

Hate speech laws is what I was speaking of

 

[Ponn]

Preacher shouldn't be anywhere near a school like that, especially shouting stuff.

Also preacher shouting anti-gay shit and talking about "evil, internet and naughty" stuff. uh-huh. Someone needs to be looking into his shit right now. Just saying, 9 times out of 10 we know how this shit turns out.

 

[Netherscourge]

She should sue him for ramming his head into her bat.

 

[Whiteblade999]

I can't advocate violence against this person. He is an utterly despicable human being, and I loathe that type with every fiber of my being because they try to dehumanize me. But.

The second we turn to violence as an answer we are no better then him. Run the bigot off or let him make a fool of himself.

 

[Media]

I can't advocate violence against this person. He is an utterly despicable human being, and I loathe that type with every fiber of my being because they try to dehumanize me. But.

The second we turn to violence as an answer we are no better then him. Run the bigot off or let him make a fool of himself.

The only thing that seemed to run him off was a bat to the head, so...

 

[King Tubby]

I am actually shocked about how many people are taking this guy's side. The quotient of impartial hall monitors itt is appalling.

Saying the guy doesn't deserve to be assaulted with a deadly weapon is not taking his side. Jesus christ.

To quote myself from earlier in the thread:

Would it have been justified if, instead of a bat, she walked up and shot him in the back of the head with a hand gun? Because serious injury or death is a very possible outcome of getting hit in the head with a baseball bat.

Disagreeing with this specific response is not the same thing as defending this guy or what he did.

-

The only thing that seemed to run him off was a bat to the head, so...

Except he went right back at it afterwards. The only thing that actually ran him off in the end was actually committing an assault of his own.

 

[adamsapple]

Completely disagree with violence being used, even though the preacher was a big d-bag. That just makes the preacher 'win' the argument.

Can't deny how satisfying that thunk sound of the bat connecting to his skull was though.

 

[Got]

Completely disagree with violence being used, even though the preacher was a big d-bag. That just makes the preacher 'win' the argument.

Can't deny how satisfying that thunk sound of the bat connecting to his skull was though.

he didn't win the argument. he got beat and it was deserved. too bad she couldn't get a few more in. really drive home the point.

 

[adamsapple]

he didn't win the argument. he got beat and it was deserved. too bad she couldn't get a few more in. really drive home the point.

Except, as stated above, he went right back after getting his head straight.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Completely disagree with violence being used, even though the preacher was a big d-bag. That just makes the preacher 'win' the argument.

Can't deny how satisfying that thunk sound of the bat connecting to his skull was though.

His argument was that high school kids deserve to be raped

No winning that one

 

[Krombopulos_Michael]

It is disgusting that anyone would try to justify violence. It doesn't matter what other people are doing, smashing their head with a bat is not okay unless your in danger.

dehumanizing and justifying violence against people, no matter what they believe or you believe they have done to deserve it, never works out. Have a conscious, just cause someone else is an asshole, doesn't mean you also have to be one.

 

[Imm0rt4l]

I believe strongly in the idea of fighting words. And promoting sexual violence is planted firmly in the he deserves to get his ass beat category. Lol y'all wanna act like this is some sort of a "debate" to be won. Seriously. Fuck outta here.

 

[Media]

It is disgusting that anyone would try to justify violence. It doesn't matter what other people are doing, smashing their head with a bat is not okay unless your in danger.

dehumanizing and justifying violence against people, no matter what they believe or you believe they have done to deserve it, never works out. Have a conscious, just cause someone else is an asshole, doesn't mean you also have to be one.

Going to quote myself here cause bone of the 'free speech/his beliefs are valid' folks have answered.

Everyone is arguing to the fact that the police should have handled it are ignoring the many times people have brought up the fact that the police have been called on this guy numerous times and they didn't do anything until he kicked someone.

I'm a victim of rape, so my horse is this race is a bit more lathered than most but look at this way.

These kids go to that school everyday. They are there likely more than they are at home.

If this dude stood on your front walk everyday, yelling about how your daughter or wife deserved to be raped, and you called the cops a bunch of times and they just shrugged, can you honestly say you wouldn't try and end it yourself?

Advocating rape isn't a belief. It's a threat of violence. And was responded to by violence after who knows how long it had been directed at kids. If you believe that is right to scream that school girls deserve to be raped is a belief that should protected I don't know what to say.

 

[Freshmaker]

We don't have any video evidence of how hard the strike was, and judging by the nonchalant reaction of the sane adult that was standing right there I'm gonna assume it wasn't with the intent to kill.

I'm also thinking if your intent is to kill the person you should maybe hit them more than once?

I don't really care about intent. I was saying that hitting someone with a heavy blunt object can potentially inflict mortal wounds regardless of intent.

I wouldn't expect an enraged person to be aiming for a love tap however. The fact it drew blood indicates it wasn't a surgical nudge of disapproval.

The reaction of the bystander doesn't really mean much. If a dude like that got hit in front of me and was still walking around apparently not seriously injured I'd probably laugh at him.

If he happened to be at the wrong angle and collapsed under the strike, would you really be defending it however?

 

[Hierophant]

How the fuck is this thread still going, my thoughts have been summarised though:

I believe strongly in the idea of fighting words. And promoting sexual violence is planted firmly in the he deserves to get his ass beat category. Lol y'all wanna act like this is some sort of a "debate" to be won. Seriously. Fuck outta here.

If there aren't things and words you're willing to stand up for, you're weak.

 

[Krombopulos_Michael]

Going to quote myself here cause bone of the 'free speech/his beliefs are valid' folks have answered.







Advocating rape isn't a belief. It's a threat of violence. And was responded to by violence after who knows how long it had been directed at kids. If you believe that is right to scream that school girls deserve to be raped is a belief that should protected I don't know what to say.

I'm saying that it is not okay to just bash people's brains in because they are holding a sign with a disgusting message. Violence is never okay. People who try to justify violence are the reason genocides and the like can occur. People say "something about this group of people means it is ok to hurt them". But it just isn't.

Holding a sign that says people deserve to be raped is fucked up. But if you can act against that in a non-violent way then that is what people should do. He is just a guy holding a fucking sign, he has no power. Just ignore him, or counter protest, or provide support for whoever felt offended by the sign. Don't smash his skull.

Violence breeds violence, and anyone who has experienced violence will tell you it is best to avoid it at all costs.

The only scenario in which this lady would be justified is if he was actively attacking/ killing others.

 

[Night Angel]

Wait, have people been calling me a woman ITT???

If you're not a woman then F0rneus's "literally mansplaining" post use even funnier now than it was before I went to sleep. Lmao

 

[Media]

I'm saying that it is not okay to just bash people's brains in because they are holding a sign with a disgusting message. Violence is never okay. People who try to justify violence are the reason genocides and the like can occur. People say "something about this group of people means it is ok to hurt them". But it just isn't.

Holding a sign that says people deserve to be raped is fucked up. But if you can act against that in a non-violent way then that is what people should do. He is just a guy holding a fucking sign, he has no power. Just ignore him, or counter protest, or provide support for whoever felt offended by the sign. Don't smash his skull.

Violence breeds violence, and anyone who has experienced violence will tell you it is best to avoid it at all costs.

The only scenario in which this lady would be justified is if he was actively attacking/ killing others.

First, she did not bash his skull in. If she had, we'd be having a very different conversation.

Secondly, you are right, violence breeds violence. His speech, which is advocating violence, just like that of Spencer and his ilk, encourages others to go out and do that violence. Hate crimes in this county have sky rocketed because of Trumps 'free speech'. Spencer literally advocates genocide. He got punched and shut up and hid.

Standing up against someone advocating violence doesn't lead to genocide. Shutting up, sitting down, and doing nothing does.

 

[The Kree]

I'm saying that it is not okay to just bash people's brains in because they are holding a sign with a disgusting message. Violence is never okay. People who try to justify violence are the reason genocides and the like can occur. People say "something about this group of people means it is ok to hurt them". But it just isn't.

Holding a sign that says people deserve to be raped is fucked up. But if you can act against that in a non-violent way then that is what people should do. He is just a guy holding a fucking sign, he has no power. Just ignore him, or counter protest, or provide support for whoever felt offended by the sign. Don't smash his skull.

Violence breeds violence, and anyone who has experienced violence will tell you it is best to avoid it at all costs.

The only scenario in which this lady would be justified is if he was actively attacking/ killing others.

His brains weren't bashed in. Violence is sometimes necessary, as human history has shown numerous times. This was one man who was attacked, not a group.

Many people did respond without violence to his antics and it did nothing to deter the man. Words have power. Ignoring problems does not solve problems, protesting is sometimes not enough.

You cannot advocate for violence, which is what this man was doing, and not expect violence to happen to you. This man brought this action upon himself. He called for violence and violence found him.

 

[Got]

First, she did not bash his skull in. If she had, we'd be having a very different conversation.

Secondly, you are right, violence breeds violence. His speech, which is advocating violence, just like that of Spencer and his ilk, encourages others to go out and do that violence. Hate crimes in this county have sky rocketed because of Trumps 'free speech'. Spencer literally advocates genocide. He got punched and shut up and hid.

Standing up against someone advocating violence doesn't lead to genocide. Shutting up, sitting down, and doing nothing does.

exactly.

 

[old manatee]

Those school children should have tried talking to him.

 

[King Tubby]

First, she did not bash his skull in. If she had, we'd be having a very different conversation.

WARNING: Here is a (low quality) video of a child molester getting shot and killed by the father of the boy he kidnapped and abused. Like the girl who committed the assault in this case, the father here only got probation even though he responded with far more deadly force. At the same time, he was responding to far worse provoking action to begin with.

The point being that it would not have been surprising if the preacher had died just from getting smacked in the head with a baseball bat. That blow left him bleeding from his skull. If we'd be having a very different conversation, why? Is this an acknowledgement that this isn't "all or nothing"? If so, good, people in this thread can stop bringing up straw men over and over and acknowledge that a lot of those who have misgivings about what the girl did are taking issue with the proportionality of the response.

Many people did respond without violence to his antics and it did nothing to deter the man. Words have power. Ignoring problems does not solve problems, protesting is sometimes not enough.

...violence did nothing to deter this man either. It only stopped him temporarily, he went right back to doing the same shit. Bringing us back again to whether or not it would be okay to kill this man, and if not, where are you drawing the line?

 

[Krombopulos_Michael]

His brains weren't bashed in. Violence is sometimes necessary, as human history has shown numerous times. This was one man who was attacked, not a group.

Many people did respond without violence to his antics and it did nothing to deter the man. Words have power. Ignoring problems does not solve problems, protesting is sometimes not enough.

You cannot advocate for violence, which is what this man was doing, and not expect violence to happen to you. This man brought this action upon himself. He called for violence and violence found him.

How can you condemn someone for "breeding" violence, while also not condemning someone who actually uses violence?

Your defense is literally "he was asking for it". How about people just don't use violence, regardless of what other people are doing. The guy was being an asshole, but wan't physically hurting anybody. He is one man, holding a sign. Do not give him any power over you by reacting with violence. Be better than him. How about instead of lowering ourselves to behave like the subjects of this story we instead be better and resist violence no matter who it is against.

Also, your last paragraph doesn't look good for you. You say you can't advocate violence without expecting violence to happen to you, while simultaneously advocating violence against the guy holding a sign. By your logic, you are saying that if someone used violence against you it would be justified. And then someone using violence agaisnt that person would be justified and the cycle continues until we reach full blown civil war.

Break the cycle by just not advocating violence, it is not that hard.

 

[Hierophant]

How can you condemn someone for "breeding" violence, while also not condemning someone who actually uses violence?

Your defense is literally "he was asking for it". How about people just don't use violence, regardless of what other people are doing. The guy was being an asshole, but wan't physically hurting anybody. He is one man, holding a sign. Do not give him any power over you by reacting with violence. Be better than him. How about instead of lowering ourselves to behave like the subjects of this story we instead be better and resist violence no matter who it is against.

Also, your last paragraph doesn't look good for you. You say you can't advocate violence without expecting violence to happen to you, while simultaneously advocating violence against the guy holding a sign. By your logic, you are saying that if someone used violence against you it would be justified. And then someone using violence agaisnt that person would be justified and the cycle continues until we reach full blown civil war.

Break the cycle by just not advocating violence, it is not that hard.

You're whole premise is just to sit back and cop abuse like this forever then? That's great and all for someone who I'm assuming would never feel threatened by this guy but some people aren't as "strong" and "rational" as you, perhaps having suffered sexual assault themselves and day in day out seeing this guy spout his shit unimpeded.

Oh and they were already better than him by the virtue of not advocating rape, there's no need for them to try to be better.

Just don't advocate violence it's really easy (speaking as someone who isn't threatened by this guy at all)

 

[Veelk]

If you're not a woman then F0rneus's "literally mansplaining" post use even funnier now than it was before I went to sleep. Lmao

Wasn't that directed at you?

 

[Media]

WARNING: Here is a (low quality) video of a child molester getting shot and killed by the father of the boy he kidnapped and abused. Like the girl who committed the assault in this case, the father here only got probation even though he responded with far more deadly force. At the same time, he was responding to far worse provoking action to begin with.

The point being that it would not have been surprising if the preacher had died just from getting smacked in the head with a baseball bat. That blow left him bleeding from his skull. If we'd be having a very different conversation, why? Is this an acknowledgement that this isn't "all or nothing"? If so, good, people in this thread can stop bringing up straw men over and over and acknowledge that a lot of those who have misgivings about what the girl did are taking issue with the proportionality of the response.



...violence did nothing to deter this man either. It only stopped him temporarily, he went right back to doing the same shit. Bringing us back again to whether or not it would be okay to kill this man, and if not, where are you drawing the line?

I think you are kinda harming your own argument here. The father got less probation for killing his sons rapist then the rapist would have had he actually made it to trial.

The girl we are talking about acted in a moment of distress to a perceived threat with a blow to the head. Yes, it could have killed him, but his minor injuries seems to stress that she didn't want or intend to do that.

Also, I'm shaking my head at how the person I actually quoted is ignoring my post.

 

[The Kree]

How can you condemn someone for "breeding" violence, while also not condemning someone who actually uses violence?

Your defense is literally "he was asking for it". How about people just don't use violence, regardless of what other people are doing. The guy was being an asshole, but wan't physically hurting anybody. He is one man, holding a sign. Do not give him any power over you by reacting with violence. Be better than him. How about instead of lowering ourselves to behave like the subjects of this story we instead be better and resist violence no matter who it is against.

Also, your last paragraph doesn't look good for you. You say you can't advocate violence without expecting violence to happen to you, while simultaneously advocating violence against the guy holding a sign. By your logic, you are saying that if someone used violence against you it would be justified. And then someone using violence agaisnt that person would be justified and the cycle continues until we reach full blown civil war.

Break the cycle by just not advocating violence, it is not that hard.

I'm not advocating for violence. I'm advocating for righteous retaliation to violence. I disagree with the notion that he wasn't being violent. I consider the act of holding that particular sign at that particular place to be destructive. Sometimes you have to destroy destroyers. That's life, and not all life is precious. Cancer is a living thing, too.

 

[Night Angel]

Wasn't that directed at you?

Yes, it was directed at me that I was mansplaining to A WOMAN (imagine me clutching pearls here) while discussing the potential that what the preacher was doing was not, legally speaking, a threat. Turns out Eden isn't a woman based on his post. Can I mansplain to another man? Wouldn't that just be called discussing? Hmmmmm

Or is it mansplaining because I'm a man? Can I ever explain my position to anyone, or is it always mansplaining because I identify as male?

 

[Metaphoreus]

You cannot advocate for violence, which is what this man was doing, and not expect violence to happen to you.

That's bad news for a significant portion of the posters in this thread.

 

[Night Angel]

That's bad news for a significant portion of the posters in this thread.

It's ok as long as you promote violence towards people who disagree with your values and break your layman's interpretation of the law.

 

[Media]

Yes, it was directed at me that I was mansplaining to A WOMAN (imagine me clutching pearls here) while discussing the potential that what the preacher was doing was not, legally speaking, a threat. Turns out Eden isn't a woman based on his post. Can I mansplain to another man? Wouldn't that just be called discussing? Hmmmmm

Or is it mansplaining because I'm a man? Can I ever explain my position to anyone, or is it always mansplaining because I identify as male?

In a serious response to your sarcastic questions, it would be mansplaining if you explained in a condesending manner about all the ways this wasn't a threat of violence and how it shouldn't upset anyone to me, an actual female rape victim.

It's ok as long as you promote violence towards people who disagree with your values and break your layman's interpretation of the law.

I can't fathom how 'disagreeing' with the thought that people shouldn't be raped would be seen as something that is bad.

 

[FyreWulff]

It's ok as long as you promote violence towards people who disagree with your values and break your layman's interpretation of the law.

advocating the rape/assault of women isn't a value. promotion of said violence towards women should never be given a single molecule of oxygen on this earth.

 

[Night Angel]

In a serious response to your sarcastic questions, it would be mansplaining if you explained in a condesending manner about all the ways this wasn't a threat of violence and how it shouldn't upset anyone to me, an actual female rape victim.

I can't fathom how 'disagreeing' with the thought that people shouldn't be raped would be seen as something that is bad.

Oh, so you mean I shouldn't try to belittle a worldview I don't and can never truly understand because of my privilege?

It's a fucking good thing I never did that, because that's a shitty thing to do. What DID happen, and what's made me so flippant and sarcastic, was that a baseless accusation that I did so was flung my way because said poster had no desire to discuss this topic in good faith. They wanted to silence me with a lazy GOTCHA instead of actuality attempting to understand my viewpoint.

And once again, not believing that violence is the appropriate response is not the same as believing the preacher isn't a complete and total shitbag. Why people continuously conflate the two is beyond me.

Edit: lmao not even a minute after I posted.

 

[FyreWulff]

Oh, so you mean I shouldn't try to belittle a worldview I don't and can never truly understand because of my privilege?

It's a fucking good thing I never did that, because that's a shitty thing to do. What DID happen, and what's made me so flippant and sarcastic, was that a baseless accusation that I did so was flung my way because said poster had no desire to discuss this topic in good faith. They wanted to silence me with a lazy GOTCHA instead of actuality attempting to understand my viewpoint.

you don't have a viewpoint worth discussing

on one side: not advocating raping

other side: advocating raping <-- you are here

everyone that stood by and let this dude verbally assault women and girls for just existing threw women under the bus implicitly to maintain their comfort

 

[Krombopulos_Michael]

You're whole premise is just to sit back and cop abuse like this forever then? That's great and all for someone who I'm assuming would never feel threatened by this guy but some people aren't as "strong" and "rational" as you, perhaps having suffered sexual assault themselves and day in day out seeing this guy spout his shit unimpeded.

Oh and they were already better than him by the virtue of not advocating rape, there's no need for them to try to be better.

Just don't advocate violence it's really easy (speaking as someone who isn't threatened by this guy at all)

There are non-violent ways to resist this guy. I am not say do nothing. Like I said, if someone feels threatened then provide support for that person. Or hold your own sign. He is just a guy he doesn't have any power. Fuck him. He is insignificant. Do not let him make you into a person who hurts others.

But you can't use the excuse of you feel threatened. How someone makes you feel is not an excuse for violence. Just because you hate someone, or they make you feel threatened, or they have disgusting beliefs, it is not an excuse for violence.

Just cause someone advocates violence, doesn't mean you get to actually use violence.