I agree. I tried to stay out of this thread. Some posters gets personal (RONNY, Falcons Talon), because they don't want to debate. They change the subject of the debate no matter what angle you come from. It's pointless. I should have tried to debate with CCR rather than make an example out of him. At least he was willing to stay on point.
Personal? I'm just asking you to practice what you preach. I didn't know I was hurting your feelings. I thought that you were taking your own advice by not taking part in the discussion. I was about to rep you for that. Nevermind. I blame Pinky.
I agreed with Smokey's post. I concur. Also, not knowing when to shut the **** up is escalating the situation. Both sides are guilty of this. So why are you coming in here and escalating the situation? How am I escalating anything into a violent situation? I can't kick your ass with text.
Your first post in this thread would sure raise questions. Saying that it doesn't qualify as self defense and your weird rant about testosterone levels.
To Durvasa 1. Why does the white guy have to be the one to shut up? Wasn't he the one whooping ass here? 2. Shouldn't it have been the black that needed to shut his trap? He did get a beat down 3. Is there a double standard here? You keep mentioning that the white guy should have kept quiet, but no mention of the black guy doing the same? Lets no forget who walked away from whom
That sounds like a justification for violence. We can agree that use of inflamatory language is wrong and it was wrong for the old guy to do so but the argument you are setting up, whether you recognize it or not is that the black guy was justified in striking him the old man. He wasn't and the law makes a distinction in this regard. While the consequence of words may be violence the law still considers that a crime. But you are saying the punch was justified by continually saying following this line of argument. Yes the possible consequence of language is violence but that ignores that both of them do have free will. Bottom line is that one chose to physically distance himself while the other one chose to physically engage the other. At that point the fault overwhelmingly lies on the one who chose to engage. I agree it shouldn't have come with that but fault does lie very much with one party. And in regard to your early statement that you can't assign who is more at fault under the law you can.
No, everything I said before CCR showed up was to get a response out of someone. Finally, CCR bit and I said whatever needed to be said in order to avoid escalating the debacle.
I agree too but the problem I see with Durvasa's position is where he is drawing a moral equivalency in terms of saying that the langauge of the old guy to the violence started by the other guy. As much as Durvasa is saying he isn't justifying the actions of the other guy that is precisely what he is doing. As I've said before the old guy isn't without blame but actions are stronger than words and there is no debate about whose at fault regarding action.
Once I receive a negative response that can turn into something ugly, I do what I can to deter it. If I really don't want to hurt somebody, or get hurt, then that is the correct action. Call it appeasement, being a punk, or a b****. Call it what you want. It's the correct course of action in order to avoid what happened in that video.
