[RD] George Floyd and protesting while black

[Seon]

...You do realize Hungary was a Soviet Republic?

 

[Crezth]

Tanks didn't arrive until long after the riots started.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

There is absolutely no standing in law for this BS assertion. NONE. If you can find me an example in actual law where a DWELLING OR OTHER SHELTER is not distinguished from decoratve objects, fine. Until then pull your pants up and quit talking out your butt.

The law is arbitrary and unfair in some cases, yes. Isn't the fact that enforcement is unfair one of the principle reasons for the existence of this thread?

Treatment of property damage is less extreme than murder obviously, so mistakes with enforcement that lead to unfair practices are less bad than mistakes with enforcement that get people killed. It is, however, the same class of mistake. What differs is the scale.

Edit: I would hold that civil forfeiture is an even worse and yet technically "legal" practice with regards to property than the inconsistency of treatment based on property type.

You are making an assertion against what is commonly believed to be true/against legal precedent. Onus is on you to prove that statue is equivalent to a church, if you want to insist.

It is confirmed against legal precedent. My proof is a demonstration of insufficient basis to distinguish property damage from property damage. The law is logically inconsistent.

No, you're not appreciating how common law works. You're usually pretty logical, but in this case you're insisting that your heuristic is the correct one. It's too simple. They're not 'just' property (though that's certainly one of their features. No judge in the land would force you to treat buildings and statues as similar 'enough' to insist that precedents regarding one 'must' be applied cookie-cutter to the other. They have enough attributes that are fundamentally distinguishable that the best you'd do is use guidance on one to create reasoning regarding the other.

It's not that I don't appreciate how the law works, it's that I disagree with it as discriminatory practice unless it's literally only discriminating on $ cost. I accept that a church has more monetary value than a statue in most cases, and thus the penalties for destroying more costly property will be higher than damaging less costly property. Beyond this monetary difference, it's not clear what valid basis the law has for treating property differently.

~~~

Meanwhile, we get the shooting near an attack on a statue in New Mexico where the rioters attacked the guy, and CNN as typical fails to represent the events even kind of accurately (shooter wasn't with the militia, and was pretty obviously defending himself).

The protests over the shooting in the drive through in Georgia are also dishonest, an insult to people who are legitimately upset over George Floyd. I'm okay with cops firing back when criminals fire a stolen tazer at them, same as if a citizen were attacked in such a way.

At least it looks like CHOP will get removed soon, good riddance. Kinda sad that the Mayor only decides to do that after major businesses pull out.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The law is arbitrary and unfair in some cases, yes. Isn't the fact that enforcement is unfair one of the principle reasons for the existence of this thread?

Treatment of property damage is less extreme than murder obviously, so mistakes with enforcement that lead to unfair practices are less bad than mistakes with enforcement that get people killed. It is, however, the same class of mistake. What differs is the scale.

Edit: I would hold that civil forfeiture is an even worse and yet technically "legal" practice with regards to property than the inconsistency of treatment based on property type.



It is confirmed against legal precedent. My proof is a demonstration of insufficient basis to distinguish property damage from property damage. The law is logically inconsistent.



It's not that I don't appreciate how the law works, it's that I disagree with it as discriminatory practice unless it's literally only discriminating on $ cost. I accept that a church has more monetary value than a statue in most cases, and thus the penalties for destroying more costly property will be higher than damaging less costly property. Beyond this monetary difference, it's not clear what valid basis the law has for treating property differently.

~~~

Meanwhile, we get the shooting near an attack on a statue in New Mexico where the rioters attacked the guy, and CNN as typical fails to represent the events even kind of accurately (shooter wasn't with the militia, and was pretty obviously defending himself).

The protests over the shooting in the drive through in Georgia are also dishonest, an insult to people who are legitimately upset over George Floyd. I'm okay with cops firing back when criminals fire a stolen tazer at them, same as if a citizen were attacked in such a way.

At least it looks like CHOP will get removed soon, good riddance. Kinda sad that the Mayor only decides to do that after major businesses pull out.

LOL

You are gonna have to really go some here if you are really standing on "differentiating between a building and a statue is arbitrary and unfair."

It's funny that this very distinction in law has been used to great effect when right wing zealots wanted to prosecute flag burning protesters under arson statutes. Sixty years ago during the anti-war protests would you have held that differentiating between the KKK burning churches and college students burning a flag was "arbitrary and unfair"?

 

[cardgame]

They're both property and they're both being burned, so therefore, I, a computer, cannot calculate the difference in those two actions.

 

[Seon]

The law is arbitrary and unfair in some cases, yes. Isn't the fact that enforcement is unfair one of the principle reasons for the existence of this thread?

Treatment of property damage is less extreme than murder obviously, so mistakes with enforcement that lead to unfair practices are less bad than mistakes with enforcement that get people killed. It is, however, the same class of mistake. What differs is the scale.

Edit: I would hold that civil forfeiture is an even worse and yet technically "legal" practice with regards to property than the inconsistency of treatment based on property type.

The law is not arbitrary and unfair in treating a statue differently from a church, as destruction of a church represents a greater threat to egalitarian principles of democracy than destruction of a statue. T

It is confirmed against legal precedent. My proof is a demonstration of insufficient basis to distinguish property damage from property damage. The law is logically inconsistent.

Your proof is considered trivial and also irrelevant. If I consider only monetary value, you would be correct. Considering only monetary value would also force me to ignore everything that makes a church a church and a statue a statue.

It's not that I don't appreciate how the law works, it's that I disagree with it as discriminatory practice unless it's literally only discriminating on $ cost. I accept that a church has more monetary value than a statue in most cases, and thus the penalties for destroying more costly property will be higher than damaging less costly property. Beyond this monetary difference, it's not clear what valid basis the law has for treating property differently.

Considering only monetary value in determination of what is just and unjust is, of course, an absurd position limited to rather extreme objectivist thought by my understanding.

By this logic, destroying or defacing a solid golden statue of a bull would be considered a greater crime deserving of a significantly larger punishment by the law than burning down a local food bank for the homeless.

Nobody thinks like this, so it stands to reason that destruction of buildings considered of import to continuation of society is considered a greater crime to the community, the state, and society than destruction of an artwork.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

They're both property and they're both being burned, so therefore, I, a computer, cannot calculate the difference in those two actions.

A computer could pretty easily have a single line of code getting resolution on "can the property contain human beings?" and be right as rain on this subject. We just need to get TMIT's software upgraded to TMIT 2.0.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Your proof is considered trivial and also irrelevant. If I consider only monetary value, you would be correct. Considering only monetary value would also force me to ignore everything that makes a church a church and a statue a statue.

By extension, quoted argument asserts that a person's opinion about property is more valuable than another person's opinion necessarily.

Considering only monetary value in determination of what is just and unjust is, of course, an absurd position limited to rather extreme objectivist thought by my understanding.

It's a good thing we are only considering monetary value when it comes to physical property and not for other things, with regards to discussion of this law. Or at least, that's the argument you're supposedly arguing against.

By this logic, destroying or defacing a solid golden statue of a bull would be considered a greater crime deserving of a significantly larger punishment by the law than burning down a local food bank for the homeless.

You would need to destroy it for the analogy to work (since "burning down" a building is functional destruction of the building, and the majority of the value in the gold statue would almost certainly be the fact that it's gold rather than the art quality). And yes, that is the conclusion of my argument. You could of course use the money that the golden bull costs to make tons of food banks. Someone with an agreeable set of morals would probably choose to do so.

But in terms of property damage? The bull is a bigger crime. It's also why we separate misdemeanor vs felony theft. Money can buy the lost food in that food bank to give to the homeless, and it can do so quickly.

Nobody thinks like this, so it stands to reason that destruction of buildings considered of import to continuation of society is considered a greater crime to the community, the state, and society than destruction of an artwork.

There is some basis for extending the consequences of property destruction beyond the direct target, if the influence of that property destruction causes further losses (such as say cutting a few strategic internet lines), because we hold that money is property people can possess as well. Similarly, if you destroy a machine someone needs to live, that can be concluded as murder.

However, churches with nobody in them don't fit that description. You might be able to extend some non-direct monetary damage beyond the church building itself (it'd be hard case to make though), but it's not logically consistent to pretend that there's magical extra damage generated "because people recognize it's a church".

 

[cardgame]

When you burn down a church that acts as a community center and a food bank, you are not damaging property. You are damaging that entire community.

Now stop being pedantic.

 

[Lexicus]

I still have yet to hear a good explanation as to (a.) what the motivations are of a cabal of closet neo-Nazis putting in secret codes (that aren't even secret since they get reported on each time they're "found") and (b.) what the numerologists think when they likely fail to find whatever it is they're looking for since not every ad or message gets reported on as having these secret codes.

The two possibilities as I see it are:

First, there is an underground network of neo-Nazis covertly operating in the Republican Party, sending hidden messages to neo-Nazis which accomplish... something, I guess? Again, I'm lost as to what's actually supposed to happen.

Or, people ascribe significance to coincidence, which is something that happens a lot and life is just mundane with people looking for something to do.

I'm going with the second.

Maybe the point is to make jaded dudes with anime avatars think that people being upset by the President of the US using Nazi memes are the real problem here

Moderator Action: Enough... --LM

 

[Seon]

By extension, quoted argument asserts that a person's opinion about property is more valuable than another person's opinion necessarily.

This is true, and this distinction is also not arbitrary. A psychopath's opinion on whether something is valuable or not, for example, should not be considered to be more valuable than a sane person's opinion.

This also, of course, ignores that considering that monetary value of most governments around the world is fiat currency, exact number of 'value' itself may be overall considered an opinion. A person may genuinely consider a bag of yellow bricks to be mostly useless junk, but it would be a bag of incredibly valuable gold to another beholder. And yet we are told that the latter opinion about this property (a bag of gold) is more valuable than the former's.

As money and gold only have value by the collective will and consent of the society it is valuable for, it would not be logically inconsistent to consider that collective consensus upon non-monetary value of an organization or a building is capable of transcending pure monetary analysis.

It's a good thing we are only considering monetary value when it comes to physical property and not for other things, with regards to discussion of this law. Or at least, that's the argument you're supposedly arguing against.

Like I said, if you consider only monetary value, you would be correct. I have also repeatedly said this is a patently absurd position for reasons that you have consistently failed to prove otherwise.

You would need to destroy it for the analogy to work (since "burning down" a building is functional destruction of the building, and the majority of the value in the gold statue would almost certainly be the fact that it's gold rather than the art quality). And yes, that is the conclusion of my argument.

And I declare that this is an absurd conclusion. Destruction of a food bank is a crime against the community itself as it interferes with functioning of society in a way that destruction of a golden bull does not. This is as self-evident to me as the fact that the sky is blue and that the sun rises from the east. Acts that endanger continuation of society justifies a much harsher response by the state's monopolized violence than acts that do not,

However, churches with nobody in them don't fit that description. You might be able to extend some non-direct monetary damage beyond the church building itself (it'd be hard case to make though), but it's not logically consistent to pretend that there's magical extra damage generated "because people recognize it's a church".

This distinction is, again, not arbitrary. A church is a center of community and a place of worship. Its willful destruction by hostile parties make both normal functioning of society impossible and limits the capacity of its worshipers to engage in activities of their faith, as guaranteed by freedom of religion.

If its willful destruction was intended to intimidate the congregation, it also endangers their freedom of expression as well as their freedom of religion. Such an act against the community and the social contract necessitate a harsher penalty to the offender.

 

[Bugfatty300]

When you burn down a church that acts as a community center and a food bank, you are not damaging property. You are damaging that entire community.

Now stop being pedantic.

I love the emphasis that the church has nobody in it at time. As if the KKK would make sure that everyone got out okay before lobbing a firebomb through the window. Like that's just supposed to be a given.

 

[red_elk]

so the tanks didn't roll because of a statue?

Tanks rolled in to quell armed uprising. Protesters were trying to seize power, killing communists and Soviet sympathizers.

...You do realize Hungary was a Soviet Republic?

It was an Eastern Block country, not a Soviet republic.

 

[Seon]

I suppose by the definitions you are correct, yes.

kind of a mouthful to say part of Soviet Union’s hegemony though

 

[TheMeInTeam]

This is true, and this distinction is also not arbitrary. A psychopath's opinion on whether something is valuable or not, for example, should not be considered to be more valuable than a sane person's opinion.

Right. We've established that there needs to be basis for opinions to be held in higher regard than other opinions. The law in this case fails to possess such basis.

A person may genuinely consider a bag of yellow bricks to be mostly useless junk, but it would be a bag of incredibly valuable gold to another beholder. And yet we are told that the latter opinion about this property (a bag of gold) is more valuable than the former's.

And one of these opinions will be more accurate in a particular situation...namely how much "stuff" a person can get using a bag of yellow bricks. For whatever method you use to value property in the form of physical objects, it will eventually look something like ranking it in terms of monetary value.

Now, we need to establish a coherent legal basis to weight things differently than the already established legal basis of financial value, despite that the damage is still financial in the given example (assuming nobody is in the burned building).

As money and gold only have value by the collective will and consent of the society it is valuable for, it would not be logically inconsistent to consider that collective consensus upon non-monetary value of an organization or a building is capable of transcending pure monetary analysis.

Nobody has established a coherent basis for claiming property "transcends pure monetary analysis", however.

Like I said, if you consider only monetary value, you would be correct. I have also repeatedly said this is a patently absurd position for reasons that you have consistently failed to prove otherwise.

"I consider your position patently absurd", and the fact that it's ignoring inconvenient arguments against it that have already been made to be a mark against its validity.

If you want to claim value beyond accepted monetary value with regards to property, there needs to be some way to demonstrate that value. When people try, this tends to keep looking like money. So special money? Or do you have something that demonstrates something beyond that?

And I declare that this is an absurd conclusion. Destruction of a food bank is a crime against the community itself as it interferes with functioning of society in a way that destruction of a golden bull does not. This is as self-evident to me as the fact that the sky is blue

If you ignore reality you can pretend anything you like. But you're going to have to do better than that to substantiate a position. "I declare disagreement absurd" is not a viable effort.

Or if it is, I counterclaim your position as absurd.

Acts that endanger continuation of society justifies a much harsher response by the state's monopolized violence than acts that do not,

Destruction of property with no due reason endangers the continuation of society. Committing either act could be and should be considered felony. No need to play pretend with value propositions.

I love the emphasis that the church has nobody in it at time. As if the KKK would make sure that everyone got out okay before lobbing a firebomb through the window. Like that's just supposed to be a given.

We're operating in a hypothetical.

If there are people inside the church, you have felony murder and that becomes a much larger offense than the destruction of property. If the debate is whether a church should be valued more than an equivalent-cost item as property damage, randomly adding murder to the scenario is asinine and tangential. You could tip a statue over and kill someone. If you pick a large enough statue (like the statue of liberty), you could kill a lot. But that has nothing to do with the hypothetical or the discussion surrounding this.

If you disagree please clarify why murder is relevant to a discussion about property damage.

It's funny that this very distinction in law has been used to great effect when right wing zealots wanted to prosecute flag burning protesters under arson statutes. Sixty years ago during the anti-war protests would you have held that differentiating between the KKK burning churches and college students burning a flag was "arbitrary and unfair"?

Whose flag? Burning other people's flags is still a crime, but the value of said flag is much less than that of a church building.

Destruction of one's own property is not typically a crime, unless we want to get into insurance fraud or something. I'd rather not though.

When you burn down a church that acts as a community center and a food bank, you are not damaging property. You are damaging that entire community.

Actually, you're damaging a building, and with some difficulty perhaps some harm can be traced beyond that building and factored.

If its willful destruction was intended to intimidate the congregation, it also endangers their freedom of expression as well as their freedom of religion. Such an act against the community and the social contract necessitate a harsher penalty to the offender.

Statues can and usually do represent something also. Perhaps repeated destruction of statues can be construed as an attack on either what they represent or their respective communities. Why not? It's as solid a basis as is being presented in the quote.

And thus it is not clear that there is "necessity for harsher penalty".

 

[Sommerswerd]

I love the emphasis that the church has nobody in it at time. As if the KKK would make sure that everyone got out okay before lobbing a firebomb through the window. Like that's just supposed to be a given.

I think the emphasis/point is actually atheism, its just being made in an unnecessarily evasive and circuitous way. What's going on is the others in the conversation realize that's the real point so they're not taking the bait, which leads to the point being repeated in an increasingly obtuse manner to try and force the issue. That's why the discussion keeps moving in an increasingly tangential and abstract direction.

This discussion of whether a church is different from a statue in a legal, moral, economic and philosophical sense... is ripe for another thread.

 

[cardgame]

Actually, you're damaging a building, and with some difficulty perhaps some harm can be traced beyond that building and factored.

ahahaha holy ****

I consider your position patently absurd, and the fact that it's ignoring inconvenient arguments against it that have already been made to be a mark against its validity.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It doesn't have to be a church specifically. Churches and statues were already being discussed here so I used them. The problem *in general* is a consistent uneven enforcement of the law (in this case, cops getting to ignore the law even when they by-definition committed the crime) or laws themselves being unfair (civil forfeiture, qualified immunity).

It is asinine to support rationale consistent with these practices, and then decry these practices specifically. It's the same kind of reasoning mistake.

"Police buildings are a center for community", after all.

ahahaha holy ****

Yes, I was responding in kind because it's frustrating. If it's allegedly valid when 6 other people do it, sometimes I will slip and sink to the sewer levels of some "debate" practices being used against me.

I'll throw some quotes on it so it's more clear that's what I'm doing though. I don't want people thinking that I actually consider that a viable debate practice. Because it's trash and my intention was to point out that it's a fully general, meaningless retort no matter who uses it.

 

[cardgame]

"Police buildings are a center for community", after all.

I guess the community decided otherwise

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I guess the community decided otherwise

That has some interesting implications on the discussion, however. Both the one about arbitrary property valuation and the larger one about George Floyd, protesters, and "protesters".