PressF4Respect

Subsection B1: The Chief and Deputy Moderators and Site Owner

1. Conduct violations against the Chief Moderator, Deputy Moderator, and the Site Owner will not be enforced, barring certain exceptions
   
2. Exceptions to PA.A1.SB.SbB1.PI are limited to:
   
1. Plausible, repeated, or serious threats
   
2. Hacking or attempted hacking
   
3. Staff Impersonation
   
4. Doxxing or attempted doxxing
   
5. Life- or health-threatening cyberbullying
   
6. Violating the privacy of PMs not related to issues of moderation
   

• "Yes" indicates agreement with the removal of the above clause in the new COC.
  
• "No" indicates disagreement with the removal of the above clause in the new COC.
  

A vote could look like this:

1. Yes, 
   
2. Yes1, (the 1 signifying a preference for variant 1)
   
3. Yes.
   

Like this (the missing 2, counts it as abstaining that question):

1. No, each change should be an individual question

3. Yes, we shouldn't even have voting rules.

Or even like this (a vote against 3, but abstaining from the others):

Wrong direction for voting, so no.

I would love to see evidence that shows you can’t exercise your first and second amendment at the same time.

I don’t think you realize what brandishing is. Lemme ask you this. Is open carry brandishing? Because we know that open carry is legal in Michigan. Fear doesn’t indicate illegality. My mom is afraid of guns, but it’s not illegal for me to carry a firearm in my house even though we live together is it? Obviously burning an effigy causes fear; however it’s protected under the first amendment. Exercising two amendments at once is not illegal.

Oh and btw open carry was designed for self defense. So yes, they were carrying them in self defense. That’s the whole point lmao.

Lol, this isn’t “protesting” outside lmao. Stop moving the goal posts.

Hypotheticals don’t aid your argument.

Give me facts, not opinions.

They sure did the night before.

You still haven’t answered one vital question. If there’s evidence that the protest can escalate into a full on riot and cause public destruction, why shouldn’t federal property be protected?

And don’t tell me there wasn’t evidence. People were throwing bottles, just like the night before.

No one was stopping them cause there were a lot of bottles on the ground.

It’s a simple question. If people in the crowd are throwing stuff at cops, should the cops have a the right to disperse them. Logic says yes.

I’ve given ways to avoid “bad actors” from doing: by handing them over to the police. Oh wait, police are bad

Laughable. I’ve shown you federal statues that show permit use in the case of danger of public safety to hold the people legally accountable. You choose to ignore it. I’ve shown you examples of violence in the crowd with no ramifications from “peaceful protestors.” Throwing stuff at police is illegal and if there are no active efforts to stop it, police have the right to disperse the crowd even if a majority of them are peaceful whether you like it or not.

Hmm, maybe you should reread what I wrote. Why wasn’t the person who threw the bottle brought forward. Why didn’t the protestors ask for the cops to arrest the dude?

Why didn’t the protestors ask for the cops to arrest the dude?

I’ve shown they were throwing stuff at cops and no one was doing anything about it.

Compare that to conservatives please.

lafayette park protestors were all rioters

That was the biggest dump of malarkey. If a protest does not accomplish anything, just what is a valid reason for it? Because you can? Sorry, that's an ethical faux pas

Sourcing: if you cannot prove the reporting, why do you still insist it was Barr who lied? Yu have two options. You bias is driving your decision. Is it always right?

Why do you insist on demanding that I prove your point. My point is that I was not there. Get it?

I didn't give the contradictory sources. You did. You find them. I don't do your homework. I'm not your tutor.

All I claimed was that according to reports, there was no warning. You asked me to give you those reports. I did. So what else do I have to do?

there was

Non sequitur. I did not argue that it was impossible for most to reflect everyone. Most however does not require everyone. It's a relative superlative.

And given that your first premise stipulates that the MGB's greatness is contingent on its capacity to convince more people than the the next being, then it need only convince more people than every other being.

You didn't demonstrate anything.

Only if the superlative necessarily reflects everyone. And it doesn't. Your second premise is invalid.

How? If the world which they conceive is one in which cellphones don't exist, they cannot know this because they don't exist. So then how can one conceive this world and apply the description, "cellphones don't exist," if they can't know that cellphones don't exist given that they don't exist?

P1: Entity X is created in time Y.

P2: Before time Y, Entity X wasn't created. This will be called time Z.

P3: Entity X was not created in time Z.

P4: Conception is current.

P5: Conception (retrospective analysis) of a world during time Z will occur in and with respect to time Y (presuming Y constitutes all time since the cellphone was created.)

P6: Conception of the World at time Z, during time Z, is not possible. (Z is past, Conception is current.)

C: Therefore, conception of a world where Entity X did not exist is impossible.

How valid are protests if they accomplish nothing? - and most do not.

Are we still responsible for the sources we cite even when the say something we do not personally espouse

or should a better source be sought that has demonstrated credibility?

When the media reports two [or more] separate versions of events, are we justified in picking one of them over the other because it agrees with our pre-conceived notion of reality?

Proof? It’s protected under the 1st Amendment whether you like it or not.

All of the posts are investigated to ensure the person who made it is not an actual threat. The government can’t stop other people from being influenced, nor can it stop the person from exercising his 1st Amendment right. Plus the Governor is constantly under security protections. If officials find that the person making those posts is a threat, they prosecute them and the court and jury of peers decides it. That’s how the system works whether you like it or not. Simply burning an effigy is protected under the 1st Amendment.

Michigan Compiled Laws §750.234e prohibits individuals from willfully and knowingly brandishing a firearm in public. According to MCL §750.222(c), the term “brandishing” as used in this statute refers to pointing, waving, or displaying a firearm with the intent to cause fear in another person.

The offense of brandishing a firearm in public is a misdemeanor under Michigan law that may result in up to 90 days in jail and a fine of up to $100 upon conviction. It should be noted, though, that this section does not apply to peace officers performing their official duties or individuals who are lawfully acting in self-defense or defense of another under the self-defense act.

Prove it. I don’t want your opinion.

Your hypothetical isn’t even plausible. I can make what if scenarios all day. Don’t mean much if they’re not gonna happen.

The conservatives had the right to march on the state capitol with guns. You can say they shouldn’t have, but you can’t deny that they have the right to do so. It’s not domestic terrorism to exercise your right. 

It is not your right to loot, burn, and destroy property.

You fundamentally lack understanding of the U.S. Constitution and Federalism.

I haven’t “dropped” any of your points.

You on the other hand proved my points. Peace means actively trying to be peaceful. By handing over the bad agents to the police. Conservatives did that. Why can’t liberals?

I dont deny you giving reports, yet they are all biased

YOU FIRST cited claims that Barr lied, and that he did not. I'm not going to do your homework for you to figure that out, bud.

Since the use of TG & PS are LEGAL, IU suppose that means people ought to be peaceful in their protests. That they were, or not, is not mine to establish, but since you raise the issue in the first place that Bill Barr WAS LYING, LOOKS TO BE YOURS TO SOLVE. I have no dog in the hunt.

No sense in playing this game  of who said what. Botytom line, there are better ways to protest and Greyparrot offered a very good one: Get educated, be responsible, work to solve social issues. If you think that is not a mode of protest, yo don't yet understand what public protest can be. If you're limited to shouting slogans in the street [which just repeat what's on the signs, 'so why doesn't every body just shut up and keep walking, holding their lame signs?

Yes, Adam's choice was predetermined. God knew Adam would eat. God had a plan for Adam eating the fruit. God allowed Adam the choice of eating or not eating. It was Adam's choice. Adam chose. We are influenced by Adam's choice. Now we too understand good and evil. We understand what it is like to do evil. Adam did not understand this until he ate. 

Causally locked by what? My decision. How does that exclude my free-will?

Then by your stipulation, my agreement would be irrelevant.

Yes, but P3 does not allow you to infer that "nothing that exists can fit the definition of MGB." It only stipulates that you be convinced.

Before 1983, no one knew cellphones didn't exist because cellphones didn't exist. Any retrospective analysis which seeks to relate experiences before and after the creation of cellphones would not be a conception void of their existence because the analysis itself is fundamentally based on the fact that cellphones do exist.

We are referring to the person who had the effigy lol. It’s protected by the first amendment. Is the “violence” by him actually likely to happen? Nope.

Maybe you should reread the Justice’s statement, specifically the part where the he said “whether that violence is likely to actually occur.” I think we both know that death threats are investigated to ensure no actual action is likely to occur.

Sure, if they’re protesting outside of a Trump event with gun’s in an open carry state, it’s perfectly fine.

Problem is your side doesn’t support open carry nor concealed carry because they’re anti-gun.

So much for your hypothetical huh?

No. For God, neither His knowing your decision was "first". The only causality is your decision causing God to state what your decision was.

Sorry. God has always known. And His knowing does not precede your decision. Neither does it affect your decision. You seem to be thinking that God is locked on the river of time the way you are

Right, because decisions have results. Why would the same events leading up to that choice result in different choices? That isn't logical. The events leading up to that choice could have been different, but then God would have "seen" the difference and still have mentioned your actual choice.

Nope. God doesn't "see" potentialities or possibilities, He sees actualities. When God says you will die in 2015 for example, form His vantage point, you have already died, not because His comment locks it in, but because that IS what happened. You, stuck in time, find it difficult to see it from God's timeless perspective.

Tell me what you think these verses mean, especially the bolded part.

Rev 13:7 - And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

Tools

Rev 13:8 - And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

How could Jesus have been slain from the foundation of the world?

1. Isn't Revelation 13:7 talking about the Antichrist?
   
2. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when it says the Lamb that is slain, doesn't it mean it in the context of Revelation 5:6? "And I saw between the throne (with the four living creatures) and the elders a Lamb standing, as if slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God, sent out into all the earth."
   

Incite violence against the person by that same person. Not others. Him.

Plus it is legal to open carry in Michigan, so no, they’re not brandishing weapons, they’re exercising their 2nd Amendment and following state law. 

It’s illegal to open carry in D.C. And concealed carry is very restrictive. Plus it is illegal to carry a firearm within 1000 ft of the White House. I don’t make gun laws, the states do. 

“D.C. has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. The city prohibits the open carrying of guns, and carrying concealed weapons is allowed only with a permit. Although a court recently upended a significant portion of D.C.’s concealed-carry law, it still remains illegal to carry a permitted concealed gun within 1,000 feet of a protest, on public transportation or anywhere near the White House, National Mall or U.S. Capitol.”

So much for your hypothetical huh?

Greater in which context?

How do you know that nothing that exists can possibly fit the criteria of X? Was your argument not extending the first premise which focused on a single being?

Acknowledging nonexistence is paradoxical. How can one then conceive a world in which something does not exist, if it does not exist? That is, in this world you've conceived, how is one able to qualify this world with the description, "MGB does not exist," if one cannot acknowledge its nonexistence? So even in a world you conceive where the MGB is displaced  (not nonexistent) you are acknowledging MGB in your posit of its "absence."

You can't conceive a world where cellphones don't exist. You can conceive their displacement and lack of use, using your own experience as information. But you have no experience with the nonexistence of cell phones; therefore, you cannot conceive a world in which they do not exist.

And my argument claims that this is impossible because perceiving--even conceiving--nonexistence is epistemologically irrational.

Protected under the first amendment.

“Hanging in effigy was a common form of political protest in the 18th and 19thcenturies. Presidents Washington, Adams, and Jefferson were all hanged in effigy; and before the civil war, “Hang Abe Lincoln on a Sour Apple Tree” was a commonly sung parody of “John Brown’s Body.” (There was a similar song about Lincoln’s southern counterpart, Jefferson Davis.).”

“The First Amendment protects the right to free expression, which includes the right to shoot, burn, or in any way destroy an image of anyone including the president as long you’re not posing a “credible threat.” The standard here is whether there is genuine intent to commit or incite violence, and also whether that violence is likely to actually occur. If there’s no “clear and present danger,” as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. put it, there’s no basis for censorship.”

And the cops were called to resolve the issue among a couple of bad apples because the protestors wanted a peaceful protest. Keep on saying conservative protests were not peaceful bud. George Floyd protests were a million times worse.

They were attacking police officers with bottles full of unknown liquids. 

The officer were asked them to back up because of the curfew half an hour prior.

It’s foolish to think those who wouldn't back up would magically go home after the curfew came.

1. If there was a warning, it was barely audible. (I didn't clearly hear it in the video)
   
2. Once it hits 7, then the police would have been more justified. But there were still 25 minutes before the curfew would go into effect.
   

So the cops should sit there and do nothing until the church gets vandalized and looted again? Good idea!

They were throwing bottles of unknown liquids at police officers and that’s what happened the night before. It wasn’t peaceful at that point. If they didn’t throw bottles and stuff at police officers I’d say there was no threat, but they did...

Saint John’s Catedral, Lafayette Park

Lmao, your two “anonymous” officials lack any sort of credibility unless we know who they are. And plus you’re intentionally being misleading by saying he didn’t give the order. He didn’t give the tactical order. He said “get it done.” And the Park Officials/Guard gave the tactical order to do so.

Welcome to the bureaucracy of Washington D.C.

I think you need to reread all of your sources that you have used. Both Fauxlaw and I have pointed out your contradictory sources.

Lafayette Park and Saint Johns Catedral fall under the authority of the US Park Service. So no, they weren’t on the streets. They were moved to the streets after they refused to do so.

Not true. If your goal is to be peaceful, you hand the person over to the police. You do everything in your power to keep it peaceful. I didn’t see people bring the culprits forward.

This is irrelevant considering the actions of the previous night. I’ve said multiple times, if the actions of the previous night didn’t happen and people weren’t throwing water bottles, I would support your cause.

1. How do you know that those protesters were the same ones that attended the riot the previous night? You haven't answered this question.
   
2. Which "people" were throwing water bottles? 
   

As soon as they started throwing water bottles like the night before, there was an immediate threat to both the police officers

and Lafayette Park/ St. John’s Catedral.

Jeez Louise, it’s a preventative measure. After the actions of the previous night there was a threat to public safety.

You’re literally parroting media talking points, but ok.

If it’s fits their narrative, why wouldn’t they lie? People like you are going to believe them like gospel. If they say Orangeman bad because of this this and this you’re going to believe them without question. I however choose to analyze sources. Question it’s move. They posted something false in the article, why wouldn’t there me more, because they’re clearly biased against Trump. Bias implies an agenda.

Lmao, they’re the terrorists? Are they the ones burning stuff down? Are they ones looting? Are they the ones burning? Are they the ones killing? Conservative protests were peaceful. Did police ever use tear gas, or rubber bullets, or anything of the like once? No, because the protests were peaceful. Just cause they have guns doesnt mean they aren’t peaceful. You have lost all credibility by saying these protests weren’t peaceful.

Did MLK advocate for non-violence. Did MLK condemn the violence some African American groups were committing? Show me one time where a protest lead by MLK became violent. 

Wym? They’re all right next to each other.

If they wanted to they could’ve handed him over to the police. Oh wait, they didn’t.

Back up at the warnings of police officers?

Hand over bad actors to the police.

Don’t stay in a protest that has violence?

Cause they were being violent by throwing water bottles. That’s how it started the night before.

Why not? It happened in D.C. the night prior as well. If we didn’t learn from history, we wouldn’t be here today.

Police officers getting assaulted.

Plus it was a preventative measure to protect federal property based on the events of the night prior. Unless you defend that Ofc and say the police shouldn’t have done anything to ensure it was safe.

I see two arguments you sourced. One says it was used; one says it wasn't. YOU are believng one source over the other. I'd like to know why.

I was not there, and I do not automatically trust the media to tell a straight story.

Yes, but there are conditions affecting severity of injury, such as preexisting asthma, respiration disorders, etc. Maybe people suffering these conditions should think twice about what they get involved with, yeah? 

Your reasoning, as well, assuming the crowd was not unruly. Refer to above regarding the media.

Leave when things do get out of hand. Personal responsibility; yeah?

Faulty logic. Please tell me how you prove a negative. Nope, won't happen.

Refer to above. I was not there. I don't trust media. Period. I cannot speak for your carte blanche trust

LOL. You use this a lot. You do know, don't you, it means "frightened little girl."

No kidding. You think maybe that's not a good idea? What happened to protest. Like I said: frightened little girls.

Is gathering in a crowd the only way to protest?

Mindless drivel. Uncreative lot, these protesters

and, well, if the shoe fits... so too their supporters who stay home. Like someone in this conversation???

I am sorry but I also find you the most difficult to stereotype.

You are an extreme hybrid type so I don't doubt that maybe I did subconsciously notice you, think it was too hard and later forgot.

I did genuinely lose count of who was due and skimread for it, I think it's because your avatar was similar to User_2006's sword one in general colour scheme, that I didn't notice your request.

I am sorry, I will get to it.

Are tear gas and pepper spray illegal to use by law enforcement? No.

Why do they use these agents? To disperse unruly crowds quickly.

Are T.G and P.S effects more injurious with longer exposure? Yes.

 If peaceful protests remain peaceful, and the crowd gathered does not inhibit pedestrian and vehicle traffic with their protest, will police who gather just in case the crowd gets unruly use T.G. and P.S. on the crowd anyway? Probably no, there is no reason to do so.

But crowds easily take on a life of their own and bad apples among them will get unruly, endangering those whose intent always was a peaceful protest.

The short answer: If the protest is likely to gather a large crowd, best to avoid attending.

Second best is to leave if crowd gets unruly, because T.G and P.S. are more likely to be deployed.

If it is, leave immediately to avoid longer exposure and more serious harm.

Or did you think those who attend events that may get unruly have no responsibility of their own?

reports that are biased

So if we left the protestors in place, you’re saying there wouldn’t be further vandalism or burning?

Maybe you should take a look at Minneapolis and New York and literally every area where it was chaos during the night but peace during the day.

Don’t gimme the bs that they weren’t going to do anything.

If a risk exists to federal property guarded by federal statute, you move the risk.

Yes the order was given in the morning by Barr

but it wasn’t executed by the time Barr got there in the afternoon, so Barr told them to get it done immediately.

The sources you provided in this thread said that. Stop contradicting yourself.

Sections 1.5 and 1.6.

We know that protests have been violent.

They were violent on the night before and there was evidence that it would continue and further harm federal property.

So yes, they should’ve gotten a permit so BLM can be held legally accountable if shit does get destroyed. BLM chose not to and the decision was made to save federal property from vandals.

You’re going to call it truth because a member of the media said it?

We know they were lying about “Peaceful protests” in that same article.

Why wouldn’t they be lying in this instance?

You nor I know the truth. But we can sure as hell analyze the source you put and say that they have a bias against Trump. It’s called critical thinking.

This is laughable. There would be police records if someone was arrested for throwing stuff at police. Plus we saw from the video that no one was brought forward to the police after it happened. So no, there was no attempt to bring the culprit to justice.

Peaceful protests are possible. Conservatives did it a couple weeks ago.

Martin Luther King did it in the 60s.

If there are bad apples, you hand them over to the police, which shows the desire to be peaceful.

 You don’t get to burn stuff down and then go the following morning thinking all is well, completely peaceful when you still have people throwing stuff at cops.

Cause that’s what has been happening in every city?

If the people weren’t removed, there would’ve been more damage. Especially considering some were already being violent.

Your second premise is erroneous. Since your second premise operates on applying superlatives to the qualifiers, "greater," and "more" from the first premise, then the second premise should read as such: "Since the MGB is the greatest being, it would convince the most that it exists." Using your revised premise, your third premise is no longer substantiated since the second premise no longer requires that you be convinced that the MGB exists. Given that your second premise has been revised, and your third premise has been rendered unsubstantiated, your conclusion is nullified.

Furthermore, C2 is also unsubstantiated even if your second premise was valid. The MGB exists as outlined by the parameters of your first premise. You can argue that the subject doesn't meet those parameters, but that does not permit you to posit that the MGB doesn't exist without undermining your first premise.

There is no contradiction in the argument you reference. The contradiction is actually in your response, "it is also possible to think of a world where the MGB doesn't exist." It begs the question: how do you think about something that doesn't exist if it doesn't exist? How do you conceive a world where you acknowledge the nonexistence of the MGB, when nonexistence cannot be perceived? Existence is epistemologically rational; nonexistence is not.

It isn't hard determinism because your delineation hasn't substantiated how making these choices is independent of my will. Once again, you're focusing on that which one will do, rather than that which one can do.

And the causality problem isn't a problem because you have misunderstood cause and effect. The effect isn't God's knowing about my decision. God is omniscient; therefore, his knowing is an unaffected constant. The cause is my decision, and the effect is my action. One can analyze in retrospect the series of decisions of that could have led up to an action or event. But it would still be one's decision, informing free will. Free will doesn't inform a uninhibited elastic future. It informs one's capacity to make a decision or take an action using his or her discretion.

It is not God's omniscience that causes you to do X, it is your doing X that causes God to be omniscient about it.

If you never used the source to asset facts, what is the assurance that Bill Barr is a chronic liar? That's an argument of cross-purposes.

Vandalism and looting.

 The order was given the morning after the vandalism and burning.

Trump had directed Barr to personally “lead” the response to the unrest in D.C. Monday night, according to Justice Department spokeswoman. Less than an hour before police moved to clear the peaceful demonstrators from in front of Lafayette Park, Barr was spotted on video talking to officials at the scene.
Around the same time, White House deputy chief of operations Tony Ornato contacted the Secret Service to arrange for the president to make a brief, unplanned appearance outside St. John’s Church, according to two people familiar with the plans. Following protocol, the Secret Service alerted other law enforcement agencies it would need help clearing the area for the president’s safety, they said.

After that burning and vandalism, they are required to have a permit so they can be legally held accountable if something does happen.

Ya the same media that claims the protest was entirely peaceful found those canisters. You choose to believe the media even after knowing their agenda. Nothing I can do to help you with that.

How do you know that the canisters weren’t from the night before?

If they didn’t passively tolerate it, they would’ve handed the people who did that to the cops.

 After all, they’re human too. If the protests were entirely peaceful from the start and peaceful protestors happily handed over the violent ones to the authorities, it would be a much different situation.

If you threaten physical harm to police officers, they have the right to retaliate whether you like it or not. If the person committing the violence was handed over, the police would feel less of threat.

There are a ton plurality of reasons that contribute to the actions by the police in this situation. The night prior the church was burned. Bricks and bottles with unknown liquids (possible caustic) were thrown at them. Knowing all this, if people thrown bottles again the following morning, do the police not have the right use force? After all, they’re human too.

The protestors did not do that and instead vandalized and burned a church the previous night. You really believe police wouldn’t be threatened?

Imagine B to be earlier than A, and let B be the alleged effect of A. Thus we assume that A causes B even though A is later than B. The idea behind the bilking argument is that whenever B has occurred, it is possible, in principle, to intervene in the course of events and prohibit A from occurring. But if this is the case, A cannot be the cause of B; hence, we cannot have backward causation. 

A peaceful protest would have Karened out the rioters and gave them up to the police as a symbol of solidarity against violence. Instead the protesters encouraged or at least passively tolerated the violent brick-throwing and frozen water throwing. That's NOT a peaceful protest.

Regarding #8, well said. Aiding and abetting is a crime. Were it not, there would be zero calls for systematic change to the police force; or even charges filed against the other officers present in the George Floyd case.