PressF4Respect

It's not just the bottle-throwing. If people torch buildings the night before then the police need to move in to secure them, regardless of other people.

The police fired pepperballs when the police moved forward and the protesters resisted the police. Resisting the police is unlawful and violent. If you think the police are wrong, take them to court, don't resist and fight with the police. That's how you become youtube famous and dead.

I have never found Bill Barr to be untrustworthy.

The protesters in the Park did not have a right to disobey the police. Protesting does not confer the freedom of disobeying the police.

Law enforcement officers told them to move back, they should have done so. It was not an "attack", that is just leftist propaganda. And they were not peaceful.

The question is, do the churchgoers and shop owners also deserve a President who protects their rights?

It's your source. Don't ask me to defend it. Or are you going to play cafeteria with this interview, like you do with the Constitution.

It’s not lying lol. Saying pepper spray bullets are tear gas is misleading.

Even if we assume that they just used pepper spray (which is not the case)

"The Stinger Ball grenades, also mostly made by Defense Tech, that’s like a -three-for-one. Not only does it have a flash bang effect, but it also has a little bit of tear gas inside of it. Some also have some pepper spray, depending on – there’s a couple models," explained former explosives expert Brian Castner, now with Amnesty International.

...

These are the gas canisters, especially this tear gas one with blue lettering - labeled SPEDE-HEAT CS, that WUSA9 gathered from the scene. 

Credit: Nathan Baca

OC and CS gas canisters collected by WUSA9 outside Lafayette Park Monday

...

Thursday morning, after denials from the White House and federal agencies that any tear gas was used, we discovered what that SPEDE-HEAT CS label meant: artificial tear gas was inside. 

We showed our canisters to military bomb disposal expert Brian Castner, who works with Amnesty International:

"That Spede-Heat one, it's a cartridge that has a little bit of propellant in the back," Castner said. "It's got a bunch of tear gas upfront and you fire it from a launcher so it goes a certain distance. I believe that one is rated to about 150 yards, so it goes fairly far and its job is to spread tear gas around a crowd." 

citing links doesnt add to your argument

No, they don't.

Everything about reality is garnered via clues that our senses and thought structure allow us to have, is it not?

This is why I pushed on your assertion that anyone even has consciousness other than you. Of course it's insane to think of true solipsism as reality but the reason that it's insane is that the clues strongly imply others have volition and thoughts independent of our own and unfeigned in nature.

Similar to the case of solving crime, we cannot always be certain beyond any doubt of the truth in philosophy. All we can do is pursue it based on the clues available.

More being at stake can't just make our ability to reason and conclude disappear, or does it?

As your article mentions it becomes a semantical argument. But if I get pepper sprayed by a girl, me claiming I got tear gassed is misleading even if it’s semantically correct. But all of this is besides the point. It was warranted as shown in my video.

The one with the Bible? Monday June 1st, 2020.

Please retract everything dude.

Might wanna check your dates. The “tear gassing” happened on the 1st not the 2nd. Please retract everything.

You left out this part: “Several different compounds are considered to be riot control agents. The most common compounds are known as chloroacetophenone (CN) and chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile (CS). Other examples include chloropicrin (PS), which is also used as a fumigant (that is, a substance that uses fumes to disinfect an area); bromobenzylcyanide (CA); dibenzoxazepine (CR); and combinations of various agents.”

Where is Pepper spray listed as tear gas?

You think pepper spray is tear gas? Cause that’s what your article is claiming. Irritation of the eyes was caused by pepper balls not tear gas. The smoke cane from smoke canisters.

The U.S. Park Service used pepper balls and smoke canisters, which irritate the eyes and throat and cause coughing, to disperse the protesters. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says, “Riot control agents (sometimes referred to as ‘tear gas’) are chemical compounds that temporarily make people unable to function by causing irritation to the eyes, mouth, throat, lungs, and skin.”

This doesn't answer my question. Were the public's health and safety directly adversely affected by that specific protest?

Dude watch the video. Fucking waterbottles and bricks are flying everywhere, even hitting their own protesters.

This doesn't answer my question. Were the public's health and safety directly adversely affected by that specificprotest?

Seems to me you didn’t watch the video.

Even if they used the tear gas it would have been justified because there were projectiles being thrown at the cops.

Were the public's health and safety directly adversely affected by that specific protest?

Yes since the decision to do it was ordered early morning after the riots of the night.

You gave a transcript. Where is he lying?

A US Park Police spokesperson said Friday in an interview it was a “mistake” to insist in a statement on Tuesday that the agency didn’t use tear gas the day before in a Washington, DC, park to disperse a crowd ahead of President Donald Trump’s photo op, explicitly noting that pepper balls shot by officials irritate the eyes and cause tears.

“The point is we admitted to using what we used,” Sgt. Eduardo Delgado said. “I think the term ‘tear gas’ doesn’t even matter anymore. It was a mistake on our part for using ‘tear gas’ because we just assumed people would think CS or CN,” two common forms of tear gas.

I have video evidence that projectiles were thrown at the police and that the police gave warnings. Would you like them? Or would you prefer to hear what the media said?

• Public health/safety
  

This one clearly. The order to move the perimeter back was given in the morning after the riots and destruction of the previous night. Come on man

1.What reports

The shooting of the munitions came without warning, or according to multiple witnesses, without any provocation from the crowd.

"There was no warning. The crowd was entirely peaceful," Jackson Proskow, the Washington bureau chief for the Canadian outlet Global News, posted on Twitter.

On this occasion, however, the president's visit was unannounced, and church authorities were furious that the White House did not bother to alert them.
"There was no reaching out, no sense that it would require some sort of authorization before using the church as a backdrop in that way," said the Right Rev. Mariann Edgar Budde, Episcopal bishop of Washington, with oversight responsibilities for the church.

"These are acts of domestic terror," Trump said in a Rose Garden speech Monday, moments after heavily armed troops and riot police advanced without warning on the largely peaceful protesters across the street from the White House.

The Rt. Rev. Mariann Budde, the bishop of Washington who helped organize the clergy presence at the church, said Trump’s arrival at St. John’s happened without warning and left her “outraged.”

Julia Dominick, a seminarian with the Virginia Theological Seminary in Alexandria, Va., and a former emergency room nurse, was tending to a hurt protester when a police line advanced.

“There was not a warning,” she said.

White House spokesman Judd Deere said in a statement that “the perimeter was expanded to help enforce the 7 p.m. curfew in the same area where rioters attempted to burn down one of our nation’s most historic churches the night before. Protesters were given three warnings by the U.S. Park Police.”
However, both reporters who were on the scene and protesters said they could not make out any audible warnings.

2.Sure, it was a riot that burned a church

3.it was different message

Federal law requires a permit to be able to protest which they didn’t get. Sections 1.5 and 1.6 should help you

§1.5   Closures and public use limits.
(a) Consistent with applicable legislation and Federal administrative policies, and based upon a determination that such action is necessary for the maintenance of public health and safety, protection of environmental or scenic values, protection of natural or cultural resources, aid to scientific research, implementation of management responsibilities, equitable allocation and use of facilities, or the avoidance of conflict among visitor use activities, the superintendent may:
(1) Establish, for all or a portion of a park area, a reasonable schedule of visiting hours, impose public use limits, or close all or a portion of a park area to all public use or to a specific use or activity.
(2) Designate areas for a specific use or activity, or impose conditions or restrictions on a use or activity.
(3) Terminate a restriction, limit, closure, designation, condition, or visiting hour restriction imposed under paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section.

§1.6   Permits.
(a) When authorized by regulations set forth in this chapter, the superintendent may issue a permit to authorize an otherwise prohibited or restricted activity or impose a public use limit. The activity authorized by a permit shall be consistent with applicable legislation, Federal regulations and administrative policies, and based upon a determination that public health and safety, environmental or scenic values, natural or cultural resources, scientific research, implementation of management responsibilities, proper allocation and use of facilities, or the avoidance of conflict among visitor use activities will not be adversely impacted.

• Public health/safety
  
• Environmental or scenic values
  
• Natural or cultural resources
  
• Scientific Research
  
• Implementation of management responsibilities
  
• Proper allocation and use of facilities
  
• Avoidance of conflict among visitor use activities
  

Well, no. The chain of events you portrayed are largely fictional. Do you have any reputable link you could share with us that corroborates your narrative?

Trump personally ordered their removal? Really? The links please.

In reality, Bill Barr was in a meeting on Friday (the week before) with US Park Police and they came to the consensus that the security perimeter had to be pushed back, and then on Monday he attended a meeting with other law officials to decide the dividing line, which put Lafayette Park out of the protester perimeter. The plan was supposed to be put in action immediately after the meeting, however, because many officers had been injured days before, they had to wait for additional National Guard troops to arrive. Once they were then ready, the Park Police tactical commander gave the go ahead.

Bill Barr himself doesn’t seem to have been involved in the go ahead or in the tactical command (much less Trump).

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/05/barr-says-he-didnt-give-tactical-order-to-clear-protesters-304323

Attorney General William P. Barr personally ordered law enforcement officials on the ground to clear the streets around Lafayette Square just before President Trump spoke Monday, a Justice Department official said, a directive that prompted a show of aggression against a crowd of largely peaceful protesters, drawing widespread condemnation.

Meanwhile, two federal law enforcement officials said the decision had been made late Sunday night or early Monday morning to extend the perimeter around Lafayette Square by one block. The plan was to be executed, according to the Justice Department official, the following afternoon. Barr was a part of the decision-making process, the official said, was not authorized to speak ahead of Barr addressing the matter himself publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

When they met resistance, yes. They announced three times. They didn't move. By the way, there was no tear gas used. The tear gas was used Sunday when they had to clear H Street to allow the fire department to come in to save St. John's Church. That's when tear gas was used. 

War is what happens when language fails.

― Margaret Atwood

What permit was and has been required, if any, for these "spontaneous" , crowded protests, and have not been issued, and, therefore, may not equate to a 1A right to protest? Pure, simple, and honest question regarding your claim of 1A rights.

Generally, all types of expression are constitutionally protected in traditional"public forums" such as streets, sidewalks and parks. In addition, your speechactivity may be permitted to take place at other public locations that thegovernment has opened up to similar speech activities, such as the plazas infront of government buildings.

The Constitution allows for peaceful demonstrations, not for riots and church burnings and widespread looting.

they warned them ahead of of time,

I have said this before, if you are out and about near a riot but claim to be peaceful, go away!

it is crazy how people are out at 10 at night but claim to still be peaceful.

William Barr the AG spoke about it, listen to what he said and see if that clears some things up.

Your re-defintion of "noob sniping," strikes me as a solely tactical attempt to reset terms.  I have never before seen any indication that the term includes some pedagogic component.

For example, the DDO Wiki definition you provided makes no mention that lack of feedback might be an essential element of  noob snipe.

Noob Sniping, also referred to as Newb Sniping or Newbie Sniping is the action where a senior member purposefully debates mainly against new members because they're a fag that is why.

That said, I'm not really one who keeps up  with the complex intercontexts of social media jargon so perhaps you can provide a few prior examples where "noob sniping" was  clearly defined as a question of training rather than merely critique of experience matching up vs inexperience. 

-Noob sniping: A term used for when an experienced member debates a noob (and wins) just to inflate his Win/Loss Record.

Right now, I'm thinking "oh, F just wants so new ground in which to plant moral objection" which then makes me think, "I guess that means he bought my argument in the last post or else he'd be continuing those arguments rather than looking for new ones"

The good news is  that if you really meant this:

What makes it morally repugnant in my eyes is the lack of feedback that the new debater receives from the experienced one after they are finished.

Then as far as I can tell our website is fairly noopsnipe-free.  I would say that experienced users on this site do a far, far better job at offering feedback than any other debate website I've visited.   I count at least 13 times new users PM'd me for advice on good debating which I do a lot generally and sometimes specifically.  Look at the beginning of this topic where I tried to give some practical advice about winning.  Look at post #31 where our illustrious all-medal-er RationalMadman offers the benefit of his experience to a new user.  Look at Ragnar's docs on format and Kritik, the way he gently nudges noob debate topics for clarity or falsifiability.  If the moral concern here is truly lack of feedback (as you have newly posited) then I'm pretty encouraged by how little noob sniping can be found on this site.

Then what did you mean by:

 The most relevant framework is the DebateArt.com Code of Conduct which places no restrictions on debates by relative experience.  I can't think of any overarching moral principle that might prohibit such engagement or over-ride the CoC.

Just what I say.  Perhaps it over-lawyerly of me to turn to the rulebook as a starting place for in-game moral questions but I  start with the rulebook for all in-game questions, moral or otherwise. Then I note that one should think bigger picture than rulebooks before lauching into my pricipalistic approach to the question.

You have mis-read the sentence to mean CoC=moral.  Since I examine the moral question by four different criteria beginning in the very next sentence without any reliance on the Code of Conduct,  I'll lay that misunderstanding at your door for correction.

You are the one making oughts here, right?

IS:  You don't give noobs feedback

OUGHT:You ought not to noob snipe

Aren't you obligated to explain how lack of feedback amounts to some moral fault?

Have I suggested some ought in this exchange?  Hume's Is-Ought Guillotine has no application to my defense.

So, you've shifted your moral hockey puck to "lack of feedback" and then you've chosen to quote from a fairly long piece of advice I gave to fellow debaters just a few months back. Feedback by me that you've obviously read.  Maybe you ought to stick that puck another meter by changing your complaint to "not enough feedback, morally speaking"

IS:  Your argument is selfish and circumstantial

OUGHT:You ought not to noob snipe

Hume would ask, "What is the source of this knowledge?  How are we determining what's morally ok?"  Aren't you obligated to explain how setting goals and modifying approaches according to  circumstance amounts to some moral fault?

Not automatically and that's hardly the whole of the argument but I think it 100% appropriate to be sensitive to site culture.  Learning and reinforcing site norms is an essential part of society building in the social media sense.

I agree. When noobs can learn something from the debates, they will know how to improve their arguments. That, in turn, will improve the community as a whole and raise the site's reputation.

So you concede the benefits of noob sniping as I described.

By non-response, you also seem to agree that noop-sniping does not violate noob autonomy.

You also seem to agree that  the harms are minor since the worst consequence you've identified so far is that a new user might not return to the site.

Of course, new users drift away the site pretty regularly, weekly at least, few of whom have ever engaged in a debate with an experienced user.  The harm is so minor that we can't really discern the spiping harm from the background radiation of ennui.

I already have POST #27.  You agreed that self-improvement and elevation of site quality were positive moral benefits.  This debater believes that practice and self-improvement in nearly any skill set is  a positive moral benefit.

Just like a teacher who only gives out tests and doesn't actually teach, you learn nothing from a noob-sniped debate. Thus it doesn't lead to self-improvement. I also contend that teaching someone how to debate properly (not noob sniping) increases the site quality much more than noob sniping.

I defined noobs as <3 debaters which you have not protested.  So by the time the user gets to that third "over again" she is no longer a noob.

Great is our Lord and abundant in strength;

His understanding is infinite. (Psalm 147:5)

And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38)

Is it the anxiety of not being sure or rather a principle against deduction based on clues that makes you so vehemently stand against concluding without concrete, irrefutable evidence?

Theism aside, crimes are usually solved using the type of concluding and hedging bets that you are against.

You asked us to state our thoughts, you then complained that we did.

how do i delete posts

Are you saying that because noob sniping isn't expressly stated as immoral in the CoC (or any other overarching principle that would supersede the CoC), it shouldn't be considered immoral?

no

Okay, but do you think noob sniping is ok, morally?

Well,  yes.  The most relevant framework is the DebateArt.com Code of Conduct which places no restrictions on debates by relative experience.  I can't think of any overarching moral principle that might prohibit such engagement or over-ride the CoC.

I don't know how to define a debate in a way that closes any potential loopholes either.  I guess that puts me and the newbies in the same basket.

If you are making a debate, always define terms, concepts and BoP to your advantage.

Figurative language aside, there is no other way to climb the leaderboards. 

...

The more activity this site has, the less valid this argument becomes

but even on DDO (as we discussed above), most of the highly ranked debaters took on plenty of crap debaters and noobs.

Disagree.  As I said above, I think setting a higher level of expectation encourages debaters to improve performance and improves the reputation of this site beyond the usual debate site standard-  which  effectively amounts to "mostly trolls howling past one another"

Agreed but not all selfish acts are immoral and many selfish acts are also moral, even if the motivation is tainted.

Sorry, I am not a "safe spaces," participant trophy kind of guy.  I want my fellow debaters to be able to take a punch without quitting and I don't mind helping to weed out those who can't.

I don't think its not a legitimate concern individually, I just don't think the weight of that concern is greater than improving the site overall.

DDO wiki was not DDO.

I think 9SpaceKing is the founder of that Wiki (he is certainly one of the 5 admins and the one who wrote the welcome page and promoted it on DDO), so I think the proper context is less about any authentic concern and more about Ore_Ele trolling a fellow top debater.

So your plan is to teach newcomers that low effort can win debates by isolating lower efforts from higher efforts? 

What are the benefits in your plan?

What will motivate newcomers to improve their efforts using your plan?

Nor should it.  If people who know how to debate don't have an appreciable advantage over people who don't know how to debate then wtf is the point of practicing to gain experience?

What is the advantage of insulating a group of new users who don't know how to debate from loss?

 Your answer seems to be that they'll stick around longer but you don't seem to have a plan for teaching them how to 'properly' debate.

Again, you seem to be arguing for degradation of quality and decreased engagement.

Sure, but we are all in one small beer league here.  None of us are being paid and most of us are drunk.  Should the Angry Beavers abstain from playing the Beached Whalers just because the Beavers were undefeated last year and the Whalers are new?  If the Whalers only play other new teams when do they learn what level of effort and talent is needed to beat the Beavers?  In the best sports movies, the newcomer always gets slapped down by a top team before discovering what they need to do to overcome and achieve victory. 

With your plan, the Halifax Highlanders hire an enforcer who already knows how to skate and Doug the Thug stays a bouncer.

With your plan, Apollo Creed fights Frazier and Rocky remains a debt collector. 

With your plan, the Cobra Kai sticks to black belts and Danny LaRusso  never learns the crane technique

How do you know that others think at all?

this will link very strongly back into your conclusion that there is no God or souls.

If we combine your answers of you believing you exist as you know you think and you also firmly believing that without irrefutable proof, we should never believe in something, we'd conclude that no one except you exists, yes?

It is interesting that you say this, since this alienates you from hardline antitheists too.

What would you say about people who are very devout in their faith and takes on reality?

Should we avoid being too sure of anything or is it specifically about God that we should avoid being sure?

Leading on from that, what are you sure about with regards to reality?

Who are you

and what is your stance on Theism and God/god(s)?

Lol, this is all analogous. No, I don't mean brain waves.

I'm not talking about anything literal, though there is some truth behind this. 

I can tell from your responses you aren't getting it at all, perhaps it is my fault.