Dr. Pepper Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 Never forget, you must do everything the state and the cops tell you to do or else be accused of escalating the situation, in which case you get what you deserve. They tell you to beat the shit out of a toddler, you better do it and if you don't and they then stab you in the face, well that's you're fault amirite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted April 18, 2017 Author Share Posted April 18, 2017 6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: Yes. And you'd be right to do so. Why do we always have to fight over what the definition of "is" is? ETA: es·ca·la·tion ˌeskəˈlāSH(ə)n/ noun a rapid increase; a rise. "cost escalations" synonyms: increase, rise, hike, growth, leap, upsurge, upturn, climb More an increase in the intensity or seriousness of something; an intensification. "an escalation of violence" Tywin, I disagree with they way you are characterizing a legitimate refusal to comply with an unlawful order as "escalation". "Escalation" implies making a situation worse whether you mean it to or not. It further implies that the person "escalating" is doing so without legitimate cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 I'm confused by why the definition of escalation matters. By one definition what happened was not an escalation, by the other pretty much everything is. In the latter case who gives a shit? Yeah he escalated it, in a perfectly justified manner that in no way harmed anyone. As opposed to the people who dragged his ass off the plan, who escalated into violence. By the latter definition an escalation has not moral judgement attached, it's just that those arguing this definition want to have the loose definition with the moral judgement of the narrower one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 6 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said: Never forget, you must do everything the state and the cops tell you to do or else be accused of escalating the situation, in which case you get what you deserve. They tell you to beat the shit out of a toddler, you better do it and if you don't and they then stab you in the face, well that's you're fault amirite. Straw meet man....... 3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Tywin, I disagree with they way you are characterizing a legitimate refusal to comply with an unlawful order as "escalation". "Escalation" implies making a situation worse whether you mean it to or not. It further implies that the person "escalating" is doing so without legitimate cause. I just quoted the definition and you changed the meaning. Come on dude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: Straw meet man....... Not sure what you expect when you are presenting an incredibly idiotic argument, which is basically "He said no which is an escalation based on some ridiculous definition I just made up therefore he deserves what he got." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: I just quoted the definition and you changed the meaning. Come on dude. He really didn't, by the definition you posted it wasn't an escalation. Calling it a rise is nonsensical so we can ignore that definition, and saying it was an increase in intensity is untrue, because the situation was exactly the same after he refused as it was before he refused. He was sitting there. That in no way made the situation more serious or intense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted April 18, 2017 Author Share Posted April 18, 2017 Tywin, I'm not changing the meaning. I discussing the implications that using the word "escalation" necessarily holds. When a police officer claims that my refusal to comply with his order to let him stick his finger up my ass was an "escalation" it is done deliberately to, without actually saying it, imply my refusal was improper. That he was within his power to give me a roadside rectal exam. That i should not have "escalated" the situation by refusing that exam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 11 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said: Not sure what you expect when you are presenting an incredibly idiotic argument, which is basically "He said no which is an escalation based on some ridiculous definition I just made up therefore he deserves what he got." I literally just said, not more than 15 minutes ago, that you can be escalating a situation with a police officer and be completely in the right to do so, so yes, your previous comment was an absolute strawman argument. 9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Tywin, I'm not changing the meaning. I discussing the implications that using the word "escalation" necessarily holds. When a police officer claims that my refusal to comply with his order to let him stick his finger up my ass was an "escalation" it is done deliberately to, without actually saying it, imply my refusal was improper. That he was within his power to give me a roadside rectal exam. See above. ETA: Scot, When said cop is trying rummage around in your booty, and you say no, is the situation now more intense? And is that the same as wondering if you're in the right to refuse? I'd say no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 Oh look, a stupid baby escalated situation on a plane by crying so it totally got slapped because it didn't shut up when told. Shouldn't escalate shit. 7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: I literally just said, not more than 15 minutes ago, that you can be escalating a situation with a police officer and be completely in the right to do so, so yes, your previous comment was an absolute strawman argument. See above. ETA: Scot, When said cop is trying rummage around in your booty, and you say no, is the situation now more intense? And is that the same as wondering if you're in the right to refuse? I'd say no. It's just completely bizarre that you can't seem to acknowledge that it's the cop - you know, the one asking for something unlawful or inappropriate or something that has a good reason for receiving a no response. The situation is more intense due to the cop, not the civilian. For fuck's sake. Your argument appears to be that only victims can be accused of escalation (and therefore implied that they deserve what they got). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 5 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said: It's just completely bizarre that you can't seem to acknowledge that it's the cop - you know, the one asking for something unlawful or inappropriate or something that has a good reason for receiving a no response. The situation is more intense due to the cop, not the civilian. For fuck's sake. Um......I've said that. Several times. I can also acknowledge that the civilian while rightly saying no does cause an escalation in the situation. This is mind boggling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted April 18, 2017 Author Share Posted April 18, 2017 16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: I literally just said, not more than 15 minutes ago, that you can be escalating a situation with a police officer and be completely in the right to do so, so yes, your previous comment was an absolute strawman argument. See above. ETA: Scot, When said cop is trying rummage around in your booty, and you say no, is the situation now more intense? And is that the same as wondering if you're in the right to refuse? I'd say no. Tywin, What you didn't acknowledge in this sequence of back and fourth is that the officer, in ordering me to allow him to rummage around my ass, is escalating the situation. Do you acknowledge that the escalation... and the onus that the escalation implies should be upon the officer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said: Um......I've said that. Several times. I can also acknowledge that the civilian while rightly saying no does cause an escalation in the situation. This is mind boggling. Yes it's mind boggling. Multiple people have told you this in response to your absurd position. Though I'm not quite sure you get it yet.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Tywin, What you didn't acknowledge in this sequence of back and fourth is that the officer, in ordering me to allow him to rummage around my ass, is escalating the situation. Do you acknowledge that the escalation... and the onus that the escalation implies should be upon the officer? Because I don't like to repeat myself, I already addressed this: 16 hours ago, Tywin et al. said: All of it is escalating the situation. Obviously United and the airport's security did the lion's share of it, but that does not absolve Dr. Dao of any escalation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: Because I don't like to repeat myself, I already addressed this: 16 hours ago, Tywin et al. said: All of it is escalating the situation. Obviously United and the airport's security did the lion's share of it, but that does not absolve Dr. Dao of any escalation. Except your premise is that Dr. Dao escalated simply for saying no. That's insane. It's mind boggling. The implication is that a victim who says no has escalated and therefore is complicit in whatever happens to him. Try to apply your position to all sorts of situations, like rape or child abuse or domestic violence. It's disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rorshach Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 28 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Tywin, I'm not changing the meaning. I discussing the implications that using the word "escalation" necessarily holds. When a police officer claims that my refusal to comply with his order to let him stick his finger up my ass was an "escalation" it is done deliberately to, without actually saying it, imply my refusal was improper. That he was within his power to give me a roadside rectal exam. That i should not have "escalated" the situation by refusing that exam. Now, I've not followed this case closesly. I've understood that it is at least debateable wether United was legally allowed to bump the passenger in question. Leaving that aside, for the moment: Do you not, in the bolded, implicitly concede Tywin's argument, given that the law allows United to bump passengers? The cop may not have the power, but - given that the situation remained within what's legal - United were in their rights to order the passenger off? Note to quibblers: at no point have I said that I support the action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted April 18, 2017 Author Share Posted April 18, 2017 10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: Because I don't like to repeat myself, I already addressed this: Thank you. However, if "escalation" is proper when those in authority are acting improperly... why is absolution necessary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted April 18, 2017 Author Share Posted April 18, 2017 4 minutes ago, Rorshach said: Now, I've not followed this case closesly. I've understood that it is at least debateable wether United was legally allowed to bump the passenger in question. Leaving that aside, for the moment: Do you not, in the bolded, implicitly concede Tywin's argument, given that the law allows United to bump passengers? The cop may not have the power, but - given that the situation remained within what's legal - United were in their rights to order the passenger off? Note to quibblers: at no point have I said that I support the action. As he defines it. I think the implications that surround the use of the word "escalation" make it very unhelpful in these contexts. It implies improper action by the person who is "escalating". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rorshach Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 2 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said: Except your premise is that Dr. Dao escalated simply for saying no. That's insane. It's mind boggling. The implication is that a victim who says no has escalated and therefore is complicit in whatever happens to him. Try to apply your position to all sorts of situations, like rape or child abuse or domestic violence. It's disgusting. It should be kept in mind that the position taken by Tywin asserts (and, in his assertion, is backed up by most writers - I don't know) that this situation is within what's legally allowed for an airline carrier to do. And in many cases that is true - whether it's true here or not is up for debate. However, given that premise, your analogy fails. You compare what is asserted to be (and may be) a legal action with clearly illegal activities. At no point will that analogy be useful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 1 minute ago, Rorshach said: However, given that premise, your analogy fails. You compare what is asserted to be (and may be) a legal action with clearly illegal activities. At no point will that analogy be useful. So just change the analogy to take place in a time when those things were legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rorshach Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: As he defines it. I think the implications that surround the use of the word "escalation" make it very unhelpful in these contexts. It implies improper action by the person who is "escalating". I agree with that. As to improper action - that again is a wiggly word: improper re: the law (which may not be on the passenger's side), or re: our everyday experience of proper conduct. Among the many reasons I never ever wanted to be a lawyer.. The quibbling over meaning of words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.