So if I tell you "If you murder someone, you'll get the justice you deserve!", I am somehow threatening you?
You might take issue with the idea that I'd consider that you'd murder someone (analogous in this case to accusations of being a nazi), but to consider it as a threat is absurd.

Why absurd?

I have no issue with describing that as a threat, and have just told you I don't think my opinion is in anyway unique to me. Part of the justice system is intimidation, although of course usually described via synonyms that do not carry negative connotations. Fear of punishment is supposed to intimidate / dissuade us from commiting crimes...

How about you answer me and we can understand each other better via these "word games" that reveal our moral and ethical preferences?

Why don't you think that is a threat?
-Becuse it is justly deserved?
-Because it is sanctioned by a government?
-Because it is not evil?

Why absurd babark?

PS: I googled. Sure as heck seems to fit the bill to me...

threat
noun
1. a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.

Yes, exactly.
Forget not having the means or ability or even control over the consequence, the person making the statement is in no way connected to the party that would cause it. So if I told you that if you murdered someone, you'd get the justice you deserve, it cannot be said I am threatening you.

The immigrant question is getting worse here in Sweden. Maybe. We don't really know.
We don't know because it turns out the police have gathered all efforts regarding immigrants, be they perpetrator, victim, the incident is in a house related to them or whatever. If the incident is related to immigrants, refugees or similar it is apparently gathered under the name ALMA, marked with the internal police code 291 and information about it will not be released to the media. That's right. The Swedish Police have decided that media should not get information about something as important for Swedens citizens as this is.

http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/polisen-hemlighaller-fakta-om-sitt-flyktingarbete/

Yes it can be said. And it's right to say it, because all that's required is that by "justice I deserve" for commiting murder, you have in mind that some harm, pain, or somesuch would be inflicted on me.

A threat can very well be impersonal (and vague even) and still be a threat. Like the infamous "I wish you die of cancer" that so many people throw around online... You just need to accept the provided definition... of course, I won't force you...


Look at this now babark.

I agree that according to your implied definition, what jamys did was probably not a threat. I disagree because to me jamys' intent that harm happen was clear, even if a heat of the moment thing.

Let's see yours now?

Here's to help you out even :) "According to your definition of a threat, what jamys did was probably a threat, but I disagree because I don't find jamys had the ability to cause harm to Klumpen, even if he wished it"

Or is that really so absurd to you? If so, why?

"I wish you die of cancer" is certainly not a threat. I'm not sure what you're talking about. I am very happy to go according to your EXPLICIT definition, no need to go by any definition you seem to think I imply.
jamys's statement was in no way an intention to inflict pain. Jamys would have no participation in the "justice served". Similarly, wishing cancer on someone is in no sense a threat. If instead someone said "I will give you cancer if you don't do this" and then imply that you will puff smoke in their face or something, THAT would be a threat.

"I will try to kill you!" posted by an anonymous person on the internet, who has no knowledge of you or where you live, even though it is unlikely that they may be able to carry it out, yes, would still be considered a threat.
"I hope you die of cancer" is not a threat.
"If you keep smoking like that, you could die of cancer" is not a threat.
"If you jump off a building, you will might die" is not a threat.
"If you commit a crime, the police will come and arrest you" (as said by someone not in law enforcement, if you like), is not a threat.

Only the very first example is an statement of intention to inflict harm. Do you understand now?

Very good! Thank you! (but only in german)

A better question would be if I agree or not...

Let's take what I believe is the uncontroversial meaning that to inflict means to cause.
Let's further assume the person making those statements is honest - ergo not lying, even to themselves.

"I will try to kill you!" we agree is a threat. The person saying it wants to cause death of the listener AND will participate in realizing that.
"I hope you die of cancer" is also a threat. The person saying it has no power to cause cancer and therefore can't cause cancer (excluding farfetched radiation poisoning situations I presume), but wants the death of the listener despite that lack of power to participate. Ergo intent to inflict harm YES, ability to inflict harm NO. More on this later...

"if you keep smoking like that, you could die of cancer" agree is not a threat, the obvious context is a warning and it would be a stretch to see any intent to inflict harm. NO intent, participation UNKNOWN (maybe the person saying this has no problem giving cigarettes repeatedly to the listener)
"if you jump off a building, you will die" likewise agree is not a threat, for exactly the same reasons as the previous. NO intent, NO participation possible.
"if you commit a crime, the police will arrest you" NO participation, but can be a threat (note I am saying can). It depends if the person saying it wants the listener to be arrested - if yes it is a threat just like the cancer example. If not then it is not a threat, and is similar to the smoking and suicide examples you made.

PS: On the last example, it was obvious from our conversation up to now that the first situation is what you had in mind. Even so I was careful to say can, instead of must. Because such a statement need not be a threat all the time. It just happens to be one given the context assumed by both of us.

Anyway the "I hope you die of cancer" is a better example to highlight our disagreement obviously. But then again, you were the one that chose the crime and punishment example earlier...

So, up to now, you were arguing that a connection is necessary between the threatener and the executor of the threat. Obviously in both the cancer example, and the crime example the executor of the threat is impersonal. In one case maybe it's fate or god, in the other it's the police or the state that inflicts the harm. You still argue this, saying, and I quote: Jamys would have no participation in the "justice served". As should be obvious I do not agree with you that this matters.

Now in this reply you also said, and I quote: jamys's statement was in no way an intention to inflict pain. This is a separate argument to the above, as I think is obvious that intent and participation are independent variables.

Now, according to the explicit definition I provided, intent to inflict, ergo intent to cause, defines the threat. There is no mention of participation - either participation, or lack of participation IF there is intent to inflict harm == a threat. If you still disagree with this, whatever the reason, please elaborate in more detail. In a way you already "know this" because in your smoking example participation, like giving someone cigarettes, does not create a threat on its own. The intent to harm is the key - participation is irrelevant. I don't think this is such a difficult logical distinction to grasp and hope it is clearer to you now.

Since you are also starting to imply more explicitly that jamys' intentions are somehow purely benevolent - with him having no intent to inflict pain - I want to question you further.

How can you read what jamys said, and not see a desire that an evil Nazi-like person should be punished? Is your identification with jamys' position that strong that you cannot consider the obvious facts and context of his post and how he wrote it? The wish to inflict harm is there. For most of the people his intent was implicit just from his unmerited insult / accusation of Nazism at klumpen. But he took it even further and made an impersonal and vague threat. His presumed lack of power to inflict said harm is irrelevant to establish the intent.

The fact that jamys believes inflicting the harm is for a greater good does not change any of that. In fact, IMO almost no one that inflicts harm on others is a sadist. They don't do the harm to derive pleasure from the other's pain. More frequently they do it to serve a greater good they believe in. Even most Nazis believed they were doing the right thing - because they believed nationalism, anti-capitalism and anti-Semitism to be good things. They were wrong.

You are also wrong in trying to push some weird interpretation of a threat where participation is required, but intent to harm is secondary. And further in believing that the lack of explicit mention about participation in the definition I provided means you can just imagine a logical AND is implied. In definitions there is no implication possible, by definition a definition is explicit. It implies nothing. So participation or its lack does nothing to define IF something is or isn't a threat. Only the intent to harm does.

Do you get it better now?
Because I have understood your points already. And you're still wrong.

Wrong about my definition of threat meaning what you want it to.
Wrong about jamys' intent.
Wrong that the opinions on display are enough to define most around here as Nazis.

But let's take one at a time. I have time enough and a passion to educate others.

....
I...
I don't think you understand english properly, Brasas.
The very statement "intent to cause harm" means that participation is part of it.
You can't intend to cause someone harm, if you're telling them that some other party (or act of nature) that they have no control or agency over will be causing the harm. Because then you wouldn't be causing it.

I hope that all criminals get the justice they deserve. Saying so is not a threat from me to all criminals.
If you give me the names of specific criminals, I will also specifically hope they get the justice they deserve. This is still not a threat to those specific criminals.
Having a desire that a person be harmed is not the same as a statement of intent to harm them. You'll notice the absolute lack of the word "desire" in the definition you quoted. I could say "I really don't want to hurt you, but I will have to if you continue", and absolutely mean it, but it'd still be a threat, because it conveys my intent to inflict harm, and has nothing to do with my desire to have harm inflicted on you (not the same thing).
An intent to inflict harm, by definition requires participation (either personal, or through some controlled or directed 3rd party).
This isn't about "understanding points". It is about plain english.

Anyhow, I grow tired of this discussion. It has only grown sillier and sillier, and I'm sure you'll agree we are far far away from the topic at hand. Feel free to discuss with others about intention and participation in threats, if you for some reason think I'm wrong or lying.

Same here:
http://www.gog.com/forum/general/meanwhile_in_kolncologne_warning_politics_inside/post260

Most reports in Germany regarding crimes commited by immigrants are censored for years already though.
I know a journalist that has to change every "Ali X" into a "Martin X" or something similar when reporting about crime cases, this has been happening for a long time already besides the silence about bigger stuff like in Cologne.

Wrong, the mass media only wrote about it after a few blogs delivered the news already long after the incident and it's the same in many cases (Greece, TTIP, etc...).
The mass media did a (deliberately bad) report about this nearly a week after it happened, so it was certainly not "news" anymore since they only did it after the blogs were already reporting about it and people wondered "why wasn't this in the news?".

Yeah it's been happening here before but I don't think it's been that big until now. When sensitive subjects like crime involving immigrants, children, police and similar occur it's usually kept under lock. As far as I know it have been a practice for a long time to protect people from backlashes. Sometimes everything gets unclassified after the crime have been resolved.
I'm fine with this. For example a abused child should not have their name and picture spread in media. It's situational.

But this is something else. It seems to actually be handled like a big coordinated police effort. That's not something we're used to being kept from the media like this. It's a very unswedish behaviour since Sweden prides itself on being a very open society regarding what the state and its departments do.
I really hope media get to the bottom of this.

I don't think plain english is as plain as you think babark...

Since you're getting tired, I'll keep it short.

1 - Intent does not imply action / participation.
2 - Control over outcomes of actions defines ability, not intent.
3 - The only pronoun present in the definition I provided and you accepted is "someone".

Threat: a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done

A - I hope that all criminals get the justice they deserve.
B - I intend that all criminals get the justice they deserve.
C - I intend that all criminals get punished as they deserve.
D - I intend that all criminals get punished for what they did.
E - I intend that all criminals suffer for what they did.

All I did was reword your statement without really changing its meaning. Do you see the threat now?

I don't need to get to "I intend that all criminals suffer at my hands or those of someone I control for what they did" for it to be a threat... that would also be a threat of course, but it's absurd to insist only that is a threat whereas the above is not just because it is impersonal.

So yeah, of course I still think you are wrong...
Until next time babark.

Good ol' victim shaming:

Imam Sami Abu-Yusuf of the Salafist mosque in Cologne blames the women

So much for cultural enrichment.

I think you Sir is the one who is counting on the language barrier to do the thing you accuse Breitbart of doing.

Because I go to the website you link, check the source provided, then run them over Google translator.

It supports the claims of Breitbart and I translated most of the text and read to be sure. The following is just a translation of the headline.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Attivista stuprata da un migrante«Gli altri mi chiesero di tacere
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Activist raped by a migrant "The others asked me to keep quiet
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~