Advocacy FOR WHAT. Go ahead, say it out loud. You can’t be this dense.
Advocacy for enslavement of other humans beings IS VIOLENCE. Period. Advocacy for the termination of an entire group of other people IS VIOLENCE.
You DO NOT get to debate another person’s right to exist. Period. End of fucking story. And the good people of the world WILL violently prevent you from enacting any of the things that you’re advocating for.
Advocacy FOR WHAT. Go ahead, say it out loud. You can’t be this dense.
Violence? The thing I’ve explicitly said multiple times in this thread?
I feel like most of you aren’t really responding to what I’m saying and are instead just repeating your points and insulting me because we disagree. Not everyone in here, though, thankfully
…Umm…It was advocacy for slavery, not advocacy for violence. The guy even said “Advocacy for enslavement” in the very next sentence.
Why did you just do that? Why did you just shift the argument incorrectly? Hell there’s other posts within the 30 minutes you’ve been posting where you clearly knew what the topic was.
Excuse me for getting mixed up when I’m trying to reply to like seven people at once. Either way, I’ve explicitly mentioned violence and slavery in this discussion multiple times, so I’m not sure why you seem to think this is some rhetorical trap you’ve laid.
I’ve said it multiple times in this thread: advocating for something like slavery or other violence is not, in and of itself, grounds for violent retaliation. When the advocating moves into action, then it becomes self-defense.
When the advocating moves into action, it’s too damn late
And the issue at hand is too irrevocable to leave as a wait and see.
You speak purely like someone who knows they will never be on the brunt end of the discrimination a day in their life. It’s okay to wait and see because you know you won’t be affected either way by it.
Well, it sounds like the best thing to do is ignore your cries against violence while you sit on your pedestal completely uninvolved in everyone else’s conflicts, to be honest.
You just aren’t personally involved enough to see the issue.
I would argue that no, advocating for slavery is indeed violent. You’re advocating for someone else to get violent.
You shouldn’t be allowed to say “I’m just advocating” to defend yourself when the thing you’re advocating for actually happens, and is in fact violent. It means if anything you were afraid of retribution than you being actually against the idea.
You’re just wrong is the problem. Words can be violent, and I would go as far as to say there’s something fishy about you arguing this for 3 days and not seeing how everyone is saying that it can be violent.
The problem is that most of the people in here have just been repeating their points over and over again (in between personal insults) rather than actually explaining their reasoning. This includes you; I ask how words can be classified as violence, and instead of telling me why you think so, you just reiterate that you think so.
Several people I’ve talked with in this thread have been discussing in good faith, but not everyone.
No, the problem here is you’re arguing in bad faith.
Because what you’re saying isn’t true. People have told you various things. Some the same, some different. And you just wave them off as if they don’t matter.
Let me write this in bold, and I will not respond to you any further on the matter:
If you are defending people who want to enslave other people’s right to advocate doing so, then you are advocating for violence, because you are allowing for them to build a base of more people who wish to enslave other people, and once they have built that base, they will act upon it, and that will be violent and long after we have the ability to prevent it. The act of advocating for a violent thing, is violent for this reason.
You are handwaving the preparation for the violent act, and acting like we will be ready for it and therefore shouldn’t be worried about it, when history has shown that is not the case.
If you are defending people who want to enslave other people’s right to advocate doing so, then you are advocating for violence, because you are allowing for them to build a base of more people who wish to enslave other people, and once they have built that base, they will act upon it, and that will be violent and long after we have the ability to prevent it. The act of advocating for a violent thing, is violent for this reason.
I believe I had addressed this idea earlier. I had said that merely the possibility of a hypothetical occurring at some point in the indeterminate future is not sufficient justification. The threat has to be imminent, definite, and actionable. Not “this group of people is likely to do this at some point, so we may freely punch them in the meantime.”
What I’m saying is a principle I apply to all groups of people. I try not to hold different moral standards just because I find someone to be reprehensible.
Whatever principle you allege to hold is currently having you defend peoples’ “right” to try to enslave other people without being punched in the teeth for even suggesting as much and you should really stop doing that, whatever the reason.
Whatever principle you allege to hold is currently having you defend peoples’ “right” to try to enslave other people
This is false. I have said numerous times that when I decry violent reprisal, I’m talking about advocacy, not action. I hope you’re not lying about this on purpose to try to discredit me.
Enslaving people is bad.
I’m not sure why you think I disagree with this, considering I’ve explicitly said so myself in this thread.
You’re sounding real Duncan McLeod of the Clan McLeod from season 3, episode 19 of Highlander, The Series right now and you should stop it.
Advocacy for slavery is itself violence and you should stop defending it.
We should not have a society where people attempt to enslave other humans (which is at all stages an act of violence).
Using violence to bring about a world where people are not enslaved is just, funny, good, awesome, laudable, recommended, and the way decent humans go about this “life” thing.
Why is it okay to respond to advocacy, which is not violent in itself, with actual violence?
Advocacy FOR WHAT. Go ahead, say it out loud. You can’t be this dense.
Advocacy for enslavement of other humans beings IS VIOLENCE. Period. Advocacy for the termination of an entire group of other people IS VIOLENCE.
You DO NOT get to debate another person’s right to exist. Period. End of fucking story. And the good people of the world WILL violently prevent you from enacting any of the things that you’re advocating for.
Violence? The thing I’ve explicitly said multiple times in this thread?
I feel like most of you aren’t really responding to what I’m saying and are instead just repeating your points and insulting me because we disagree. Not everyone in here, though, thankfully
…Umm…It was advocacy for slavery, not advocacy for violence. The guy even said “Advocacy for enslavement” in the very next sentence.
Why did you just do that? Why did you just shift the argument incorrectly? Hell there’s other posts within the 30 minutes you’ve been posting where you clearly knew what the topic was.
Excuse me for getting mixed up when I’m trying to reply to like seven people at once. Either way, I’ve explicitly mentioned violence and slavery in this discussion multiple times, so I’m not sure why you seem to think this is some rhetorical trap you’ve laid.
I’ve said it multiple times in this thread: advocating for something like slavery or other violence is not, in and of itself, grounds for violent retaliation. When the advocating moves into action, then it becomes self-defense.
When the advocating moves into action, it’s too damn late
And the issue at hand is too irrevocable to leave as a wait and see.
You speak purely like someone who knows they will never be on the brunt end of the discrimination a day in their life. It’s okay to wait and see because you know you won’t be affected either way by it.
That’s the rub with self-defense; you can’t employ it unless you have something presently threatening to defend against.
Well, it sounds like the best thing to do is ignore your cries against violence while you sit on your pedestal completely uninvolved in everyone else’s conflicts, to be honest.
You just aren’t personally involved enough to see the issue.
If these conflicts become violent attacks, I’ll be the first one to condemn them.
“It would be great if PugJesus was riddled with bullets in the near future. I hope someone does it. In fact, I encourage you to do it!”
This is just advocacy of violence. Harmless. I should defeat it with the power of my own words.
How is the advocacy of slavery not violent?
It’s an ideology which inherently requires violence.
Slavery is, yes. The advocacy of slavery is not. It’s wrong and corrupt and only bad people do it, but it’s not violent.
I would argue that no, advocating for slavery is indeed violent. You’re advocating for someone else to get violent.
You shouldn’t be allowed to say “I’m just advocating” to defend yourself when the thing you’re advocating for actually happens, and is in fact violent. It means if anything you were afraid of retribution than you being actually against the idea.
How far does it have to go to be violence to you? Is a mob boss ‘suggesting’ someone be killed advocacy enough to be considered violence?
You are wrong. Plain and simple. Advocacy for the violent oppression of others is a violent act
How do you define violence? In my mind, words cannot be violence.
You’re just wrong is the problem. Words can be violent, and I would go as far as to say there’s something fishy about you arguing this for 3 days and not seeing how everyone is saying that it can be violent.
The problem is that most of the people in here have just been repeating their points over and over again (in between personal insults) rather than actually explaining their reasoning. This includes you; I ask how words can be classified as violence, and instead of telling me why you think so, you just reiterate that you think so.
Several people I’ve talked with in this thread have been discussing in good faith, but not everyone.
No, the problem here is you’re arguing in bad faith.
Because what you’re saying isn’t true. People have told you various things. Some the same, some different. And you just wave them off as if they don’t matter.
Let me write this in bold, and I will not respond to you any further on the matter:
If you are defending people who want to enslave other people’s right to advocate doing so, then you are advocating for violence, because you are allowing for them to build a base of more people who wish to enslave other people, and once they have built that base, they will act upon it, and that will be violent and long after we have the ability to prevent it. The act of advocating for a violent thing, is violent for this reason.
You are handwaving the preparation for the violent act, and acting like we will be ready for it and therefore shouldn’t be worried about it, when history has shown that is not the case.
I believe I had addressed this idea earlier. I had said that merely the possibility of a hypothetical occurring at some point in the indeterminate future is not sufficient justification. The threat has to be imminent, definite, and actionable. Not “this group of people is likely to do this at some point, so we may freely punch them in the meantime.”
Begging the question the property damage is violence, aren’t we?
Also that advocating for enslavement of other humans isn’t violence, which it is.
I could understand not considering property damage to be violence, but how is advocacy violence in itself?
Why are you carrying water for The Klan? Let them bastards be thirsty.
What I’m saying is a principle I apply to all groups of people. I try not to hold different moral standards just because I find someone to be reprehensible.
deleted by creator
Whatever principle you allege to hold is currently having you defend peoples’ “right” to try to enslave other people without being punched in the teeth for even suggesting as much and you should really stop doing that, whatever the reason.
Enslaving people is bad.
This is false. I have said numerous times that when I decry violent reprisal, I’m talking about advocacy, not action. I hope you’re not lying about this on purpose to try to discredit me.
I’m not sure why you think I disagree with this, considering I’ve explicitly said so myself in this thread.
You’re sounding real Duncan McLeod of the Clan McLeod from season 3, episode 19 of Highlander, The Series right now and you should stop it.
Advocacy for slavery is itself violence and you should stop defending it.
We should not have a society where people attempt to enslave other humans (which is at all stages an act of violence).
Using violence to bring about a world where people are not enslaved is just, funny, good, awesome, laudable, recommended, and the way decent humans go about this “life” thing.
There’s such a thing as trying too hard, and choosing your hills to die on.
Reading the room as well
If you wanna fight for advocacy, but you choose the thread that’s all about slavery, that says a lot about you.
Is there another thread about the morality of advocacy that I could go to instead?
Plus, you’re still acting as if I’ve said that advocating for slavery is good or acceptable.
deleted by creator