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.”
You’re wagging your finger at nazi’s while they perform the holocaust
That is the effectiveness of what you’re doing.
So no, punch in the face will work just fine.
I’m not replying to the rest of the stuff you’ve said, i’m just leaving now. I’m pretty sure if we went with the “nazi’s at the table” analogy, you are the guy who is a nazi by association. Bye.
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.”
look, i’ll be blunt
You’re wagging your finger at nazi’s while they perform the holocaust
That is the effectiveness of what you’re doing.
So no, punch in the face will work just fine.
I’m not replying to the rest of the stuff you’ve said, i’m just leaving now. I’m pretty sure if we went with the “nazi’s at the table” analogy, you are the guy who is a nazi by association. Bye.