For the mob boss example, I would say that while it’s still not violence, per se, it still poses enough of a risk to warrant violent reprisal.
So for the advocacy of slavery example, an acceptable use of violent reprisal would have to be directed at someone who is truly influential enough for their suggestion (or “suggestion,” as the case may be,) to reasonably constitute an actual threat.
The only person I can think of who may qualify on the American Right is Trump, because of the whole January 6th insurrection. Clearly some of his followers are keen on violence at his mere suggestion. As far as I’m aware, though, nobody has openly advocated for slavery.
I mean all things - the severity of the words, the influence of the person, etc. We agree that words are sometimes crossing the line to where a violent reaction is morally justified (if not necessarily recommended or practical, ESPECIALLY in societies with a functioning government), we just disagree on where that line is drawn.
np, I get why people get heated over this, because I’ve certainly known my fair share of “Just asking questions” covert Nazis, but you always came off as simply genuinely convinced of a peaceful approach to things. In such matters, between two reasonably moral people, disagreement should be civil, even if the disagreement is severe.
So for the advocacy of slavery example, an acceptable use of violent reprisal would have to be directed at someone who is truly influential enough for their suggestion (or “suggestion,” as the case may be,) to reasonably constitute an actual threat.
You do get that by juicing someone’s face like a tomato so soon as they so much as sniff “We should enslave our fellow human beings.” for freshness, no one ever gets the power and influence you are describing and for society that is a good thing?
The violence is pro-scoial and prophylactic.
Further I can’t figure out what you think society gains by having people running around suggesting reprehensible things so long as they never get carried out.
You seem to think keeping a rabid animal in a petting zoo is a net positive, but as soon as it bites a few people boy howdy will it get a talking to.
It is more moral to use violence to coerce the safety and dignity of your fellow human beings than to force your fellow humans to weather the constant threat of enslavement so you can glorify whatever liberal Neutrality Morality deity you serve.
You still haven’t given an answer to the mob boss example.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about. I may have missed a reply somewhere; I’ll try to find it.
Oh, I see. Thank you for showing me that again.
For the mob boss example, I would say that while it’s still not violence, per se, it still poses enough of a risk to warrant violent reprisal.
So for the advocacy of slavery example, an acceptable use of violent reprisal would have to be directed at someone who is truly influential enough for their suggestion (or “suggestion,” as the case may be,) to reasonably constitute an actual threat.
The only person I can think of who may qualify on the American Right is Trump, because of the whole January 6th insurrection. Clearly some of his followers are keen on violence at his mere suggestion. As far as I’m aware, though, nobody has openly advocated for slavery.
Then the argument comes down to scale, not principle
I can conceivably get behind that. To clarify, by “scale” you mean the influence of the person doing the advocacy?
I mean all things - the severity of the words, the influence of the person, etc. We agree that words are sometimes crossing the line to where a violent reaction is morally justified (if not necessarily recommended or practical, ESPECIALLY in societies with a functioning government), we just disagree on where that line is drawn.
Looking back on the discussion, it seems to me that you’re right about that.
Consider me persuaded: The use of violence against nonviolent speech may be acceptable depending on the circumstances involved.
I appreciate that you maintained civility throughout this conversation, by the way.
np, I get why people get heated over this, because I’ve certainly known my fair share of “Just asking questions” covert Nazis, but you always came off as simply genuinely convinced of a peaceful approach to things. In such matters, between two reasonably moral people, disagreement should be civil, even if the disagreement is severe.
deleted by creator
You do get that by juicing someone’s face like a tomato so soon as they so much as sniff “We should enslave our fellow human beings.” for freshness, no one ever gets the power and influence you are describing and for society that is a good thing?
The violence is pro-scoial and prophylactic.
Further I can’t figure out what you think society gains by having people running around suggesting reprehensible things so long as they never get carried out.
You seem to think keeping a rabid animal in a petting zoo is a net positive, but as soon as it bites a few people boy howdy will it get a talking to.
We can just shoot the animal/ideology. Tolerance is not a moral precept.
It is more moral to use violence to coerce the safety and dignity of your fellow human beings than to force your fellow humans to weather the constant threat of enslavement so you can glorify whatever liberal Neutrality Morality deity you serve.