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.
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.