LogFAQs > #906863453

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, Database 4 ( 07.23.2018-12.31.2018 ), DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Do Richard Spencer and other Neo-Nazis deserve to be punched?
UnfairRepresent 08/14/18 12:13:26 PM #78:	Balrog0 posted... So why is it that you had to jump to a conclusion instead of just engaging me in a conversation don't insult our intelligence Balrog0 posted... thinking and talking about this issue is showing a lack of thought, and even less care for the topic you're engaging. The way you're going about it seems more like you want to be right than anything. it's wrong to respond to thought and opinions with violence and threats. I am right about that. Balrog0 posted... Okay. So at what point do you stop Hitler? WW1 when he's firing at you in a trench To be fair, there is the beer hall putsch. But what happens when he loses that, stops engaging in violence, goes through the appropriate channels to power, and then we get nazi germany? Will never happen and not only that, the best way to oppose it is to not respond with violence and In doing so give bad ideas credence Where in that chain of events do you think it becomes okay to use violence? When they are doing likewise as a measure of self defense The problem with you insisting on talking about this in terms of ideas and thoughts is that that isn't what people are worried about, nor is that why they are using violence. Many people are concerned that we are on the path to something like nazi germany. Unless you want to talk about it on those terms (either to dismiss the idea that we could become nazi germany, or to be exact about when you think it is okay to use force to stop nazi germany) then you're just not having the right conversation. This is especially true because the only standard for when its okay to use violence that has been explicated at all so far in this topic is the idea of 'clear and present danger.' But as that court ruling notes, what counts as a clear and present danger is based on context, and the specific context they cite is being at war. So we can punch nazis for engaging in nazi-ism, but only after they're enough a problem that we need to have officially declared some kind of war on them first? That's the only standard anyone who is against punching nazis has attempted to defend so far. Yes someone had to actually DO something dangerous before you're allowed to attack them. I'm sorry that this bothers you "I'm worried his opinion puts us on a path wherein he might create a space for violence to happen later... therefore it's okay to slughim" is not good enough and can be applied to anything. He'll the nutcase who plowed into crowds could use that logic The crazies who flew planes into the world trade center can use that logic --- ^ Hey now that's completely unfair. https://imgtc.com/i/14JHfrt.jpg <cite>UnfairRepresent posted [p:906863453] in Do Richard... [t:76897433]...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>So why is it that you had to jump to a conclusion instead of just engaging me in a conversation</quote> don't insult our intelligence <cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>thinking and talking about this issue is showing a lack of thought, and even less care for the topic you're engaging. The way you're going about it seems more like you want to be right than anything. </quote> it's wrong to respond to thought and opinions with violence and threats. I am right about that. <cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>Okay. So at what point do you stop Hitler? </quote> WW1 when he's firing at you in a trench <quote>To be fair, there is the beer hall putsch. But what happens when he loses that, stops engaging in violence, goes through the appropriate channels to power, and then we get nazi germany? </quote> Will never happen and not only that, the best way to oppose it is to not respond with violence and In doing so give bad ideas credence <quote> Where in that chain of events do you think it becomes okay to use violence?</quote> When they are doing likewise as a measure of self defense <quote> The problem with you insisting on talking about this in terms of ideas and thoughts is that that isn't what people are worried about, nor is that why they are using violence. Many people are concerned that we are on the path to something like nazi germany. Unless you want to talk about it on those terms (either to dismiss the idea that we could become nazi germany, or to be exact about when you think it is okay to use force to stop nazi germany) then you're just not having the right conversation. This is especially true because the only standard for when its okay to use violence that has been explicated at all so far in this topic is the idea of 'clear and present danger.' But as that court ruling notes, what counts as a clear and present danger is based on context, and the specific context they cite is being at war. So we can punch nazis for engaging in nazi-ism, but only after they're enough a problem that we need to have officially declared some kind of war on them first? That's the only standard anyone who is against punching nazis has attempted to defend so far.</quote> Yes someone had to actually DO something dangerous before you're allowed to attack them. I'm sorry that this bothers you "I'm worried his opinion puts us on a path wherein he might create a space for violence to happen later... therefore it's okay to slughim" is not good enough and can be applied to anything. He'll the nutcase who plowed into crowds could use that logic The crazies who flew planes into the world trade center can use that logic --- ^ Hey now that's completely unfair. https://imgtc.com/i/14JHfrt.jpg</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1