The amount of goal post shifting that goes on in this thread about what constitutes "violence" is making my head spin.
I've got a big stick.The amount of goal post shifting that goes on in this thread about what constitutes "violence" is making my head spin.
Slavery was as much of a "reason" for the civil war as Franz Ferdinand's assassination was the "reason" for WWI. War is never about morals. It's always about power, territory or resources (including people).Errr.... Sort of. What history tells us about those events and what really happened, are slightly different. It was more about who rules who, north and south. The slavery questions, were just a part of that issue.
Where I live, the self defense is described as a use of an amount of physical force against other person necessary and sufficient to avert, avoid or prevent an assault on yourself or another person.
Violence on the other hand is described as a use of physical force to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy.
No, using violence to change society is not expectable, using force to protect your property and family is.
Yes. The deciding factor, however, often isn't the outcome but the intent. If somebody forces you to hurt him, it doesn't make you violent. Unless you overdo it, of course.Physical force sufficient to avert, avoid, or prevent an assault is quite often also sufficient to injure, damage, or destroy.
Yes. The deciding factor, however, often isn't the outcome but the intent. If somebody forces you to hurt him, it doesn't make you violent. Unless you overdo it, of course.
Yes and if they do, they should expect a pushback that match their behavior.Physical force sufficient to avert, avoid, or prevent an assault is quite often also sufficient to injure, damage, or destroy.
Societies often threaten individuals, their kin, and/or their property.
Yes and if they do, they should expect a pushback that match their behavior.
I am thinking about the late 1930s Europe, could be considered. There was a perceived threat. But it wasn't real. It was 'made up' using propaganda. Germany was not under threat, after the first world war. Someone rose up and sold that perception.It's hard to find violence being used as a tool for, or to oppose, social change without the honest perception of an existential threat.
Buh bye, Beto!Yes and if they do, they should expect a pushback that match their behavior.
You and I both understand that, that is a myth. Free speech, I mean.A better question in my opinion is: "Is the use of violence ever justified to suppress free speech."
Oh please. Let's not act like just because one cannot holler "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater that somehow means we don't have free speech. The fact that there are rules in our society and consequences to our words likewise doesn't mean that we don't have free speech.You and I both understand that, that is a myth. Free speech, I mean.![]()
permissible? Apparently, at any Trump rally.Oh please. Let's not act like just because one cannot holler "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater that somehow means we don't have free speech. The fact that there are rules in our society and consequences to our words likewise doesn't mean that we don't have free speech.
Regardless; is it ever permissable to use violence to suppress another's free speech (or whatever you personally refer to it as)?
permissible? Apparently, at any Trump rally.
Are you saying you support Antifa?Where do you think the "violent leftist antifa" crapola is coming from?
My grandfather helped Americans in WW2, so antifascism runs in my blood. It ought to be running in everybody's blood if they have a clue about history. Just as real Americans should remember what they did last time they had a Mad King.
When the Klan and Neo Nasties and Vlad the Impaler, and Prince Mohammed bin Bone Saw are on your side, you are on. The. Wrong. Side.
"It ain't rocket surgery, Cletus." as the saying goes, people had this figured out before.
And almost all the actual violence? Guess where its coming from. The Very Fine People who murdered Heather Heyer and want to destroy her grave, the studmuffins like Cantwell and his vile ilk and the instigating neurosyphilitic upon the Pale House.
Nope, and that’s my point, we see groups from some of the political spectrum, who praise suppression and even violence to get to where they want society to be, at some point the pushback will match their actions.A better question in my opinion is: "Is the use of violence ever justified to suppress free speech."