Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

On punching Nazis

Page 4 of 19 [ 290 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 19  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

BettaPonic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Jan 2017
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 918
Location: NOVA

30 Jan 2017, 9:57 pm

I would say that it is wrong to punch him.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

30 Jan 2017, 9:57 pm

beneficii wrote:
There's a reason for that ambivalence: Being pro-gay and being pro-mass murder are completely different morally speaking.


According to your morality.

beneficii wrote:
I find it curious that a lot of right-leaning people are now essentially agnostic in this regard, as though being pro-mass murder were just another valid point of view someone could take, not fundamentally any different to being pro-gay. I know you guys have accused people like me and T1J of being moral relativists, but you guys are acting like that right now.


I try to avoid moralizing as much as possible in debate, morals are not quantifiable, and thus useless for my purposes. I do have my own set of them, but I don't try to anchor my arguments with them, since I know they're far from universal. Also, I've always argued this way.

beneficii wrote:
We will not pretend that such views are as valid as being pro-gay, and wherever they are presented we will make clear that such views and the people expressing them are evil.


How are you so certain that being pro-gay is a valid view? Not that long ago, society viewed it as a perversion, like being a pedophile, who get treated exactly as you're describing; what makes you so sure that won't happen again?


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Adamantium
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2013
Age: 1026
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,863
Location: Erehwon

30 Jan 2017, 10:06 pm

Barchan wrote:
beneficii wrote:
This back and forth here is ridiculous. Only 0_equals_true makes me think they maybe watched the video (though I'm still not quite sure because they seemed to say they weren't if t1j incites violence--he doesn't btw). Barchan, might have too.


I didn't watch the video. I don't think I need to, because I can't imagine any scenario in which I'd be unhappy about a nazi getting his teeth knocked out.


A quotable German once wrote something that translates to:
Quote:
He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.


_________________
Don't believe the gender note under my avatar. A WP bug means I can't fix it.


BettaPonic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Jan 2017
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 918
Location: NOVA

30 Jan 2017, 10:07 pm

Dox47 wrote:
beneficii wrote:
There's a reason for that ambivalence: Being pro-gay and being pro-mass murder are completely different morally speaking.


According to your morality.

beneficii wrote:
I find it curious that a lot of right-leaning people are now essentially agnostic in this regard, as though being pro-mass murder were just another valid point of view someone could take, not fundamentally any different to being pro-gay. I know you guys have accused people like me and T1J of being moral relativists, but you guys are acting like that right now.


I try to avoid moralizing as much as possible in debate, morals are not quantifiable, and thus useless for my purposes. I do have my own set of them, but I don't try to anchor my arguments with them, since I know they're far from universal. Also, I've always argued this way.

beneficii wrote:
We will not pretend that such views are as valid as being pro-gay, and wherever they are presented we will make clear that such views and the people expressing them are evil.


How are you so certain that being pro-gay is a valid view? Not that long ago, society viewed it as a perversion, like being a pedophile, who get treated exactly as you're describing; what makes you so sure that won't happen again?


I agree that morality is subjective and changes. What is your way of getting morality? I personally am pro-gay, but do not pretend that I am 100 percent right.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

30 Jan 2017, 10:13 pm

BettaPonic wrote:
I agree that morality is subjective and changes. What is your way of getting morality? I personally am pro-gay, but do not pretend that I am 100 percent right.


It's going to sound stupid, but I try and stick to the Golden Rule as much as possible, as it's simple and almost 100% applicable.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

30 Jan 2017, 10:16 pm

Jacoby wrote:
After all the chest thumping and false bravado with these protests and violent attacks where do you think it's going to get you?


Here in Seattle, it gets you shot:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /96873786/


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


BettaPonic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Jan 2017
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 918
Location: NOVA

30 Jan 2017, 10:17 pm

It is a great rule and easy to follow. I personally weigh the pros and con. I think the best thing is the thing that gives the most freedom is right.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

30 Jan 2017, 11:17 pm

Sigh... :roll:
Call me lazy (I dont care) but I'm not even going to read back though all this s**t since know from experience pretty much who said what.
It's not about defending what someone's saying but thier right to say it.
It's really not that complicated.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Shahunshah
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,225
Location: NZ

30 Jan 2017, 11:29 pm

lidsmichelle wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
lidsmichelle wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
You literally have no idea what you are talking about right now

That's exactly what you're doing though. You're defending Richard Spencer, a neo Nazi. You can try to twist it however you want, but that's exactly what you're doing.


BS, if you think sucker punching people is okay because you dislike what they believe then you are part of the problem. "Dude, they're Nazis" isn't an intellectual response, it's rationalization for violence. If that is what you call 'no platforming' then how would that term turned around on you? Do you understand the dangers of that?

Are you like lacking in some mental capacity? I ask this because there is something very morally wrong with advocating for s**t like ethnic cleansing. If someone punches me for advocating for equal rights based on race then they are the problem. Neo Nazis advocate horrible things so you cannot pretend it is the same thing. Well I mean you can, you clearly do. It appears to be your hobby.


What does punching someone solve?

I said this before Richard Spencer is just a guy he is not running for governor or president. If people didn't tune into Spencer they would be tuning into some other racist person who would advocate those beliefs.



beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

31 Jan 2017, 12:41 am

Dox47 wrote:
beneficii wrote:
There's a reason for that ambivalence: Being pro-gay and being pro-mass murder are completely different morally speaking.


According to your morality.

beneficii wrote:
I find it curious that a lot of right-leaning people are now essentially agnostic in this regard, as though being pro-mass murder were just another valid point of view someone could take, not fundamentally any different to being pro-gay. I know you guys have accused people like me and T1J of being moral relativists, but you guys are acting like that right now.


I try to avoid moralizing as much as possible in debate, morals are not quantifiable, and thus useless for my purposes. I do have my own set of them, but I don't try to anchor my arguments with them, since I know they're far from universal. Also, I've always argued this way.

beneficii wrote:
We will not pretend that such views are as valid as being pro-gay, and wherever they are presented we will make clear that such views and the people expressing them are evil.


How are you so certain that being pro-gay is a valid view? Not that long ago, society viewed it as a perversion, like being a pedophile, who get treated exactly as you're describing; what makes you so sure that won't happen again?


Well, let's think about the implementation. Implementation of LGBT rights as generally been peaceful. If 1 side loses, they don't go to war over it.

On the other hand, if a President tries to implement genocide inside the country and the institutions fail to stop them, then I guarantee you there will be war and coup attempts unless the President's opponents are eliminated beforehand. Opponents will seek to destroy the genocidal faction's physical capacity to carry out mass murder, and bring the perpetrators to justice.

That itself creates a huge difference between these views. One fits within the framework of a peaceful democratic society. The other does not.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

31 Jan 2017, 1:00 am

beneficii wrote:
Well, let's think about the implementation. Implementation of LGBT rights as generally been peaceful. If 1 side loses, they don't go to war over it.


That's because the social norms changed over a series of decades; if you tried to enact those rights in the 50's through legislative fiat, you likely would have seen violence.

beneficii wrote:
On the other hand, if a President tries to implement genocide inside the country and the institutions fail to stop them, then I guarantee you there will be war and coup attempts unless the President's opponents are eliminated beforehand. Opponents will seek to destroy the genocidal faction's physical capacity to carry out mass murder, and bring the perpetrators to justice.


You're assuming that the populace at large doesn't support the proposed genocide, a not inconceivable situation given world events over the years. Of course, because of who I am, I also have to point out that the left in this country is uniquely unqualified to carry out any type of insurgency, considering who owns all the guns, and how the left has treated those people for years.

beneficii wrote:
That itself creates a huge difference between these views. One fits within the framework of a peaceful democratic society. The other does not.


Again, that's assuming that a peaceful democratic society is intrinsically and in-arguably good, a far less settled question than you seem to think. Also, remember that eugenics and the forced sterilizations that came along with it happened in peaceful democratic societies, so that's not a foolproof safeguard either.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

31 Jan 2017, 1:17 am

Y'know, punching an Alt Right Nazi is in itself wrong. Just the same, it was still pretty funny. :twisted:


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

31 Jan 2017, 2:16 am

Dox47 wrote:
beneficii wrote:
Well, let's think about the implementation. Implementation of LGBT rights as generally been peaceful. If 1 side loses, they don't go to war over it.


That's because the social norms changed over a series of decades; if you tried to enact those rights in the 50's through legislative fiat, you likely would have seen violence.

beneficii wrote:
On the other hand, if a President tries to implement genocide inside the country and the institutions fail to stop them, then I guarantee you there will be war and coup attempts unless the President's opponents are eliminated beforehand. Opponents will seek to destroy the genocidal faction's physical capacity to carry out mass murder, and bring the perpetrators to justice.


You're assuming that the populace at large doesn't support the proposed genocide, a not inconceivable situation given world events over the years. Of course, because of who I am, I also have to point out that the left in this country is uniquely unqualified to carry out any type of insurgency, considering who owns all the guns, and how the left has treated those people for years.

beneficii wrote:
That itself creates a huge difference between these views. One fits within the framework of a peaceful democratic society. The other does not.


Again, that's assuming that a peaceful democratic society is intrinsically and in-arguably good, a far less settled question than you seem to think. Also, remember that eugenics and the forced sterilizations that came along with it happened in peaceful democratic societies, so that's not a foolproof safeguard either.


I don't need you to remind me of anything. Neither did I assume about the public at large in that example. I am not your student.

I don't know what's been going on with this country's politics, but I find this cold indifference from you of all people to be disturbing. You say we can't know whether favoring mass murder is less "valid" than favoring LGBT rights. Only a cold-hearted person can nonchalantly say something like this. Somebody with no moral fiber.

I tell you, this country is going to heck. Now more firmly do I agree with Galtung's 2020 prediction for the end of the US Empire and hope for its realization. Put this God-forsaken thing to rest. We've got a lot to think about and learn.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

31 Jan 2017, 2:23 am

Mods, you can go ahead and close this thread.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

31 Jan 2017, 3:59 am

0_equals_true wrote:
He was punched but a person in a typical "black bloc" uniform. Which is most associated with anarchists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_bloc

I have no idea if that was an anarchist though.

Lauren Southern was recently called out for lazy journalism for implying that black bloc were typical anti-trump supporters, when they did a similar protest against Obama, and are anti-government and elections.


Lauren Southern was called out by "Thunderf00t" for words she spoke in the heat of the moment, whilst reporting live, on the scene, with missiles flying over her head. He continued for 15 minutes of fallacy-riddled rant against Lauren Southern and people who had spoken up in her defence.

The irony of a supposed sceptic claiming "lazy journalism", then immediately launching into a cherry-picking, misrepresenting and name-calling tirade from the comfort of his armchair is not lost on me.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

31 Jan 2017, 4:06 am

beneficii wrote:
Mods, you can go ahead and close this thread.


You seem to have spelt "You're right, Dox" incorrectly.