The Ethics of Punching Nazis

[Forty Two]

I think you should be able to punch anyone you want to punch. I also believe I should be able to shoot your ass dead if you punch me.

Shoot him in the fist....that would smart.

[cronus]

Even a small scratch will kill in the era of Ebola unbound after the coming global economic collapse.

[pErvinalia]

16387257_379105775793247_2126349402104326508_n.jpg

I can't think of a single instance where anyone has defended police assaults on citizens because the citizens "back talked" to them. Are there any examples of this happening?

Why don't you crawl back under your rock? It's THE MOST COMMON FORM OF DEFENCE that occurs every time this happens. Seth does it all the time. Facebook is FULL of defences like this. ffs.

[pErvinalia]

Jeez, that was a bit harsh. Sorry about that. I was taking my intense dislike of Trump out on his representative here at ratz.

[Forty Two]

16387257_379105775793247_2126349402104326508_n.jpg

I can't think of a single instance where anyone has defended police assaults on citizens because the citizens "back talked" to them. Are there any examples of this happening?

Why don't you crawl back under your rock? It's THE MOST COMMON FORM OF DEFENCE that occurs every time this happens. Seth does it all the time. Facebook is FULL of defences like this. ffs.

LOL - you're a joke.

[Forty Two]

Jeez, that was a bit harsh. Sorry about that. I was taking my intense dislike of Trump out on his representative here at ratz.

It's your true nature. Embrace it.

[Forty Two]

Mainstream leftist progressive view is that beating people whose views you find abhorrent is not only ethical, but morally imperative -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cvwr1TpKznk&

The fact that this woman expresses the views she's expressing with a straight face is remarkable.

[Forty Two]

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

-- A Man for All Seasons (1960).

[rainbow]

Mainstream leftist progressive view is that beating people whose views you find abhorrent is not only ethical, but morally imperative.

Explain why you have a problem with that.

Why are you not bothered when Fascists do the same?

Double Standards

[Brian Peacock]

Go easy there rainbow. He's only virtue-signling.

[pErvinalia]

Mainstream leftist progressive view is that beating people whose views you find abhorrent is not only ethical, but morally imperative.

Explain why you have a problem with that.

Why are you not bothered when Fascists do the same?

Double Standards

It's also not "mainstream leftist progressive view". His hyperbole gland has been working overtime lately.

[Hermit]

This discussion reminds me of a similar one we had in a thread titled The Ethics of pinching Nachos. In the end there was almost unanimous agreement that whereas theft was in principle unethical, immoral, criminal and ultimately deleterious to the cohesion and harmony of society, there is an exception. The exception is that laws can be broken when someone deprive others of basic human rights without actually breaking any existing law himself. The nacho incident turned out to be one of those cases when Don Dummkopf, the owner of the sole bakery in Jerome, Arizona sold all his tortillas to a major hotel in New York, New York because it was more profitable than selling them to the local villagers. Rather than starve to death, the villagers overpowered the driver and guards of a tortilla truck and made off with the goods.

[Forty Two]

16387257_379105775793247_2126349402104326508_n.jpg

I can't think of a single instance where anyone has defended police assaults on citizens because the citizens "back talked" to them. Are there any examples of this happening?

Why don't you crawl back under your rock? It's THE MOST COMMON FORM OF DEFENCE that occurs every time this happens. Seth does it all the time. Facebook is FULL of defences like this. ffs.

LOL - let's see a link to examples of this "most common form of defense." I doubt Seth would have even said it. I'm sure he's familiar with the fact that it's technically lawful to resist an unlawful detention, in the US.

This is like the "he's challenging muh patriotizm" accusation we always here from leftists. They imagine people are "really thinking" X, when they say Y. Same thing here. You're big on that, too, pErvin. You like to take what people actually say, and convert it into what you know they really mean.

[NineBerry]

This discussion reminds me of a similar one we had in a thread titled The Ethics of pinching Nachos. In the end there was almost unanimous agreement that whereas theft was in principle unethical, immoral, criminal and ultimately deleterious to the cohesion and harmony of society, there is an exception. The exception is that laws can be broken when someone deprive others of basic human rights without actually breaking any existing law himself. The nacho incident turned out to be one of those cases when Don Dummkopf, the owner of the sole bakery in Jerome, Arizona sold all his tortillas to a major hotel in New York, New York because it was more profitable than selling them to the local villagers. Rather than starve to death, the villagers overpowered the driver and guards of a tortilla truck and made off with the goods.

If they don't have tortillas, let them eat cake.

[Forty Two]

Mainstream leftist progressive view is that beating people whose views you find abhorrent is not only ethical, but morally imperative.

Explain why you have a problem with that.

Why are you not bothered when Fascists do the same?

Double Standards

I am - link to fascists doing the same, and I'll lambaste them within an inch of their lives.

Anyone who initiates violence against someone who is merely expressing opinions is in the wrong.

You need me to explain why I have a problem with the leftist progressive view that beating people whose views they find abhorrent is not only ethical but morally imperative? Jezus, man. O.k. -- (a) an individual can only use violence against another person in self- defense (or coming to the aid of another who has the right of self-defense), (b) someone expressing an opinion a given individual finds abhorrent is not a justification to use violence against them.

I have a problem with that, because no individual is the arbiter of what can and cannot be expressed, and violently taking matters into one's own hands is vigilantism. Violently suppressing the expression of abhorrent viewpoints is an aspect of fascism. That doesn't change when it's a self-righteous leftist beating people up because he or she thinks he or she is championing the downtrodden or serving higher principles.

Also, each individual is not the arbiter of other individuals' opinions. As a practical matter, when someone is being attacked as, for example, a Nazi, it's rare that they admit they're a Nazi. Usually, the scumbag leftist "knows" they're a Nazi, because they hold things like "anti-immigrant" views, or are against gay marriage. So, in effect, the leftist affords to himself the carte blanche to declare people Nazis who may not be that. They then declare it morally imperative to beat that person up.

The goal of beating up an alleged Nazi or someone else with an abhorrent opinion is to shut them up, and prevent other people from hearing their message. It is pernicious censorship, that not only deprives an individual of the right to express an idea, but deprives an audience the right to hear what he has to say, if they so choose. The leftist affords himself the right to decide what other individuals are allowed to hear and discuss. This implies that the leftist is in a better position to know which ideas are valuable to hear about and which aren't -- it's a huge conceit, that says "I know better what you should be allowed to hear."

It is a huge conceit that a leftist will deign to tell other individuals what will and will not be tolerated as public speech or expression. It is no different than a Christian or Muslim saying they will not tolerate expressions in support of homosexuality or LGBT. They don't have the right to determine for the rest of us what will and will not be tolerated. They can, of course, argue against it and use their own right to free speech. But, beating up a person just because they find the views of that person abhorrent is not among their privileges. That's no different for a leftist.

What's disconcerting is how many leftists these days apparently believe that it is good for people who hold opinions they view as abhorrent to be violently dealt with. They seem to have lost the plot. But, I doubt they've lost the plot. i think it's like when religious groups get real power, that's when the fun starts - that's when their true colors come out. Likewise, the leftists sense victory, and blood in the water. Their true colors are coming out.