The Ethics of Punching Nazis

[DaveDodo007]

pErvin superior arguments have brought me round. I totally agree with him that violence is the only way to solve this divide. He advocates punching Nazis and I advocated the day of the rope for all lefty/liberals. May the best men win (which of cause will be my side given lefty/liberals are self loathing gimps, cucks and faggots.)

[Hermit]

pErvin superior arguments have brought me round. I totally agree with him that violence is the only way to solve this divide. He advocates punching Nazis and I advocated the day of the rope for all lefty/liberals. May the best men win (which of cause will be my side given lefty/liberals are self loathing gimps, cucks and faggots.)

0.14%

[pErvinalia]

pErvin superior arguments have brought me round. I totally agree with him that violence is the only way to solve this divide. He advocates punching Nazis and I advocated the day of the rope for all lefty/liberals. May the best men win (which of cause will be my side given lefty/liberals are self loathing gimps, cucks and faggots.)

7b1c5d348fe4cff9e8d9482d2c3f576331619e3fe1a1aea340dd4bae6189416a.jpg (59.43 KiB) Viewed 2773 times

[rainbow]

I told my grandfather about this thread. He said, "In my days we talked about killing Nazis, and we did it too." Then he said something about "...pussy generation..." before the glass tumbler slid off the board.

Sure, during a war with Nazi germany. However, talking about killing Nazis now is about the same as talking about killing Islamists who preach the glories of jihad and Sha'ria. Shall we punch an Islamist today too?

Who is 'we', paleface?

[Forty Two]

I told my grandfather about this thread. He said, "In my days we talked about killing Nazis, and we did it too." Then he said something about "...pussy generation..." before the glass tumbler slid off the board.

Sure, during a war with Nazi germany. However, talking about killing Nazis now is about the same as talking about killing Islamists who preach the glories of jihad and Sha'ria. Shall we punch an Islamist today too?

Who is 'we', paleface?

We, the people...

Picture a radical Imam speaking calmly to a reporter near a rally to support Muslims. The reporter asks him "Are you a Jihadi," and the Islamist Imam says "no, not at all..." and then a member of the antiIslama, an anti-Islam group, leaps in from the side and cold-cocks the Imam in the side of the head. The internet erupts with glee at the punching of a radical Islamist! Punching Jihadis, they say, is not only good, but morally imperative. The writings of this Imam are often about the need for a unified Muslim Caliphate, and advocating the adoption of Sha'ria law by nation-states as the law of the land, he supports the corporal and capital punishments, opposes gay marriage, and thinks homosexuality should be a crime, he even wrote a few years back that apostasy should be punishable by death, and that Jews were the scourge of the world.

What's the morality of punching him?

[Forty Two]

Bollocks. My position is pretty clear, you just don't seem to want to acknowledge it. You are the only one who's forcing the issue here: I've just pointed out that the dichotomous framing of that issue is spurious and that it cannot in all reasonableness be addressed with a definitive, categorical statement - so if you think that there are certain circumstances where punching someone on the basis of their political opinions alone is warranted then out with it man.

I don't. I don't think there are circumstances where punching someone on the basis of their political opinions alone is warranted. I am unable to think of any.

Do you? If your answer is "it depends..." which a few posts up it was, at least in part. And, you explained that it depended on a meta-analysis of various factors, then it does seem to suggest that you believe there are certain scenarios which may warrant said punches.

I haven't asked for a definitive, categorical statement, anyway. It's certainly a position to take to say, "there may be circumstances, and it depends on __________" but, what I've tried to ask you to do is to give me an example. And, that example might include an summary of the analysis of a given speaker's views which warrant punching. So, you don't have to say "All white supremacists are punch-worthy" you could say -- "I would hypothesize Joe Blow, who holds certain views, X, Y and Z.... and the reasons he would be punchable would be A, B and C...." etc.

But, if you've gone as far as you want to go here, then that's fine. I'll move on.

[Brian Peacock]

I think 'it depends' has been sufficiently qualified by my previous remarks, here, here, here, and here for example. If you're going to maintain this faux confusion over whether or not I condone punching someone on the basis of their political opinion alone then I'm going to assume you're just trolling for the sake of it.

[pErvinalia]

I told my grandfather about this thread. He said, "In my days we talked about killing Nazis, and we did it too." Then he said something about "...pussy generation..." before the glass tumbler slid off the board.

Sure, during a war with Nazi germany. However, talking about killing Nazis now is about the same as talking about killing Islamists who preach the glories of jihad and Sha'ria. Shall we punch an Islamist today too?

Who is 'we', paleface?

We, the people...

Picture a radical Imam speaking calmly to a reporter near a rally to support Muslims. The reporter asks him "Are you a Jihadi," and the Islamist Imam says "no, not at all..." and then a member of the antiIslama, an anti-Islam group, leaps in from the side and cold-cocks the Imam in the side of the head. The internet erupts with glee at the punching of a radical Islamist! Punching Jihadis, they say, is not only good, but morally imperative. The writings of this Imam are often about the need for a unified Muslim Caliphate, and advocating the adoption of Sha'ria law by nation-states as the law of the land, he supports the corporal and capital punishments, opposes gay marriage, and thinks homosexuality should be a crime, he even wrote a few years back that apostasy should be punishable by death, and that Jews were the scourge of the world.

What's the morality of punching him?

All good in my book.

[rainbow]

What's the morality of munching him?

That depends on whether he has been blessed by the Rabbi, I expect.

[Forty Two]

I told my grandfather about this thread. He said, "In my days we talked about killing Nazis, and we did it too." Then he said something about "...pussy generation..." before the glass tumbler slid off the board.

Sure, during a war with Nazi germany. However, talking about killing Nazis now is about the same as talking about killing Islamists who preach the glories of jihad and Sha'ria. Shall we punch an Islamist today too?

Who is 'we', paleface?

We, the people...

Picture a radical Imam speaking calmly to a reporter near a rally to support Muslims. The reporter asks him "Are you a Jihadi," and the Islamist Imam says "no, not at all..." and then a member of the antiIslama, an anti-Islam group, leaps in from the side and cold-cocks the Imam in the side of the head. The internet erupts with glee at the punching of a radical Islamist! Punching Jihadis, they say, is not only good, but morally imperative. The writings of this Imam are often about the need for a unified Muslim Caliphate, and advocating the adoption of Sha'ria law by nation-states as the law of the land, he supports the corporal and capital punishments, opposes gay marriage, and thinks homosexuality should be a crime, he even wrote a few years back that apostasy should be punishable by death, and that Jews were the scourge of the world.

What's the morality of punching him?

All good in my book.

I think the key to a moral conclusion is the thought process or rationale, if there is one. How do you reach that conclusion? Do you have a moral basis, rationale, logic or line of reasoning? What factors or points, or premises, go into the analysis?

[pErvinalia]

I've already explained it to you multiple times. How many more times would you like me to explain it to you?

[Forty Two]

I think 'it depends' has been sufficiently qualified by my previous remarks, here, here, here, and here for example. If you're going to maintain this faux confusion over whether or not I condone punching someone on the basis of their political opinion alone then I'm going to assume you're just trolling for the sake of it.

Here's the thing -- I am, indeed, unclear on your position, and I am not trolling. Let me explain to you why.

You say, for example, here: "let me state again that political violence is not justified on the basis of holding or opposing particular political ideals - just being a Nazi or a Commie, or not, is not enough to warrant a kicking - but defending oneself and one's community against the political violence of others can be a justified means of achieving political change."

The first bit is very unequivocal, that political violence is not justified on the basis of holding or opposing particular political beliefs - just being a nazi or a Commie or not is not enough to warrant a kicking." I agree. However, I am a bit unclear if there is a distinction is between political violence and just violence. I assume none, and it's just the way you worded it, and that your meaning is what it says -- violence is not justified on the basis of persons holding or opposing particular beliefs. Just being a Nazi or a Commie is not enough. Right, good. We are in firm agreement there.

The next part, however, creates some ambiguity. You say "but defending oneself and one's community against political violence of others can be a justified means of achieving political change." it's that bit, I think, that I need an example of to illustrate what you mean. Does defending oneself and one's community mean self-defense and defense of others, in the sense of defense against a physical attack? You note that the defense is against "political violence" - there's that term again - so person X is defending their community against "political violence" and you say that defending against that political violence of other scan be justified as a means to achieve political change.

I agree that a person has a right to defend themselves and other against violence. However, is "political violence" something broader than violence? I mean, like, do Nazis commit political violence by saying certain things or publishing certain things? If not, and political violence is limited to actual violence, then I think we are in agreement. I certainly think that anyone can defend themselves against violence of any kind, and they can defend others. Does your second sentence there suggest that there is a scenario in your mind where violence is justified as a defense against words which amount to "political violence?"

I note, also, that you said merely "being" a Nazi or Commie, and merely "holding" or "opposing" particular beliefs, does not justify political violence. But, you did not include the word "expressing" (or equivalent). Was the absence of that word intentional? Do you believe that violence is sometimes or could sometimes be appropriate or justified as a response to a Nazi or Commie "expressing" particular beliefs, as opposed to merely holding them?

So, that's an example of where I'm looking for clarification, and where i think your explanations are bit less than explicit. I'm not in the least trolling. I'm trying to understand the limits of your argument and position here. My apologies if I am coming across as trolling. I'm really not.

[Forty Two]

...duplicate.

[Forty Two]

I've already explained it to you multiple times. How many more times would you like me to explain it to you?

I don't agree that you have explained it, at least not with any clarity or precision. I understand that you do think that there is a moral justification for punching people for what they express, depending on how revolting you find the person or their views. But, I do not see a clear explanation of any rationale, logic, etc., in how you reach that conclusion. Is there an analysis that can be applied to different situations, such that we can use your morality here as a guide to behavior?

If you have said all you can say about it, fine. No worries. But when you state a position, like above, where you would be fine with the alleged Jihadi I described being punched, then I hardly think it's inappropriate to ask you why. If your answer is "I just do" or "because they're assholes" well , that's your answer. However, in reality, you usually play shell game.

[Forty Two]