The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post Reply
User avatar
DaveDodo007
Posts: 2975
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 7:35 am
About me: When ever I behave as a man I am called sexist, It seems being a male is now illegal and nobody sent me the memo. Good job as I would have told them to fuck off.
Contact:

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post by DaveDodo007 » Tue Mar 28, 2017 5:09 am

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.)
We should be MOST skeptical of ideas we like because we are sufficiently skeptical of ideas that we don't like. Penn Jillette.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post by Hermit » Tue Mar 28, 2017 5:49 am

DaveDodo007 wrote: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% :drunk:
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60728
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post by pErvinalia » Tue Mar 28, 2017 5:55 am

DaveDodo007 wrote: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
7b1c5d348fe4cff9e8d9482d2c3f576331619e3fe1a1aea340dd4bae6189416a.jpg (59.43 KiB) Viewed 2775 times
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
rainbow
Posts: 13758
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:10 am
About me: Egal wie dicht du bist, Goethe war Dichter
Where ever you are, Goethe was a Poet.
Location: Africa
Contact:

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post by rainbow » Tue Mar 28, 2017 9:34 am

Forty Two wrote:
Animavore wrote: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?
I call bullshit - Alfred E Einstein
BArF−4

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post by Forty Two » Tue Mar 28, 2017 11:20 am

rainbow wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
Animavore wrote: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?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post by Forty Two » Tue Mar 28, 2017 11:28 am

Brian Peacock wrote: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.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 39933
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post by Brian Peacock » Tue Mar 28, 2017 12:07 pm

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.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60728
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post by pErvinalia » Tue Mar 28, 2017 12:34 pm

Forty Two wrote:
rainbow wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
Animavore wrote: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. :read:
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
rainbow
Posts: 13758
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:10 am
About me: Egal wie dicht du bist, Goethe war Dichter
Where ever you are, Goethe was a Poet.
Location: Africa
Contact:

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post by rainbow » Tue Mar 28, 2017 1:33 pm

Forty Two wrote: What's the morality of munching him?
That depends on whether he has been blessed by the Rabbi, I expect.
I call bullshit - Alfred E Einstein
BArF−4

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post by Forty Two » Tue Mar 28, 2017 1:39 pm

pErvin wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
rainbow wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
Animavore wrote: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. :read:
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?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60728
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post by pErvinalia » Tue Mar 28, 2017 1:42 pm

I've already explained it to you multiple times. How many more times would you like me to explain it to you?
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post by Forty Two » Tue Mar 28, 2017 1:57 pm

Brian Peacock wrote: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.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post by Forty Two » Tue Mar 28, 2017 1:57 pm

...duplicate.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post by Forty Two » Tue Mar 28, 2017 2:01 pm

pErvin wrote: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.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post by Forty Two » Tue Mar 28, 2017 2:10 pm

“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 23 guests