The Ethics of Punching Nazis

[Seabass]

Virginia court rules it's OK to punch fucking Nazis. It'll cost you US1$ though.

[Forty Two]

Arrest that man!

For what?

He's dangerous!

That man's bad!

There is no law against that.

Be careful, lefty, when the right wing "devil comes round to face you..."

[Hermit]

Arrest that man!

For what?

He's dangerous!

That man's bad!

There is no law against that.

Be careful, lefty, when the right wing "devil comes round to face you..."

That card again. I feel free to repeat myself too.

[ i]f we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed...

[Forty Two]

It's apropos of the post to which I responded, where someone is cheering on the physical assault and battery of another person for the sole reason that the criminal doing the assaulting does not like the victim's opinions. He's a bad man. He deserves it. Cheer on the violence. Yes!!!

But, the left wingers will not be pleased when the Devil can turn round and be just as free to assault those that they can now claim to be defending themselves from....

"I had to punch that leftist - look at how he/they assault anyone they think are too right wing...."

The law protects as all. And, equal protection of the laws is fundamental.

If we disregard that - if we throw that away - we are left with arbitrary clash of power. Who do you think will with that battle?

[Tero]

Keep up the good work. Punch the Nazis!

[Brian Peacock]

The opinion that the rights and freedoms of others should be forcibly supressed should be forcibly supressed.

The opinion that the rights and freedoms of others should be forcibly supressed should be forcibly supressed to defend the rights and freedoms of all.

[Forty Two]

Keep up the good work. Punch the Nazis!

It wasn't an actual Nazi that was punched. It was someone described as alt-right. One of the key points is that the people throwing these punches are declaring people Nazis, and that conjures up images of SS uniforms and Hitler - these are not they.

[Forty Two]

The opinion that the rights and freedoms of others should be forcibly supressed should be forcibly supressed.

The opinion that the rights and freedoms of others should be forcibly supressed should be forcibly supressed to defend the rights and freedoms of all.

I have to disagree. Many Muslims believe that the freedoms of others should be forcibly suppressed. Should their views be forcibly suppressed? Should Islam be forcibly suppressed - many people think Islam is itself a totalitarian and fascistic belief system.

Many communists think counter-revolutionaries should be forcibly suppressed - should Communists be forcibly suppressed?

No "opinion" should be "forcibly" suppressed. Attempts to forcibly suppress should be forcibly suppressed.

Also, not everything a "Nazi" or "alt right" person says involves forcible suppression. If a person is alt-right, and they are not in the process of advocating forcible suppression of the beliefs of others, should they be forcibly suppressed or punched? Like if they are just shopping in the supermarket? Just because someone else thinks they might hold views that would advocate forcible suppression, they should be forcibly suppressed?

And,YOU are advocating the forcible suppression of opinions. By your logic, others would be justified in forcibly suppressing you, because you are advocating forcibly suppressing the opinion of others that forcibly suppress viewpoints.

And some leftists go even further, just declaring that right wing views in general harm people - harmful opinions - that "other" people - and that "disregard the humanity" of other people - and some of those leftists think that such views should be "forcibly suppressed." So, wouldn't I be justified, by your logic, in punching that leftist? Forcibly suppressing him?

The logic of being intolerant (by force) of intolerance fails -- it's not rational. It makes no sense. Being intolerant in one's life - not being friends with, boycotting, speaking out against, peer pressure - that kind of thing does make sense - oppose the intolerant - but suggesting that violence against the intolerant is justified on the grounds that the intolerant may themselves seek to do violence that they have not yet done is not rational.

[Brian Peacock]

The opinion that the rights and freedoms of others should be forcibly supressed should be forcibly supressed.

The opinion that the rights and freedoms of others should be forcibly supressed should be forcibly supressed to defend the rights and freedoms of all.

I have to disagree. Many Muslims believe that the freedoms of others should be forcibly suppressed. Should their views be forcibly suppressed? Should Islam be forcibly suppressed - many people think Islam is itself a totalitarian and fascistic belief system.

Many communists think counter-revolutionaries should be forcibly suppressed - should Communists be forcibly suppressed?

No "opinion" should be "forcibly" suppressed. Attempts to forcibly suppress should be forcibly suppressed.

Also, not everything a "Nazi" or "alt right" person says involves forcible suppression. If a person is alt-right, and they are not in the process of advocating forcible suppression of the beliefs of others, should they be forcibly suppressed or punched? Like if they are just shopping in the supermarket? Just because someone else thinks they might hold views that would advocate forcible suppression, they should be forcibly suppressed?

And,YOU are advocating the forcible suppression of opinions. By your logic, others would be justified in forcibly suppressing you, because you are advocating forcibly suppressing the opinion of others that forcibly suppress viewpoints.

And some leftists go even further, just declaring that right wing views in general harm people - harmful opinions - that "other" people - and that "disregard the humanity" of other people - and some of those leftists think that such views should be "forcibly suppressed." So, wouldn't I be justified, by your logic, in punching that leftist? Forcibly suppressing him?

The logic of being intolerant (by force) of intolerance fails -- it's not rational. It makes no sense. Being intolerant in one's life - not being friends with, boycotting, speaking out against, peer pressure - that kind of thing does make sense - oppose the intolerant - but suggesting that violence against the intolerant is justified on the grounds that the intolerant may themselves seek to do violence that they have not yet done is not rational.

Why is Islam a special case?

Why must we tolerate the forcefully intolerant?

Under what circumstances is the forceful suppression of the rights and freedoms of others tolerable?

[Hermit]

The law protects as all. And, equal protection of the laws is fundamental.

Those who deny equal protection regardless of race as a matter of policy are not entitled to tolerance.

[Seabass]

It's apropos of the post to which I responded, where someone is cheering on the physical assault and battery of another person for the sole reason that the criminal doing the assaulting does not like the victim's opinions. He's a bad man. He deserves it. Cheer on the violence. Yes!!!

But, the left wingers will not be pleased when the Devil can turn round and be just as free to assault those that they can now claim to be defending themselves from....

"I had to punch that leftist - look at how he/they assault anyone they think are too right wing...."

The law protects as all. And, equal protection of the laws is fundamental.

If we disregard that - if we throw that away - we are left with arbitrary clash of power. Who do you think will with that battle?

Meanwhile, mass-murdering Neo-Nazis are out shooting up black churches, mosques, synagogues, but that's all small potatoes...

[Brian Peacock]

Potatoes are a social construct...

[Forty Two]

It's apropos of the post to which I responded, where someone is cheering on the physical assault and battery of another person for the sole reason that the criminal doing the assaulting does not like the victim's opinions. He's a bad man. He deserves it. Cheer on the violence. Yes!!!

But, the left wingers will not be pleased when the Devil can turn round and be just as free to assault those that they can now claim to be defending themselves from....

"I had to punch that leftist - look at how he/they assault anyone they think are too right wing...."

The law protects as all. And, equal protection of the laws is fundamental.

If we disregard that - if we throw that away - we are left with arbitrary clash of power. Who do you think will with that battle?

Meanwhile, mass-murdering Neo-Nazis are out shooting up black churches, mosques, synagogues, but that's all small potatoes...

Oh, you mean people are complex, and many cowards can also be bullies? If you believe that's not possible, there is a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

And, you mean two things can exist at once? A person can be against violence committed by neo-Nazis, AND against violence committed by non-Nazis against people they think are Nazis or they think might in the future commit wrongful acts?

You post a meme about "Schrodinger's Lefitst" and you apparently claim that if I'm against neo-Nazis shooting up churches, I must be all in favor of Leftists having free reign to assault anyone they believe harbors Nazi or fascist or alt-right viewpoints (even if not having committed a crime).

We aren't a vigilante society - so, even if a person was to murder someone else, that person is not an outlaw, open to retaliation at will. I.e., if black men murders several people for reasons of black nationalism, or for reasons of economic necessity, or for unknown reasons, that does not mean it's open season on black men. If Communists murder several people for reasons of advancing their revolution, or for other or unknown reasons, that does not mean it's open season on Communists - and it's not even lawful to just hit them.

That's why when a mass murderer can be captured, he's captured. We don't authorize the police or common citizens just to shoot them or beat them.

The same is true for those you or others think are neo-Nazis or fascists. Although some of them commit crimes, and some of them even advocate in favor of crime (even violent crime), that does not mean it's open season on anyone engaged in that ideology or adhering to that ideology.

I don't care if you're sad about it - and you don't have to care about that person - or even that you laugh about it. A lot of conservatives laugh when criminals get their "due," and a lot of conservatives laugh when people of ideologies they dislike get harmed in some way. The "liberal" view on this sort of thing, though, is that punishment of crime is for the criminal justice system, which presumes innocence and requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt - and that even criminals have rights -- and that even criminals have free speech rights - and that we don't punish people for their thoughts and words - and that we certainly do not support vigilante justice.

Your view, apparently, is not the liberal one. You have a right to it - even though you support private justice - vigilante justice - and you support hitting (at a minimum) people who express repugnant views - I hold the liberal view that you have every right to think that way, and to express your view that it should be lawful to do those things. I disagree with you, for reasons stated. Go on now, if you like, and support your view that vigilante justice is a good thing, when meted out against the people you think are hateful.

[Forty Two]

Potatoes are a social construct...

Did you just assume the species of that plantae?

[rainbow]

Potatoes are a social construct...

Only in Peru.
...and the tea is made from coca leaves.