>>313442>I said the contrary and you've spent quite a bit of time disagreeing with me instead of discussing Antifa. We can change the subject any time you want.
Specifically, my position is that it's not your place to unilaterally decide what speech is harmful and then act upon it. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is the go-to example of harmful speech. Inciting a riot or imminent violence is another. Saying mean things you don't like doesn't automatically qualify, even if you really, really, really
don't like it. And if you want to prove to me that you're right, you need to argue your position and show how it's better than theirs and demonstrate why they're wrong, instead of trying to smash their face in because you don't like them. Thus, if you're using violence in politics, the assumption is that you've lost the argument by default, otherwise you wouldn't need to resort to violence, would you?
This is doubly true because many of the 'fascists' who have been beaten up by Antifa have literally nothing to do with the groups they protest, like bystanders on the street who just happened to have a T-shirt they didn't like. You don't get to just assume what people think, and then beat them up for it. It's not that difficult to understand. You aren't the good guy just because you claim to be antifascist.>"Imminent attack" being limited to other forms of physical violence, or could I interpret imminent attack as an attack on my rights through legislation?
Yes, specifically in regards to life, liberty, and property. But like I told Foxdude, the target matters. If you want to essentially become an insurgent wannabe freedom fighter, I can at least understand your rationale, whether or not I agree with it, even if I think it's not the best way to go about doing things. If, however, you choose to get your way through violence against the people themselves, well now you're just a piece of shit terrorist.>>If I think that I have a right to life and someone disagrees with that, then by definition, yes. Everyone has the right to defend their life with lethal force.>If it should follow that speech has consequences (as does the support of turning speech into action through voting), I could justify the assault of anyone who disagrees that I have a right to live. So if you support politicians that want to take that right away from me or my loved ones, I have every right to defend myself.
Your statement here is very convoluted.
First off, I have never heard someone put forth the notion that any citizen should be deprived of life, absent something like the death penalty for heinous crimes, so I literally have no idea what examples you could pull out of your ass for this, but I'm incredibly curious.
Second, even if you do find some fringe whackaloon who would like to see you dead, that doesn't mean that others agree with him. Specifically, you don't get to just pick people, claim they want to see you dead, and then assault them over it.
Third, even if they do want you dead, thought crime isn't a thing, so if they have taken no action and made no moves against you, you have no justification. The fact that someone doesn't like you doesn't mean you get to attack them.
Fourth, this is doubly true when you're just assuming they don't like you. You don't even fucking know. You're just assuming they want to see you dead, unless you've heard them personally say it.
Fifth, this entire notion is based on the idea that you can read their mind and know what they're thinking, and then attack them for it because you don't like it.
This sounds like some delusional bullshit.
This post was edited by its author on .