I mean all things - the severity of the words, the influence of the person, etc. We agree that words are sometimes crossing the line to where a violent reaction is morally justified (if not necessarily recommended or practical, ESPECIALLY in societies with a functioning government), we just disagree on where that line is drawn.
np, I get why people get heated over this, because I’ve certainly known my fair share of “Just asking questions” covert Nazis, but you always came off as simply genuinely convinced of a peaceful approach to things. In such matters, between two reasonably moral people, disagreement should be civil, even if the disagreement is severe.
I can conceivably get behind that. To clarify, by “scale” you mean the influence of the person doing the advocacy?
I mean all things - the severity of the words, the influence of the person, etc. We agree that words are sometimes crossing the line to where a violent reaction is morally justified (if not necessarily recommended or practical, ESPECIALLY in societies with a functioning government), we just disagree on where that line is drawn.
Looking back on the discussion, it seems to me that you’re right about that.
Consider me persuaded: The use of violence against nonviolent speech may be acceptable depending on the circumstances involved.
I appreciate that you maintained civility throughout this conversation, by the way.
np, I get why people get heated over this, because I’ve certainly known my fair share of “Just asking questions” covert Nazis, but you always came off as simply genuinely convinced of a peaceful approach to things. In such matters, between two reasonably moral people, disagreement should be civil, even if the disagreement is severe.