|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
|
|
What are the acceptable conditions for violence?
|
On July 24 2019 02:02 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2019 00:32 JimmiC wrote:On July 24 2019 00:14 brian wrote:On July 23 2019 23:56 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2019 23:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 23:51 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2019 23:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 23:29 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2019 13:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 13:07 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
A lot of people have "trouble understanding your answers" because telling people where to go read does not answer your opinion on something. And if you can't explain it yourself, you probably don't have a firm grasp on it. I can explain myself fine and it's pretty much down to you and zero lodging this complaint with any vigor. You're probably going to find this hard to believe, but you post a ton and I'm not really going to dig through it a millions times. What you could easily say is "I believe that we need to do X with Israel and Palestine and if it doesn't work we will keep trying or do this. Not "if it doesn't work violent revolution or "voluntary relocation". And if you do believe that great, no more need to discuss, I would likely agree, and you won't need to keep referencing it. But if you do want one, man up and explain who are the targets and how the new world order will actually operate, at a high level. Who will make decisions? How will they be chosen? What will happen to those who disagree? Just the basics. It's never that easy with you. But being the US politics thread my basic position is that the US should stop arming and funding Israel immediately. If it's the Palestinians that are the problem it seems to me Israel should be anywhere else and the problem is solved. After all, many Jews died because they didn't want to leave Germany in the first place.
It seems a voluntary relocation of Israel and future settlements into Germany alleviates the conflict and surely Germany would welcome them. Though if not Germany, certainly the US could take them in and eliminate the conflict without committing genocide. If Israel decided to expand it's borders within the US I'm sure the US wouldn't mind. I vaguely remember that (the link to it's context would be helpful), it was me articulating options other than genocide of Palestinians that people declared inevitable so we might as well stop thinking of alternatives iirc. Hence the "eliminate the conflict without committing genocide.". It was also supposed to be tongue in cheek satire. I was using socialist class to describe those who claim to have socialist values to mask their authoritarianism and get uninformed people from other countries to support him by claiming vast conspiracies. Examples would be Maduro and his Government. NK government, China but lessor now since they have mostly stopped pretending to be socialists, people like Stalin and so on.
Kwark pointed out one reason he thinks this is silly but now that I know what you mean I'm not understanding your question? Was Che Guevara part of the socialist class? Castro? Black Panthers? Is there a threshold of authoritarianism that separates the "socialist class" you're talking about and genuine socialists (whomever you deem them to be)? With "capitalist class" you can reference Marx or the article I provided if you want details, where can I go for more people talking/info about "the socialist class" as you're describing them as a "class" Is it just nations/nations leaders that are part of the "socialist class" or "the people in the uniforms from other countries supporting them in response to claims of vast conspiracies" part of the "socialist class" too? Who makes decisions for the "socialist class"? just the basics ya know? It's just one term you (seem to have created?) used and it still isn't clear what you're talking about. I would suggest it's because it's something you've recently constructed in your mind whereas capitalist class or Bourgeoisie (whichever is clearer to you) is a term with over a century of work on defining just who it is and why, the words I'm using and the meanings they carry don't originate from me, in part because then you end up doing things like you did with "socialist class". Which is making up a term to describe a grouping that you haven't even clearly set out the boundaries of in your own mind, let alone considered the faults of such reasoning. I have made up a word just for this site too btw, raycism (EDIT: dawned on me that not having to use it recently is a significant mark of progress imo), so I'm not expecting more from you in creating a word/term than I asked of myself. You mean you want more details? You don't just want me to throw out terms and make bold proclamations? Go figure. This is my big issue with you in general. You expectations for what others should do is completely different from how you view what you need to do. I don't have a problem with you using terms I'm unfamiliar with, it's just if you made them up and they appear to be a misnomer there's not really anywhere to go if you don't describe them (since you made it up rather than pulling it from more than a century of scholarship like mine). That is a difference, but I'm not sure it is a distinction. Because it is a very wide swath of people that you have said needs to be removed, if not willingly (which you say won't happen) violently. Then I say "so this means killings of millions?" and you say no. But there are millions in the Capitalist class. So there is some sort of logical failing here. I try to get you to walk me through it and you say I need to read 100's of years of writing. Which I'm not going to do because it still won't get me from violently removing this group of millions, without killing millions. It's really tiresome that you keep assigning me positions I haven't taken and seem to have zero accountability for it. Stop saying that I've said a very wide swath of people must be removed (or quote it so I can clarify like the Israel thing that was clearly you misunderstanding the post). I haven't. Get that part right and the rest should fall in place. How about you clarify instead of just saying I'm wrong. It is not a hard thing to do on ones position. What do you mean by "violent revolution" or "bloody revolution"? Conversely if you don't want to explain what you mean simply stop bringing it up and so will I. that you are shoving words in his mouth with the expectation he defend them after also claiming, in your own words, that GH ‘expects more from others than he does himself’ is so glaringly hypocritical that i have second hand embarrassment. it is expected of you to do as much as you’re asking of him, in your very own words. put up or shut up. literally. Actually I'm literally answering every question he asks. And simply asking him to clarify his position. Not only has GH not explained how a violent revolution won't kill millions. Including millions of innocents no one else has. So if this is what you want that is the cost. Either own it or stop saying it. It is not difficult. Basically everyone else is saying "when he says he wants a bloody revolution so stop climate change he doesn't mean all these people die." What? Have you followed the logic through in this at all? You can't have an American violent revolution that doesn't kill millions, let alone a global one. It can't happen. So you have to say, I understand that Millions if not billions will die many of them innocent, but because I firmly believe that without this the world will die it is necessary. At that point you can get into the is it necessary, and will the Chemo kill the cancer. (in this case will the world war save the planet or kill it in the process). And then once the giant power vacuum exists how are you going to fill it with someone not like Stallin or Maduro? I think the right person to lead a violent revolution is porbably not the same person to lead to a new socialist world order at least how I envision it. + Show Spoiler +To my ideal, people keep working on educating and removing ignorance about all targets. We mobilize politically as a younger generation who has different values. We try to move every country to governments similar to what is in Scandinavia and study how and why their cultures work in these ways and try to replicate it. We stop trying to use force and violence to make peace. It doesn't work and continuing to push for it no matter how noble your thought at the end of the tunnel is, it basically never works and the cost of human life and suffering is not worth the risk that this time the new people who get power will be better than the old people (meet the old boss same as the new boss. The Who).I'm a firm believer in checks and balances in Government because the enemy isn't capitalism or communism the enemy is authoritarianism and corruption. GH: I'm calling for a non-violent revolution with the acceptance that the entrenched Capitalist class will inevitably respond to this with violence, and thus advocate a willingness to fight in defense of the revolution. JC: WHEN WILL GH DEFEND HIS CALLS FOR VIOLENT, BLOODY REVOLUTION? I WANT TO KNOW WHO IS LEADING THIS REVOLUTION (THAT HE DEFINITELY IS ADVOCATING FOR) IMMEDIATELY!!! GH: I... never said that? JC: YES YOU DID! DEFEND THIS IMMEDIATELY AND STOP DODGING!!!! ALSO WHAT IS A CAPITALIST ANYWAY??? That's what the last few pages have been, JC. You consistently demanding GH defend things he never said, and refusing to explain when he 'did'. You're doing the exact same thing people on the Far Right do to force people on the left to defend things they've never said either.
I feel like I need to step in here. I'm pretty sure the millions dead meme started from me when i accused GH of this being a natural result of what he was advocating for when he said "abolish the police" before we got him to admit that he wasn't actually for that in any way shape or form but didn't see any use for having law enforcement in any shape or form. That millions would die as society broke down from the resulting crime wave while people somehow managed to recreate the police but with extra steps was a position he ended up supporting.
GH is not the guy you should be window dressing. He is inherently for advocating for vague morally justified positions and considers the pragmatic reality as beneath him. That people take his arguments seriously instead of him making assertive statements is their prerogative to call him out on.
|
|
|
On July 24 2019 03:37 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2019 02:58 Nebuchad wrote:
What are the acceptable conditions for violence? I'm not advocating for it so my opinion is pretty irrelevant , but that is the question that I am asking GH, perhaps he will answer you.
I'm naively thinking that if I can get you to see you advocate for violence when you think it's appropriate, just like everyone else does, maybe you'll drop this crusade that you're on.
One of the main purposes of political ideology is to identify the acceptable targets of violence.
|
On July 24 2019 03:42 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2019 03:37 JimmiC wrote:On July 24 2019 02:58 Nebuchad wrote:
What are the acceptable conditions for violence? I'm not advocating for it so my opinion is pretty irrelevant , but that is the question that I am asking GH, perhaps he will answer you. I'm naively thinking that if I can get you to see you advocate for violence when you think it's appropriate, just like everyone else does, maybe you'll drop this crusade that you're on. One of the main purposes of political ideology is to identify the acceptable targets of violence.
I think if the past few pages have demonstrated anything, it's Jimmi's ability to cling on to dead horses.
On July 24 2019 02:50 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2019 02:02 iamthedave wrote:On July 24 2019 00:32 JimmiC wrote:On July 24 2019 00:14 brian wrote:On July 23 2019 23:56 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2019 23:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 23:51 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2019 23:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 23:29 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2019 13:34 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I can explain myself fine and it's pretty much down to you and zero lodging this complaint with any vigor.
[quote]
It's never that easy with you. But being the US politics thread my basic position is that the US should stop arming and funding Israel immediately.
[quote]
I vaguely remember that (the link to it's context would be helpful), it was me articulating options other than genocide of Palestinians that people declared inevitable so we might as well stop thinking of alternatives iirc. Hence the "eliminate the conflict without committing genocide.". It was also supposed to be tongue in cheek satire.
[quote]
Kwark pointed out one reason he thinks this is silly but now that I know what you mean I'm not understanding your question? Was Che Guevara part of the socialist class? Castro? Black Panthers? Is there a threshold of authoritarianism that separates the "socialist class" you're talking about and genuine socialists (whomever you deem them to be)?
With "capitalist class" you can reference Marx or the article I provided if you want details, where can I go for more people talking/info about "the socialist class" as you're describing them as a "class" Is it just nations/nations leaders that are part of the "socialist class" or "the people in the uniforms from other countries supporting them in response to claims of vast conspiracies" part of the "socialist class" too? Who makes decisions for the "socialist class"? just the basics ya know? It's just one term you (seem to have created?) used and it still isn't clear what you're talking about. I would suggest it's because it's something you've recently constructed in your mind whereas capitalist class or Bourgeoisie (whichever is clearer to you) is a term with over a century of work on defining just who it is and why, the words I'm using and the meanings they carry don't originate from me, in part because then you end up doing things like you did with "socialist class". Which is making up a term to describe a grouping that you haven't even clearly set out the boundaries of in your own mind, let alone considered the faults of such reasoning.
I have made up a word just for this site too btw, raycism (EDIT: dawned on me that not having to use it recently is a significant mark of progress imo), so I'm not expecting more from you in creating a word/term than I asked of myself. You mean you want more details? You don't just want me to throw out terms and make bold proclamations? Go figure. This is my big issue with you in general. You expectations for what others should do is completely different from how you view what you need to do. I don't have a problem with you using terms I'm unfamiliar with, it's just if you made them up and they appear to be a misnomer there's not really anywhere to go if you don't describe them (since you made it up rather than pulling it from more than a century of scholarship like mine). That is a difference, but I'm not sure it is a distinction. Because it is a very wide swath of people that you have said needs to be removed, if not willingly (which you say won't happen) violently. Then I say "so this means killings of millions?" and you say no. But there are millions in the Capitalist class. So there is some sort of logical failing here. I try to get you to walk me through it and you say I need to read 100's of years of writing. Which I'm not going to do because it still won't get me from violently removing this group of millions, without killing millions. It's really tiresome that you keep assigning me positions I haven't taken and seem to have zero accountability for it. Stop saying that I've said a very wide swath of people must be removed (or quote it so I can clarify like the Israel thing that was clearly you misunderstanding the post). I haven't. Get that part right and the rest should fall in place. How about you clarify instead of just saying I'm wrong. It is not a hard thing to do on ones position. What do you mean by "violent revolution" or "bloody revolution"? Conversely if you don't want to explain what you mean simply stop bringing it up and so will I. that you are shoving words in his mouth with the expectation he defend them after also claiming, in your own words, that GH ‘expects more from others than he does himself’ is so glaringly hypocritical that i have second hand embarrassment. it is expected of you to do as much as you’re asking of him, in your very own words. put up or shut up. literally. Actually I'm literally answering every question he asks. And simply asking him to clarify his position. Not only has GH not explained how a violent revolution won't kill millions. Including millions of innocents no one else has. So if this is what you want that is the cost. Either own it or stop saying it. It is not difficult. Basically everyone else is saying "when he says he wants a bloody revolution so stop climate change he doesn't mean all these people die." What? Have you followed the logic through in this at all? You can't have an American violent revolution that doesn't kill millions, let alone a global one. It can't happen. So you have to say, I understand that Millions if not billions will die many of them innocent, but because I firmly believe that without this the world will die it is necessary. At that point you can get into the is it necessary, and will the Chemo kill the cancer. (in this case will the world war save the planet or kill it in the process). And then once the giant power vacuum exists how are you going to fill it with someone not like Stallin or Maduro? I think the right person to lead a violent revolution is porbably not the same person to lead to a new socialist world order at least how I envision it. + Show Spoiler +To my ideal, people keep working on educating and removing ignorance about all targets. We mobilize politically as a younger generation who has different values. We try to move every country to governments similar to what is in Scandinavia and study how and why their cultures work in these ways and try to replicate it. We stop trying to use force and violence to make peace. It doesn't work and continuing to push for it no matter how noble your thought at the end of the tunnel is, it basically never works and the cost of human life and suffering is not worth the risk that this time the new people who get power will be better than the old people (meet the old boss same as the new boss. The Who).I'm a firm believer in checks and balances in Government because the enemy isn't capitalism or communism the enemy is authoritarianism and corruption. GH: I'm calling for a non-violent revolution with the acceptance that the entrenched Capitalist class will inevitably respond to this with violence, and thus advocate a willingness to fight in defense of the revolution. JC: WHEN WILL GH DEFEND HIS CALLS FOR VIOLENT, BLOODY REVOLUTION? I WANT TO KNOW WHO IS LEADING THIS REVOLUTION (THAT HE DEFINITELY IS ADVOCATING FOR) IMMEDIATELY!!! GH: I... never said that? JC: YES YOU DID! DEFEND THIS IMMEDIATELY AND STOP DODGING!!!! ALSO WHAT IS A CAPITALIST ANYWAY??? That's what the last few pages have been, JC. You consistently demanding GH defend things he never said, and refusing to explain when he 'did'. You're doing the exact same thing people on the Far Right do to force people on the left to defend things they've never said either. Maybe that is what you are reading because of you own bias's about me and GH. But what I am saying is that if you constantly reference the violent revolution you are going to get their really quick. This is why I always ask what are the triggers to have this violence that you feel justified? Who would be the targets? What would you do after the revolution with the dissenters? And so on. Also, I hope the irony of you thinking I'm putting words in GH's mouth and you actually literally doing it to me is not lost on you.
I'll add 'irony' to the list of concepts you don't understand.
I have no bias towards either of you. I do like GH but I've had blazing rows with him. I've been entirely neutral towards you for a very long time and I'm only on you now because you're shitting up the thread in spectacular fashion.
You're asking nonsense questions. GH has said that he advocates for non-violence revolution with the willingness to defend itself. Logically, then, the 'trigger' for violence would be violence, no? There's no 'targets' involved; it's defend against those who attempt to use violence (if violence should be used).
And you immediately go into the 12 step plan nonsense. GH is not required to provide you a full, detailed plan for the revolution. This is the defense that's used against XDaunt and other right wing posters' accusations in this thread constantly by Democratic posters, and it is valid. You aren't required to have all the answers. If you had them you'd be in politics, not talking about politics on a forum. This is fairly obvious.
I'm not especially interested in forum fights and I'm very uninterested in your personal vendetta against GreenHorizons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On July 24 2019 03:59 JimmiC wrote:
Direct questions are not offensive, and even though IamDave was clearly trying to get me riled up I just answered his questions. I'm also very aware that I don't always do this, and that when I am person B in the scenario I do a terrible job of not just being an ass back to whoever I perceived to be an ass. But what I am saying is that if you want to post things here, especially things that are not the status quo be ready and willing to defend them. That is the point of discussion. Most of the people getting most offended and worked up are the same people that say they don't want a echo chamber.
No, I wasn't actually. I was trying to get you to see sense and calm the fuck down instead of constantly trying to make GH answer for things he's never advocated for. I can't be bothered to quote mine the nonsense you've posted over the past few pages but there's plenty there.
The problem isn't that you're challenging GH, the problem isn't that you 'want a discussion', the problem is that you make unfounded accusations about things GH has said and then relentlessly insist he answer your unfounded accusations.
I mean, you were asked to provide a quote to back up some of your more outlandish accusations almost a page ago. Where be the evidence, or where be your retraction?
If you're truly all about discussions, surely it won't hurt to admit you got carried away and made accusations you can't support? Right?
|
On July 24 2019 04:04 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2019 03:42 Nebuchad wrote:On July 24 2019 03:37 JimmiC wrote:On July 24 2019 02:58 Nebuchad wrote:
What are the acceptable conditions for violence? I'm not advocating for it so my opinion is pretty irrelevant , but that is the question that I am asking GH, perhaps he will answer you. I'm naively thinking that if I can get you to see you advocate for violence when you think it's appropriate, just like everyone else does, maybe you'll drop this crusade that you're on. One of the main purposes of political ideology is to identify the acceptable targets of violence. I realized that was you goal. My goal is to get you to realize that everyone's threshold for where it becomes acceptable for violence is different. Also, the acceptability of violence happening to the unintended targets. This is not the same for everyone and it completely changes the point. There is also very different levels of violence. There is punching someone, there is beating the crap out of someone, there is using force confine someone, there is killing someone, there is killing large groups of people. What specifically are you after and I'm happy to answer.
I do realize that, yes, thanks. I probably wouldn't need to ask you what the acceptable conditions for violence are if I thought everyone had the same threshold.
I'm after an answer to the specific question I asked. What are the conditions in which violence is acceptable, according to you?
|
|
|
|
|
On July 24 2019 04:44 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2019 04:11 Nebuchad wrote:On July 24 2019 04:04 JimmiC wrote:On July 24 2019 03:42 Nebuchad wrote:On July 24 2019 03:37 JimmiC wrote:On July 24 2019 02:58 Nebuchad wrote:
What are the acceptable conditions for violence? I'm not advocating for it so my opinion is pretty irrelevant , but that is the question that I am asking GH, perhaps he will answer you. I'm naively thinking that if I can get you to see you advocate for violence when you think it's appropriate, just like everyone else does, maybe you'll drop this crusade that you're on. One of the main purposes of political ideology is to identify the acceptable targets of violence. I realized that was you goal. My goal is to get you to realize that everyone's threshold for where it becomes acceptable for violence is different. Also, the acceptability of violence happening to the unintended targets. This is not the same for everyone and it completely changes the point. There is also very different levels of violence. There is punching someone, there is beating the crap out of someone, there is using force confine someone, there is killing someone, there is killing large groups of people. What specifically are you after and I'm happy to answer. I do realize that, yes, thanks. I probably wouldn't need to ask you what the acceptable conditions for violence are if I thought everyone had the same threshold. I'm after an answer to the specific question I asked. What are the conditions in which violence is acceptable, according to you? Why are you interested in mine and not GH's? I ask because apparently me asking him is offensive. Or are you OK with being offensive to me, but offended by your perception that this is offensive and I'm asking GH? And I will answer you.
I'm not interested in yours, I want to make a general point about violence and political ideologies and I plan to use your answer as a conduit to make it. I don't require GH's answer to make it because a) I know his answer already and b) he is presumably already familiar with the point I want to make, so there would be no point in me asking him.
|
I'm just hoping I'm not supposed to have to go back and respond to all that nonsense to avoid getting banned but can't get a definitive response from moderation.
To that effect if there was a question for me somewhere in there that hasn't been asked and answered by myself and others feel free to ask it otherwise just continue with the others.
Could you at least tell me if you recognized your mistake on the Israel thing though?
For some background I barely had more than a warning and a few 2 days before JimmiC came along, then I kept getting mistakenly banned and or shortened bans once investigated slightly. The few bans I got that weren't mistakes or overzealous were not as bad as people make them sound.
I'm perfectly okay with my mod notes being released, and or compiling all my bans and reasons if people are going to keep insisting I have such a bad mod history.
|
On July 24 2019 03:59 JimmiC wrote:
To be honest I'm not sure why so many people get upset for asking for clarifications of their position.
Yeah it's not like people had already told you why. How could you know, poor thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On July 24 2019 06:37 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2019 04:50 Nebuchad wrote:On July 24 2019 04:44 JimmiC wrote:On July 24 2019 04:11 Nebuchad wrote:On July 24 2019 04:04 JimmiC wrote:On July 24 2019 03:42 Nebuchad wrote:On July 24 2019 03:37 JimmiC wrote:On July 24 2019 02:58 Nebuchad wrote:
What are the acceptable conditions for violence? I'm not advocating for it so my opinion is pretty irrelevant , but that is the question that I am asking GH, perhaps he will answer you. I'm naively thinking that if I can get you to see you advocate for violence when you think it's appropriate, just like everyone else does, maybe you'll drop this crusade that you're on. One of the main purposes of political ideology is to identify the acceptable targets of violence. I realized that was you goal. My goal is to get you to realize that everyone's threshold for where it becomes acceptable for violence is different. Also, the acceptability of violence happening to the unintended targets. This is not the same for everyone and it completely changes the point. There is also very different levels of violence. There is punching someone, there is beating the crap out of someone, there is using force confine someone, there is killing someone, there is killing large groups of people. What specifically are you after and I'm happy to answer. I do realize that, yes, thanks. I probably wouldn't need to ask you what the acceptable conditions for violence are if I thought everyone had the same threshold. I'm after an answer to the specific question I asked. What are the conditions in which violence is acceptable, according to you? Why are you interested in mine and not GH's? I ask because apparently me asking him is offensive. Or are you OK with being offensive to me, but offended by your perception that this is offensive and I'm asking GH? And I will answer you. I'm not interested in yours, I want to make a general point about violence and political ideologies and I plan to use your answer as a conduit to make it. I don't require GH's answer to make it because a) I know his answer already and b) he is presumably already familiar with the point I want to make, so there would be no point in me asking him. But it is interesting to me and very many others because we don't know. Why does what is interesting to you have more value than what is interesting to me. I would also like to make the point that based on the way you are reacting, along with basically everyone else calling me out on this, telling me that I need to give the benefit of the doubt. Are you giving me the benefit of the doubt or are you assuming the worst of me? I mean many of you are already assuming I'm white, I know GH has made that assumption and "accused" me of it many times. Would it change your opinion of what I have been saying if you found out that wasn't the case? I am not mad at anyone for making the assumptions they have, because I understand they have made them based on what I have posted. I am trying now through direct communication and not being angry or frustrated to show that those assumptions are faulty. How am I doing? If not well what could I do different? If nothing then what is the point of this? It would not be discussion it would be a bunch of people telling others what they "know to be true" and being mad at others when they don't agree with out the willingness to have those truths be challenged. I'd rather wait to answer because I would hope that you would than ask GH and he would clearly answer but it would likely just lead to a follow up question which he wouldn't so I will just answer you. Generally I think it is fine to resort to violence if you or a family member is in immediate danger of violence. And I think the amount of violence you should return is not equal to what was brought on you or more, but rather the minimum that is required to stop the violence that is coming at you. I have different beliefs when it comes to sport and mutually agreed upon combat.
JimmiC, he -specifically- said he was NOT INTERESTED in a thing, and your rebuttal is "Why does what is interesting to you have more value than what is interesting to me."
I haven't had the time to go over this thorougly, but I feel as though you need to (in general) be a little more careful in your reading. This doesn't come to mind as the first time minor misunderstandings have come from you - and that isn't to suggest that you're the only one to do it, just recognize that it can be frustrating to deal with in debate.
Make sure the person is saying the thing you think they are saying before you jump to the next point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
