The right to upset others

[Nancy Allen``]

Knew it, you can't prove your claims otherwise you would have done so already. I take a moral stand om what I consider wrong, of course, but never have I considered myself above the law.

[ET Warrior]

Knew it, you can't prove your claims otherwise you would have done so already.

What claims? I don't recall him MAKING any claims that you then came back and debated against. In fact, all of your posts in this thread seem to ignore what everyone else is saying and go off on random tangents about flaming or gods know what else.

[Nancy Allen``]

On the contrary, I replied to Prime, you, Tot and Rogue Nine, took in and agreed with what was said. As for Mace he claims that I go off screaming that I get offended every chance I get. He hasn't been able to prove it.

[Prime]

To paraphrase Vader (this is a SW forum, afterall): Don't be too proud of the moral loophole you've constructed/cited, al. Any or all speech could ultimately end up as an incitement to violence (mother jokes, general name calling, etc..)

But that wouldn't be direct, would it.

 

Still, using the atheism example, an atheist's claim of moral imperative to lead people away from the wrong conclusions about the (non)existence of God/gods leads me to think of the expression "the blind leading the blind" or to paraphrase it for the purposes of this discussion... the delusional leading the deluded.

As Al pointed out, athiests have no imperative to lead others away from religion, although there may be some who decide to try to do so. Athiests simply don't believe in deities and things of that nature. They actually tend not to attempt to lead others away from religion because they usually do not spend much effort even thinking about such issues, and have "moved onto other things". Usually the only time athiests tend to debate or oppose religious folk is when the latter expresses their views in some public arena (e.g. they should teach creationism in public schools).

 

Just because you can use any and all means to defeat your opponent doesn't mean you should.

This language implies something that I think is incorrect. A debate should not be viewed as an attempt to "defeat your opponent". That makes it a personal thing. A debate should focus on the topic and arguments being presented. If someone takes it as a personal fight all they are likely going to do is become offended and angry because they will feel they are being attacked personally, when that really isn't the case.

 

Is it really worth the hatred you will surely recieve for acting this way? Not only do you upset those you target, others not involved might react the same way and anyone reading such inflammatary posts will think 'well this guy's a jerk'.

If someone gets upset after you respond to their argument with factual points, then that is their problem. You can't spend your life worrying that someone somewhere might possibly be affended by one of your points. If you do, you will never say anything. All you can do is act in a respectful manner. How others will react to that is out of your hands.

 

Especially face to face when, as Tot pointed out, someone could pull a knife or a gun if you catch them on a bad day. The police take provocation into account, someone who has their head kicked in for calling a woman a 'black bitch' can't expect much recourse. I know that if someone called me a whore they'd end up in the hospital, if they're lucky.

But there has to be an expectation of a reasonable response. While it is wrong to call someone an "a--hole", that doesn't give someone the right to drop a bomb on their house. There is still some level of responsibility as to the response of the recipient of such things. It is not open season.

 

Should people be allowed to have diffirent tolerance levels?

Sure. And it is important for each of us to know what our own levels are, and then avoid places where we know those levels will be exceeded.

 

Of course having a thick skin is pretty much a must but, for example, would if be offensive to call an Atheist a bigot? Just because it is an accurate way of describing them doesn't mean they won't get upset being labelled as such.

It isn't offensive to call and athiest a bigot if they actually are one and you show them to be with evidence. If they do take offense, that again is their own problem. Sometimes the truth hurts. The proper response is to either accept the criticism or respond to the points raised with evidence of their own.

 

Also some handy hints from Andrew Heenan. Now this is for flaming but I think we can apply it equally to debate as well.

 

Refuse to be Silenced: Accuse your opponent of attempting censorship, even though its probably a tad of an exaggeration. It is your right to post whatever you want to the net, even tasteless, obscene or boring notes. On the other hand, you might stop for a moment to consider your audience's right not to be upset, insulted or bored.

I disagree. I don't think these points apply to debating. It is not about personal attacks and making exaggerated, unsubstantiated claims. It is not about who loses their temper or cracks first.

 

As for flame wars, if someone start one with me I will respond in kind.

No you won't.

 

On the contrary, I replied to Prime, you, Tot and Rogue Nine, took in and agreed with what was said. As for Mace he claims that I go off screaming that I get offended every chance I get. He hasn't been able to prove it.

Mace and Nancy, if you have a private issue with each other, use the PM system. If you have an issue with a post, use the report post button. Otherwise, drop it.

[Totenkopf]

]Insulting someone's mother does not constitute "active, specific and direct incitement to violence".

 

Wrong as usual, al. When's the last time you insulted someone's mother to his face. Besides, are you saying that yelling the "n" word in a crowd of blacks or "Israel rules!" at a Hamas rally would not be specific and direct incitements to violence? To argue otherwise is fairly obtuse.

 

Priest of religion "X" telling his followers: "all those who do not follow our religion are evil heretics and should be killed! Those who kill the evil ones will surely find their way to heaven!!11" does qualify. The boundaries are quite clear and easy to see. If you tell someone that they should go out and do violence, that's direct incitement to violence. Everything else... from mother jokes to politically dissident speeches... should be protected under the law.

 

Frankly, saying "Go out and kill the infidel" is a much better example of a DIRECT incitement than the arguably vague example you give.

 

That's exactly the problem that we're currently discussing, Tot. It's a problem exemplified by religious people who wish to stop others from speaking factual truths, because they've decided to arbitrarily "feel offended".

 

As usual,al, you demonstrate a penchant for stating the obvious Fact is, you aren't speaking factual truths and even seem to recognize such when you resort to expressions like "default position" or "working definition". These are expressions which attempt to frame the debate on terms favorable to your position, not necessarily the truth.

 

......Utterly mind-boggling.

 

The only thing mind boggling is your consistent assertion that the term "deluded" has only a neutral connotation. Sadly, on the subject of religion, you've only combated other people's "delusions" with your own. End.

 

I shall interject here and point out that while there no doubt are atheists who wish to "convert" religious people, I am not one of them and never have been. I have no interest in "leading people away" from any conclusions. I debate using factual truths, because I wish to find the truth and to prove the truth. For myself. Nothing to do with theists or their reactions, either positive or negative.

 

This is unfortunately the biggest self delusion of all that you consistently hold to. If you are merely disabusing, from your pov, the delusions of others for yourself, then you would NOT need to post your pov everytime someone stated a position you didn't agree with, especially if it's not addressed to you. The fact that you posted your position once would suffice, but that would even be overkill, as you do not need to post your pov if it's only for your own edification.

 

....is nothing to do with conjecture. It is a default position pending evidence. It is the same position we adopt regarding giant invisible cucumbers hovering over our houses. They MIGHT be there... but until a scrap of evidence suggests their existence we are all a-giantcucumberists.

 

As ever, you confuse that default position with "fact". Otherwise, I don't disagree with the sentiment "Show me...."

[Windu Chi]

Besides, are you saying that yelling the "n" word in a crowd of blacks

That will count as a ass whipping, for the one who says that.

That will not be very wise.

[Nancy Allen``]

Being miserable and treating other people like dirt is every New Yorker's God-given right. Pick where this came from and you get a cookie.

 

This language implies something that I think is incorrect. A debate should not be viewed as an attempt to "defeat your opponent". That makes it a personal thing. A debate should focus on the topic and arguments being presented. If someone takes it as a personal fight all they are likely going to do is become offended and angry because they will feel they are being attacked personally, when that really isn't the case.

 

That's good advice to share. Things that are said on the Internet are taken too much to heart. Still I believe we should fight against what we see as wrong.

 

If someone gets upset after you respond to their argument with factual points, then that is their problem. You can't spend your life worrying that someone somewhere might possibly be affended by one of your points. If you do, you will never say anything. All you can do is act in a respectful manner. How others will react to that is out of your hands.

 

Well, I've said a lot of things, even some that pushed the line, all the while thinking about how people might react to my comments. Otherwise you'd get something like 'you're a ****wit if you vote for the Jews being wiped out'. I work to make my point without upsetting others, if they do anyway, or if the few times I do make upsetting comments (such as a reply to the celebration of deaths in Iraq) tough.

 

Besides which, you do want people to read what you write don't you? They won't if they think poorly of the person who wrote it.

 

But there has to be an expectation of a reasonable response. While it is wrong to call someone an "a--hole", that doesn't give someone the right to drop a bomb on their house. There is still some level of responsibility as to the response of the recipient of such things. It is not open season.

 

It shouldn't end like that. An arguement over money shouldn't end in murder. A spat between a father and daughter shouldn't end with her being shot in the back so that the father could keep her all to himself. But it happens. And what about all the anti war and government protests that turn violent? That's not an indictment on those who attend them, it's an example of the cause and effect that happens despite the fact that it shouldn't.

 

Sure. And it is important for each of us to know what our own levels are, and then avoid places where we know those levels will be exceeded.

 

When the fight is taken to them, say if something about a person is discovered and it keeps being brought up in off topic discussion, what then?

 

Mace and Nancy, if you have a private issue with each other, use the PM system. If you have an issue with a post, use the report post button. Otherwise, drop it.

 

Well it's amazingly petty to bring up claims of what I was meant to have said months ago, so I consider the matter truely dropped.

 

Wrong as usual, al. When's the last time you insulted someone's mother to his face. Besides, are you saying that yelling the "n" word in a crowd of blacks or "Israel rules!" at a Hamas rally would not be specific and direct incitements to violence? To argue otherwise is fairly obtuse.

 

That will count as a ass whipping, for the one who says that.

That will not be very wise.

 

I think this is known as asking for it. Go ahead, go to Foss Park or Rucker with a white supremist attitude, see what happens.

[Prime]

Wrong as usual, al. When's the last time you insulted someone's mother to his face. Besides, are you saying that yelling the "n" word in a crowd of blacks or "Israel rules!" at a Hamas rally would not be specific and direct incitements to violence? To argue otherwise is fairly obtuse.

Again, that is still not a direct comment to incite violence. While you may be correct that such a response is likely, in terms of free speech that is still not direct. And a violent response is still wrong.

 

Frankly, saying "Go out and kill the infidel" is a much better example of a DIRECT incitement.

Exactly. This is a different scenario as far as free speech is concerned.

 

Being miserable and treating other people like dirt is every New Yorker's God-given right. Pick where this came from and you get a cookie.

Ghostbusters 2? I like chocolate cookies!

 

It shouldn't end like that. An arguement over money shouldn't end in murder. A spat between a father and daughter shouldn't end with her being shot in the back so that the father could keep her all to himself. But it happens.

But that doesn't make it right, does it? Just because someone was wrong to say something, that doesn't give the recipient the right to give a violent response.

 

When the fight is taken to them, say if something about a person is discovered and it keeps being brought up in off topic discussion, what then?

In the case of a forum such as this, a simple reporting of the post is sufficent. Then it is up to the moderators to deal with that situation.

 

I think this is known as asking for it. Go ahead, go to Foss Park or Rucker with a white supremist attitude, see what happens.

Again, does that response represent what is right?

[Nancy Allen``]

Nup, and nup, though in the latter case if you wanted to be on the news being killed is one way.

[Spider AL]

Wrong as usual, al.

Hmm. It's certainly within the realms of possibility that I am "usually wrong", but that would rather beg the question: "If I, Spider, am wrong so often, why has Totenkopf failed to demonstrate that I am wrong... even once?"

 

It's a puzzler.

 

When's the last time you insulted someone's mother to his face.

Late 2004, I believe.

 

In all seriousness, that was a ludicrous question, with no relevance to any of the points that have been brought up during the thread.

 

Besides, are you saying that yelling the "n" word in a crowd of blacks or "Israel rules!" at a Hamas rally would not be specific and direct incitements to violence? To argue otherwise is fairly obtuse.

Prime has addressed this, but it's worth pointing out again... You seem to be seriously confused about the nature of "direct incitement to violence", versus "behaviour that might conceivably lead to violence".

 

Walking around at about eight o' clock in a bad part of town might well result in violence being visited upon one. Insulting someone's mother might result in violence being visited upon one. Do either of these things qualify as "direct incitement to violence"? Of course they don't. Direct incitement to violence is when the nefarious perpetrator directly tells & encourages others to commit violent acts.

 

Everything but direct incitement to violence should be protected as free speech under the law. That includes insults and obscenity. I don't like insults or obscenity... but I will fight to protect other people's rights to be insulting and obscene. That's what free speech is. Freedom.

 

Frankly, saying "Go out and kill the infidel" is a much better example of a DIRECT incitement than the arguably vague example you give.

Anyone attempting to argue that the example I gave (if you kill infidels you'll be rewarded beyond your wildest dreams) was in ANY way vague... would fail miserably.

 

As for your example, "go out and kill the infidel" is another good example of direct incitement.

 

As usual,al, you demonstrate a penchant for stating the obvious

I always state the obvious. That's why it's always so surprising to me that folks like yourself try to argue against the obvious, everyday truths that I post.

 

Fact is, you aren't speaking factual truths and even seem to recognize such when you resort to expressions like "default position" or "working definition". These are expressions which attempt to frame the debate on terms favorable to your position, not necessarily the truth.

Such expressions are an attempt to frame the debate in terms of logic and rationalism. As I am a rational person, I suppose you could say that these terms are "favourable" to my rational position... but such a comment would be redundant, as a rational position is the only valid position by definition.

 

The term "default position" is a simple one. It merely describes the position that a rational man must adopt when there is zero evidence to suggest the existence of a thing. If there is zero evidence to suggest the existence of a thing, a rational man must have zero belief in the thing. He will act in the world as if the thing does not exist. Because belief of ANY strength requires evidence, if one is being rational.

 

Thus, atheism is the default position. Because there is zero evidence to suggest the existence of god(s). It's that simple. There's nothing particularly difficult to understand about it.

 

As for the term "working principle", it's once again a simple rationalist term. As rational men we must be quite clear with ourselves and others about the fact that we (and all others) cannot be 100% certain about ANYTHING in life. Anyone who is peddling a 100% certainty (such as religious people) is deluded and/or lying.

 

Thus, all we have in the world is a set of working principles. Even the things that we are most sure about in the world: "I won't fall through the earth, it will hold my weight" and "the sky is blue"... these things are merely working principles by which we can function in the world. Again, very simple.

 

The only thing mind boggling is your consistent assertion that the term "deluded" has only a neutral connotation. Sadly, on the subject of religion, you've only combated other people's "delusions" with your own. End.

Spare us the straw men, Tot. Nobody has said that the word deluded "has only neutral connotations". Only you have said this.

 

To be deluded is undoubtedly negative. I would hate to delude myself the way religious people do. But does the fact that being deluded is a negative thing make the word "offensive"? Of course it doesn't. It's a technical term for "holding unfounded beliefs" The reason certain people don't like to hear it is because they don't WANT to be made aware that their world-view doesn't make any kind of sense. It's insecurity.

 

I mean, you've been calling me "deluded" throughout this thread, but I don't mind. Since you haven't provided any cogent arguments to back up your claim that I'm deluded, the claim is spurious, and could be regarded as merely an attempt to be offensive... but frankly, it's not as if you're insulting my mother.

 

This is unfortunately the biggest self delusion of all that you consistently hold to. If you are merely disabusing, from your pov, the delusions of others for yourself, then you would NOT need to post your pov everytime someone stated a position you didn't agree with, especially if it's not addressed to you. The fact that you posted your position once would suffice, but that would even be overkill, as you do not need to post your pov if it's only for your own edification.

Well that's sheer nonsense Tot, and you clearly haven't been absorbing the things I've been posting. The POINT of logical debate is that it is a crucible in which falsehoods are burned away. I continually debate, because one day someone may come and shatter my arguments with superior logic.

 

It's not happened so far. But if I were to say to myself "Right, I am 100% sure I have the truth now, I will stop debating because there's nothing anyone else can teach me"... it'd be sheer arrogance. And I'm not arrogant. I want to prove truths in debates. And I will continue to do so as long as the opportunity is afforded me, because I know that there's always room for refinement in my world-view.

 

As ever, you confuse that default position with "fact". Otherwise, I don't disagree with the sentiment "Show me...."

Once again, you clearly don't understand what the term "default position" means. It means that if there is no evidence to suggest the existence of a thing, one should lack belief in that thing totally. Nobody but you is confusing anything with "fact". The fact is that there are no "100% facts"... but a state of zero evidence is as CLOSE to a fact as one can get in issues of the non-existence of things.

 

Like when we state that the sky is blue... that's a fact. But even these things we regard as immutable facts contain within them a tiny tiny possibility that they are NOT in fact... facts.

 

-

 

It shouldn't end like that. An arguement over money shouldn't end in murder. A spat between a father and daughter shouldn't end with her being shot in the back so that the father could keep her all to himself. But it happens. And what about all the anti war and government protests that turn violent? That's not an indictment on those who attend them, it's an example of the cause and effect that happens despite the fact that it shouldn't.

Here you seem to be saying (rightly) that violent responses are not morally justified. But earlier you said:

 

I know that if someone called me a whore they'd end up in the hospital, if they're lucky.

Well... which is it? Do you agree with the use of violence in response to... mere words? Or not? I honestly can't find a single consistent point in any of your posts in this thread. You seem to contradict yourself in every successive post.

[Nancy Allen``]

Well I would, and I make no apologies about it. If that makes me amoral or inconsistent go cry to someone who cares about it.

[Spider AL]

Sigh, once again I'm going to have to try to decipher a post.

 

Well I would, and I make no apologies about it. If that makes me amoral or inconsistent go cry to someone who cares about it.

Well you would? Well you would what?

 

IF you are saying that you would respond to a mere verbal insult with physical violence, then yes, arguably that DOES make you amoral in this respect.

 

It most certainly makes you inconsistent.

 

As for "crying to someone who cares"... That's just a childish comment, and it deserves no attention.

 

If however you meant something different by "well I would", then please enlighten us as to what you meant.

[Nancy Allen``]

It is wrong to act that way but I consider it justified, the same as I would if someone made anti semetic comments and something happened to them. Don't like it? Too bad. Childish? Awww, that childish is it, am I acting immature? Waah waah, tough.

[Spider AL]

It is wrong to act that way but I consider it justified

No Nancy, violence in response to verbal insults is EITHER wrong... OR it is justified. It cannot be both. Which is it?

 

the same as I would if someone made anti semetic comments and something happened to them.

So now you're saying it's "ok" if people are violently attacked for making racist remarks? I don't like racism, but it's not moral to beat people up because of their beliefs.

 

Don't like it? Too bad. Childish? Awww, that childish is it, am I acting immature? Waah waah, tough.

Your comments are just getting ever more childish. Don't you have any desire to be mature in debate? To seek the truth honestly, wherever that search might lead you? If not, it's a shame.

[Nancy Allen``]

I fully support doing the wrong thing for the right reasons. Such as? Kicking in the head of a racist. And as I said before the police force take the idea that someone who was assaulted because of comments they made have little recourse. An example, one sleezebag was trying to pick up this black woman, she turned him down, he made racist comments and copped a bloody nose for it. He wanted to lay charges, which the police said that it was within his right to do, but given what led to the assault his chances weren't good.

[Spider AL]

I fully support doing the wrong thing for the right reasons. Such as? Kicking in the head of a racist.

The expression "doing the wrong thing for the right reasons" means when you have good intentions but mistakenly do the wrong thing.

 

"Kicking in the head of a racist" just because you don't like their beliefs... is just plain wrong. No "right reasons" involved.

 

Anyone who would do such a thing is merely an amoral, violent criminal. End of story.

 

As for your example of the man who wished to press assault charges... It's not relevant. The police routinely make judgements based on the law and on the likelihood of securing a conviction, but not based on morality. The woman in your story was NOT justified in resorting to physical violence just because the man called her a name. Whether the police decided to press charges or not is irrelevant to the moral question.

 

If someone calls me a racist name, do I have the right to resort to physical violence? Of course not. Nobody does. Physical violence is ONLY justified when your life/health or the life/health of another is endangered by a criminal, to defend your property from a criminal or to restrain a criminal following the commission of a crime until the police arrive.

[Nancy Allen``]

Using that logic, attacks on Israel would be wrong then. Or are they an exception?

[Spider AL]

Ugh...

 

Nancy, I've always said that bomb attacks on Israeli civilians are wrong. What's your point?

[Windu Chi]

"Kicking in the head of a racist" just because you don't like their beliefs... is just plain wrong. No "right reasons" involved.

 

If you don't beat the ass of a racist, your death maybe the result in the next encounter, if you have my brown skin color.

You must put these people in their place or that will be the last error you will ever make, if you don't.

[Nancy Allen``]

I propose that it is immoral not to take action in these situations.

 

My point is that by rights Israel is not allowed to retalliate against Palestinion terrorists if it's wrong, and that means they get away with their acts. How moral is that?

[Vaelastraz]

If you don't beat the ass of a racist, your death maybe the result in the next encounter, if you have my brown skin color.

You must put these people in their place or that will be the last error you will ever make, if you don't.

 

Now that's a bit exaggerated huh? Besides, IF you "beat the ass of a racist" you're actually MORE likely to trigger yet another violent act. The racist will not merely shrug your beating off will he?

 

@Nancy: I think noone claims that you must not take action. There are alternatives to physical violence you know.

[Windu Chi]

Now that's a bit exaggerated huh?

That isn't an exaggeration, it's the straight facts.

If you don't whip their ass you will end up DEAD, next time.

You must beat them so bad, that you make them wish to their God, that they never had cross you.

Simple as that, Vaelastraz.

Besides, IF you "beat the ass of a racist" you're actually MORE likely to trigger yet another violent act. The racist will not merely shrug your beating off will he?

All these people understand is violence.

The people who didn't familiarize these racist scum to an ass whipping, are DEAD now.

Taking the nonviolent route, will give you the shortcut to your grave, thats what that stupid choice will do for you; if your skin color is brown.

Race fueled murders are still with us in the U.S., they aren't history yet people.

[Spider AL]

I propose that it is immoral not to take action in these situations.

Your "proposal" is irrelevant, since no-one is suggesting that "no action should be taken". Merely that disproportionate violence is NOT a valid response, and is NOT the correct action.

 

My point is that by rights Israel is not allowed to retalliate against Palestinion terrorists if it's wrong, and that means they get away with their acts. How moral is that?

The problem with Israel's policy is that it doesn't just "retaliate against Palestinian terrorists". Instead, Israel kills massive numbers of innocent Palestinian civilians, imprisons massive numbers of innocent Palestinian civilians, persecutes the Palestinian people in almost every way imaginable... and this is not a justified nor proportionate response to attacks on Israelis by a minority of violent terrorists.

 

If Israel "just retaliated against Palestinian terrorists" I don't think people would have such a problem with its actions.

 

-

 

If you don't beat the ass of a racist, your death maybe the result in the next encounter, if you have my brown skin color.

You must put these people in their place or that will be the last error you will ever make, if you don't.

I'm loth to respond, but for the sake of completeness I shall... This comment is nonsense, it is completely devoid of any logic and totally disregards reality.

 

It assumes:

 

1. That all racists are violent, but not only violent, they are all violent enough to KILL!

2. That beating up a racist will not trigger a violent backlash from the racist's friends or family.

 

Both assumptions are ludicrous in the extreme.

[Windu Chi]

I'm loth to respond, but for the sake of completeness I shall... This comment is nonsense, it is completely devoid of any logic and totally disregards reality.

You know Spider, I wasn't expecting you to respond.

 

Do you assume everything is nonsense ?

I don't know what la la land you're living in but these racist scum don't use logic, they aren't rational.

Racism is what is nonsense, Spider.

 

 

 

It assumes:

 

1. That all racists are violent, but not only violent, they are all violent enough to KILL!

The majority of them will kill my brown ass given the chance, but I'm not assuming all them will kill.

I'm saying, that violence will most likely ensure your survival, when dealing with scum like this.

 

2. That beating up a racist will not trigger a violent backlash from the racist's friends or family.

I don't give a rats ass about a backlash from their friends or family, if they want a war they will get one.

 

Both assumptions are ludicrous in the extreme.

Being nonviolent is ludicrous to the extreme.

[Spider AL]

Since you aren't being at ALL logical in your responses Windu, I will reply to you once more... and that will be all.

 

I don't know what la la land you living in but these racist scum don't use logic, they aren't rational.

Again, nonsense. Just because racists are irrational on the subject of race... doesn't mean they "don't use logic". Like religious people, racists may be irrational on one issue, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't perfectly logical in every other area of their life.

 

The majoriy of them will kill my brown ass given the chance, but I'm not assuming all them will kill.

"Majority" or "all", either way you're obviously incorrect. There are innumerable racists in the world, white racists, black racists, asian racists... Only a TINY proportion of them are violent people.

 

I'm saying, that violence will most likely ensure your survival, when dealing with scum like this.

Again, sheer nonsense. You have heard the term "revenge attack", I presume?

 

I don't give a rats ass about a backlash from their friends or family, if they want a war they will get one.

Ugh, Windu, in the beginning you stated that the reason you'd beat up any given "racist" would be to safeguard your own life. Now you're saying that you don't "give a rat's *ss" if your violent actions cause a backlash that might similarly threaten your life?

 

Are you out to protect your own life, or are you out to start trouble that might RISK your own life? Make your mind up.