The right to upset others

[Nancy Allen``]

Today's wrong could be tomorrow's right and the other way around. That's the way it was with the treatment of black people, their mistreatment something that has always been wrong, and someone who stood up for the rights of others whether it be Martin Luther King or Mohammed Ali or some vigilante or something would have been condemned forty years ago now being hailed as a hero.

 

As for Vaelastraz's points, you're right there are non violent solutions, and depending on the type of people you're dealing with they work most effectively. And you're right, the actions Windu suggests not only can it cause further violence through retalliation but it can put the people involved in a negative light, for example portraying black people as gangster stereotypes. But in the case of racists looking for a fight, let's face it these people are cowards. I know for a fact these type of people scare easy, they can be scared and inimitated into lifting their game, and proven fact the police won't do it even when they try. Being shown they have no future if they continue on the path they've chosen? That could work. But Windu's tactics, on the right people, I know from experiance are hard to beat.

 

I'm not sure if the thread can go anywhere but downhill from here, you can lock it now.

[Tyrion]

Being nonviolent is ludicrous to the extreme.

 

It never did win India it's freedom.

[Windu Chi]

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

You think everybody us logic in the world, much to learn you still have.

Also you could have it ignored me in the first place, I don't care.

 

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.

Not everybody depend on a logic like a religion, like you do.

Say if I do follow your nonsense suggestion.

Then this possibilty may result: ~snipped~ OK, it's pretty darn hard to gross me out, but that's just blech. --Jae

Now is your suggestion nonsense ?

Death is the result when nonviolent with scum like this.

So, I don't care how you feel, but I have a deep hatred for scum like this.

Violence will be the action I take with this scum.

You aren't not brown so don't have this experience of racism, so you don't know what the hell you are talking about, logic man.

 

 

"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.

You need to come back to the real world Spider and leave that imaginary world where everyone is rational and strictly use logic.

[Prime]

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

For this, and all the rest of it, and past warnings, you are gone.

[Gargoyle King]

I believe in the freedom of speech.

 

 

So do i, as long as this doesn't go too far; controversial subject matter, abusive opinions etc.

[Hallucination]

I'm for the right to believe what you want to, as well as the right to express your belief, but I also believe in the right to live free from harassment. If your belief offends someone, it's his own problem, if you follow him around trying to offend him because his beliefs are different than yours, you're just being an ass.

[Nancy Allen``]

This is about the best description in this thread, mine included.

[Heavyarms]

HA's gonna add his .02:

 

I agree with Windu to some degree. I do agree most people that are strongly prejudiced against you WILL do you harm if they can get away with it. I happen to be Jewish. I believe a Palestinian or Arab that has a strong disposition against Jews would in a second would assault me or worse. In the same respect, if someone came up and started harassing me and was goading me into hitting them, I'm not sure I wouldn't hit em. I won't say any details, but if someone decided to be grossly offensive to me and get in my face he'd probably need facial reconstructive surgery. Because in all honesty, spouting that kind of stuff is evil.

 

As for expressing your belief, I have no problem doing it and I have no problem getting heated, just don't go overboard and start getting to be nasty or rude.

[Nancy Allen``]

And it may not be logical to act this way, but for a lot os us logic doesn't help us sleep at night, believing we do the right thing does. It'd be the same thing as some masked Guy Fawkes vigilante went up against an evil government, people should fight against these people. Otherwise it'll just keep happening, proven fact.

[Spider AL]

So do i, [believe in Freedom of Speech] as long as this doesn't go too far; controversial subject matter, abusive opinions etc.

Hang on a moment, you believe in freedom of speech... as long as people don't talk about controversial subjects? Surely you jest. So people can't talk about homosexuality, abortion, racism, war, politics?... all these things can be controversial. Sounds like madness to me.

 

-

 

I'm for the right to believe what you want to, as well as the right to express your belief, but I also believe in the right to live free from harassment. If your belief offends someone, it's his own problem, if you follow him around trying to offend him because his beliefs are different than yours, you're just being an ass.

This is absolutely correct. If someone were to "follow someone else around" merely trying to offend him/her... that might well be regarded as immoral behaviour.

 

Unfortunately, people sometimes accuse others of doing this when they're clearly not. For example, when one engages in a debate and puts forward an opinion that others don't like/are unable to refute, they sometimes resort to saying: "OMGZ you're just trying to offend me!!11" or something to that effect. In reality, this is just sour grapes. It's important to make the correct distinction.

 

-

 

I agree with Windu to some degree. I do agree most people that are strongly prejudiced against you WILL do you harm if they can get away with it.

Purely hypothetical nonsense, my friend. You seem to be implying that "if there were no law enforcement/punitive justice, most of the racists would be violent". And obviously you have no evidence nor proofs to back this claim up. In reality, there are many racists in the world, and only a tiny minority are violent people.

 

In the same respect, if someone came up and started harassing me and was goading me into hitting them, I'm not sure I wouldn't hit em. I won't say any details, but if someone decided to be grossly offensive to me and get in my face he'd probably need facial reconstructive surgery. Because in all honesty, spouting that kind of stuff is evil.

Hitting someone in the face so hard that they need corrective surgery, merely for saying something that offends you... that's "evil", presuming you're defining "evil" as "immoral".

 

In fact it's arguable that engaging in physical violence is as a rule MORE evil than simply saying unpleasant things.

 

-

 

And it may not be logical to act this way, but for a lot os us logic doesn't help us sleep at night, believing we do the right thing does.

"Doing the right thing" MEANS being logical, Nancy. To determine the morally right thing to do requires logical thought.

 

And furthermore, believing you're doing the right thing doesn't mean you're doing the right thing.

 

It'd be the same thing as some masked Guy Fawkes vigilante went up against an evil government, people should fight against these people. Otherwise it'll just keep happening, proven fact.

I don't know what relevance this movie/comic related tangent has to anything we've been discussing. Please enlighten me.

[Nancy Allen``]

Well you'd support V taking down the American government or the British government. To do otherwise would be amoral given the state it's gotten to. Yet his actions were far from right, they included kidnap, murder and brainwashing. Logically he should have gone to the police. Logically the government makes the rules. Logically doing the right thing means doing as you're told. But where does logic lie in a military state? Where the government is currupt? Where those who speak out are arrested? Furthermore, what is considered right and wrong varies, greatly, from person to person. How can you argue someone's logic when they are brought up to believe in justice? To not stand up against threats?

[Spider AL]

I don't know, nor do I care to know the story of 'V'. Please use arguments based on reality, rather those based on 'V', 'Star Wars' or any other movie.

 

And also... "logically doing the right thing means doing as you're told"... is nonsense. It makes no sense.

 

As for your "what is considered right and wrong varies" comment, it's irrelevant. What is right, is right, regardless of whether people recognise it or not. And using violence to shut people up when they're saying things that offend you (as you advocate) is NOT right. It is wrong. It is immoral, by ANY logical moral standard.

 

If someone says something that offends you and you hit them... you're not only just as bad as they are... you're arguably worse.

[Nancy Allen``]

That's cold comfort for those who have been persecuted and ended up committing suicide. Those who have been killed because no one stopped those who were doing the wrong thing such as making racist comments. Not only is it cold comfort it's completely amoral.

[Spider AL]

Haha! "News at 10: Hitting people saves lives".

 

Once again, you're assuming that your brand of violence is the only solution. There are plenty of ways of discouraging racist comments without resorting to vigilante violence and lynch-mob justice. Just because you WANT to hit people... doesn't mean you have a right to.

[Nancy Allen``]

And when non violent action doesn't work?

[Spider AL]

There are so many non-violent methods to try that it's hard to imagine that you'd exhaust them all and be left with no more non-violence left in the bag, Nancy.

 

I'm getting the impression that you WANT to hit people for merely verbally offending you... and are just looking for reasons to justify such an immoral act. There are no such reasons.

[Nancy Allen``]

Self defense, justice, I can think of half a dozen reasons. To suggest I go looking for a fight means you fall for the fallacy of Converse Accident, as well as a delusion.

[Spider AL]

Ahahaha. Self defence has NOTHING to do with the type of violence you're advocating, Nancy. Self defence is when you're being PHYSICALLY attacked, then you can retaliate physically. Self defence isn't "He's just called me a name, so I can hit him in the face and call it self defence".

 

Justice is societally sanctioned proportionate response. It is not revenge, nor escalation... which are the immoral things YOU'RE advocating.

 

As for your renewed accusations that my arguments are fallacious... once again, these fallacies do not apply.

[Nancy Allen``]

So, you can lable others as fallacious? But others can't lable you as such? This in itself is a fallacy, Special Pleading. You dress yourself up to make it appear that things do not apply to you, and furthermore what you don't think applies to you is then levelled at others. You can't have it both ways.

[Heavyarms]

There are so many non-violent methods to try that it's hard to imagine that you'd exhaust them all and be left with no more non-violence left in the bag, Nancy.

 

I'm getting the impression that you WANT to hit people for merely verbally offending you... and are just looking for reasons to justify such an immoral act. There are no such reasons.

 

Okay, since you believe that whole-heartedly... how would you have stopped Hitler? You see, history has taught me something: you need to be vigilent in your defense or you let other people push you around. The world isn't as nice as you're making it seem, Spider. Non-violent means do not have the ability in a lot of cases to be coercive. I don't disagree with you that non-violence should be a last resort, but trust me when I say that conflict is definitely never off the table and is the best coercive method to get what you want in the diplomacy playbook.

 

By the way, if most racists could get away with it, they would definitely maul someone to death. Lynch mobs were common in the South at several times. Several genocides have happened. Genocides are the result of racists gaining power. Same with ethnic cleansing. Do not tell me that racists aren't violent.

 

And yes, I would strike someone for saying something to me. Do you know what a racist says? Do you know how much it hurts? I bet you don't. I've had some very disgusting, egregious, and downright disgusting things said to me. Want to see how racists act? See the movie American History X. You just might learn something.

 

As for whether or not I'm evil for hitting someone, maybe I would be. But then again, I've never thought of myself as a heavenly saint. So, ya know, they come out looking for one, I'd make em regret it. Because you don't come out doing that unless you want one.

[Nancy Allen``]

Before I go I just want to reply to this specifically.

 

I'm getting the impression that you WANT to hit people for merely verbally offending you... and are just looking for reasons to justify such an immoral act. There are no such reasons.

 

If that was the case why are you still breathing? The answer is simple, because such claims are so much BS.

[ET Warrior]

So, you can lable others as fallacious? But others can't lable you as such? .

Were his posts guilty of fallacy then it would be fair to label them that way.

 

If that was the case why are you still breathing? The answer is simple, because such claims are so much BS.

Now this is new, are you honestly implying that the things Al has said in debate are enough to warrant murder? Or am I completely misreading your post...because I rather don't like the tone of it.

[Nancy Allen``]

Were his posts guilty of fallacy then it would be fair to label them that way.

 

Funny thing about those who always say something's irrelevent or doesn't apply to them, you can never believe a word they say.

 

Now this is new, are you honestly implying that the things Al has said in debate are enough to warrant murder? Or am I completely misreading your post...because I rather don't like the tone of it.

 

I don't blame you, as I don't like his implication that I would act in such a way. Short answer is that people may think of me as the butcheress of Abu Ghraib, a Nazi Stormtrooper, some torture for fun witch that has a photo of Palpatine by my bed. Not true, the photo is of Anakin. Seriously, murder over words happens often enough, we saw it with things like the Mohammed cartoons and such an act is going several steps too far, but he was the one who made the accusation. If I was looking for an excuse to harm others then he wouldn't be here, but I'm not. By saying he wouldn't be here if he was accurate in his accusations however I demonstrate it's fallacy. I may as well say that he enjoys the conflict, the vacarious thrill of bringing down others, for how much of a Converse Accident the comment is. Would I commit murder over words? Why would I bother? Do his words justify murder? Raise that with the people he targets. Do I think it justifies murder? It's barely worth a reply much less anything I might be accused of. Now, it might be quite harsh of me to make such comments, but it's the truth. You see fights break out over words all the time. If I was looking for a fight you could rest assured that I would have tracked down someone online, it's not hard. However I know better. Believe what you want to the contrary, but the facts speak for themselves, I had not lifted a finger to harm someone because of what was said online, nor would I. If it warrented it I would chase up those who had the athority to do something about it. Anything more than that however is just not worth bothering with.

[Spider AL]

Putting these rambling diatribes littered with straw-men aside, let's return to the facts.

 

1. Nobody is "accusing" Nancy of anything. Nancy has stated, quite specifically, that she advocates the use of physical violence- and would feel justified in using physical violence herself- against people who say things that offend her. And I quote:

 

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

QED.

 

2. An argument is either fallacious, or it is logical. There are strict definitions for fallacies, and none of the random accusations of fallaciousness that have been thrown around haphazardly during this debate apply to my arguments. End of story.

 

-

 

Okay, since you believe that whole-heartedly... how would you have stopped Hitler?

You must be joking. The Nazis murdered millions upon millions of people during their illegitimate wars and occupations. So of COURSE people were morally justified in defending themselves against the invading Nazis using physical force. That's "self-defence".

 

A guy who calls you a name on the street isn't "Hitler". He isn't an armed Nazi stormtrooper who has invaded your country. He's just an ignorant slob who has called you an offensive name. So do you have a right to smash his face in because he has offended you?

 

Of course you don't. That would make you worse than him.

 

The world isn't as nice as you're making it seem, Spider. Non-violent means do not have the ability in a lot of cases to be coercive. I don't disagree with you that non-violence should be a last resort, but trust me when I say that conflict is definitely never off the table and is the best coercive method to get what you want in the diplomacy playbook.

First, I've never suggested that the world is a nice place, nor even implied that it's CLOSE to being a "nice place". Therefore your assertion is meaningless.

 

Secondly I think you meant to say that VIOLENCE should be a last resort, not "non-violence". Non-violence is always the FIRST thing that the moral man resorts to.

 

Thirdly, physical conflict is not IN the "diplomacy playbook", because diplomacy by definition is not physical conflict.

 

Thirdly, the fact that violence "gets you what you want"... is irrelevant to the question of whether disproportionate violence is MORAL. And of course it isn't moral.

 

And yes, I would strike someone for saying something to me.

That's immoral. It's merely petty, self-gratifying vengeance. It has nothing to do with self-defence or proportionate justice.

 

Do you know what a racist says? Do you know how much it hurts? I bet you don't. I've had some very disgusting, egregious, and downright disgusting things said to me. Want to see how racists act? See the movie American History X. You just might learn something.

Heh. I'd rather rely on my first-hand experience of how racists act, than form my opinions based on a fictional movie. Thanks anyway.

 

Secondly, of course I've witnessed racism, and I've even been on the receiving end of some. It doesn't matter HOW much words hurt. If you choose to take it to the next level, the PHYSICAL level... that's YOUR responsibility alone. No words can "make" you crack someone in the face with your fist.

 

If one chooses to hit someone for saying something one doesn't like... one is acting like (and in fact is) a violent, immoral thug.

 

As for whether or not I'm evil for hitting someone, maybe I would be. But then again, I've never thought of myself as a heavenly saint. So, ya know, they come out looking for one, I'd make em regret it. Because you don't come out doing that unless you want one.

That's the same excuse violent people- muggers, wife-beaters etcetera- always give for their violent behaviour.

 

"He/She/It was asking for it".

 

It doesn't wash. It isn't moral. End of.

 

By the way, if most racists could get away with it, they would definitely maul someone to death.

Once again, the same, meaningless, hypothetical, unproven and unprovable blanket statement.

 

The fact remains that there are squillions upon majillions of racists in the world. And only a tiny proportion of those racists are violent people.

[Nancy Allen``]

So your point is what? You're upset that I wouldn't act this way now?

 

Doesn't matter. I invoke Godwin's Law. I win. Thread over, lock it.