>Yes. Semantics, what things mean. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_dispute what this expression means is

>Yes. Semantics, what things mean. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_dispute what this expression means is that you're arguing about the definition of the words rather than the facts that those words represent. again: this isn't a debate about the meaning of `violence` or `harm`. it's a debate about whether speech can physically affect people in negative ways. >These distinctions matter. Materially. i challenged you already: show me one sentence whose truth value is altered when `violence` is substituted with `intentional physical harm` (note the absence of physical force). >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_crime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_crime lol... "A violent crime or crime of violence is a crime in which an offender or perpetrator uses or threatens to use force upon a victim." >And no, incarceration isn't violence. Incarceration is incarceration, alright clearly you don't understand how to actually have discourse; hint it's a bit different from arithmetic. and just in case you still aren't sure then you can enlighten yourself by reading this http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/2708/ http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/2708/