4 ms·
Yes, but the point is that you should be targeting the idea, not the person. That doesn't mean that what you do can't affect the person, only that you shouldn't
by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
Yes, but the point is that you should be targeting the idea, not the person. That doesn't mean that what you do can't affect the person, only that you shouldn't do anything that affects the person beyond what is necessary to defend tolerance.
So, you enforce that gay people can marry, but you don't go after people who oppose gay marriage for their opinion.
- jonahx 8y agoSure, I agree with this. > you shouldn't do anything that affects the person beyond what is necessary to defend tolerance. This is the tricky part. What if violence is necessary? You can claim it should always be a last resort, and I'd agree. But you can't claim that it's never necessary.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y agoI don't think I did claim that? Yeah, it might well be necessary, sure. In particular, when someone is themselves using/threatening to use violence to prevent you from doing something that doesn't harm them. But the point is you (or rather, the state) then apply/ies as much violence as is necessary so that you can do what you have the right to do, but you don't beat them up to teach them a lesson. Or rather, if you do punish them in this scenario, you punish them for their use of violence, not for their idea.
- jonahx 8y agoThen we agree.