3 ms·

The value judgement that violence is itself vilified is a radical one. Extremist, even. Are you sure that's your position? Ultimately, if I enable violence by

• jancsika 7y ago
  > For example, if I listed off your address and your posts and offered a bounty of one million dollars for your ears? OP clearly sees a threat of violence as a threat of violence. OP is calling it a "call to violence" but that's hardly grounds for a substantive argument about the bounds of the concept of violence. > Under your stated view it'd be "dangerous doublespeak" to suggest this act is dangerous or violent. Note that you inserted the branch "dangerous or" with no explanation, increasing the likelihood of an irrelevant counterargument.
  • KirinDave 7y ago
    > OP is calling it a "call to violence" but that's hardly grounds for a substantive argument about the bounds of the concept of violence. Then why is the OP drawing the line there? I'm not making these examples up to be cute. I'm pushing within the boundaries they've drawn to point out how radical the position as stated is. > Note that you inserted the branch "dangerous or" with no explanation, increasing the likelihood of an irrelevant counterargument. Given the fact that it didn't substantially change or anchor any of my arguments, what does it matter. Oh, unless... Perhaps ... Speech can effect people and maybe constitutes action upon them? Is that what your suggesting? Huh.