> 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 dr

> 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.