4 ms·

The 9/11 attack was a mass murder event. Saying “America deserved 9/11” and “I’m okay with arsonists being killed by militias when the police can no longer mai

The 9/11 attack was a mass murder event. Saying “America deserved 9/11” and “I’m okay with arsonists being killed by militias when the police can no longer maintain the peace” are both moral statements about mass casualty events — but neither is a call to commit a violent act. > “if it takes someone committing mass murder to stop [serial arsonist gangs, when the police fail to stop them], it is justified” This is clearly a statement of personal ethics — it’s discussing the cases in which the speaker believes violence is just, not calling for specific acts of violence. I think you know that.

sudosysgen 6y ago
There is a difference between, "it can be justified", and "you have my blessing to do it". You're not going to be able to weasel your way out of the situation where someone gives their blessing to mass murder with a place and time in the future and not have that be incitement of violence.
- bopbeepboop 6y ago
  As you said: > This is Destiny saying that if it takes someone committing mass murder to stop property damage, it is justified. There's no two ways about it. “If [...], then justified” is an ethical statement — and as you say, there’s no two ways about interpreting it. You simply lack the intellectual honesty to admit your own summary of the statement plainly shows it’s an ethical statement, not an incitement to violence. You disagree with the statement, so you’re making emotional, inconsistent arguments to try discrediting it. The only person “weaseling” is you — who are contradicting yourself and refusing to address my points.
  - dang 6y ago
    We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our requests to stop. Please don't create accounts to do that with. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - bopbeepboop 6y ago
      What specific guideline did these comments break? I believe that you censoring in support of defamation (knowingly false claims an ethical statement is incitement) may incur liability for HN. Incitement has a specific legal meaning (which this is not). You seem to be directly supporting defamation on your platform, as an administrator.
      - dang 6y ago
        The personal attacks in your GP comment, for example, broke the guidelines egregiously. That should be obvious! If you want specific examples you could start with "Be kind" and "Assume good faith".
- dang 6y ago
  Please don't perpetuate flamewars on HN. It's not what this site is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

sudosysgen 6y ago

There is a difference between, "it can be justified", and "you have my blessing to do it". You're not going to be able to weasel your way out of the situation where someone gives their blessing to mass murder with a place and time in the future and not have that be incitement of violence.

bopbeepboop 6y ago
As you said: > This is Destiny saying that if it takes someone committing mass murder to stop property damage, it is justified. There's no two ways about it. “If [...], then justified” is an ethical statement — and as you say, there’s no two ways about interpreting it. You simply lack the intellectual honesty to admit your own summary of the statement plainly shows it’s an ethical statement, not an incitement to violence. You disagree with the statement, so you’re making emotional, inconsistent arguments to try discrediting it. The only person “weaseling” is you — who are contradicting yourself and refusing to address my points.
- dang 6y ago
  We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our requests to stop. Please don't create accounts to do that with. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - bopbeepboop 6y ago
    What specific guideline did these comments break? I believe that you censoring in support of defamation (knowingly false claims an ethical statement is incitement) may incur liability for HN. Incitement has a specific legal meaning (which this is not). You seem to be directly supporting defamation on your platform, as an administrator.
    - dang 6y ago
      The personal attacks in your GP comment, for example, broke the guidelines egregiously. That should be obvious! If you want specific examples you could start with "Be kind" and "Assume good faith".
dang 6y ago
Please don't perpetuate flamewars on HN. It's not what this site is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html