3 ms·
“Should he be beaten with in an inch of his life? Yes.” No. No. Definitly not. Are you crazy?
by ugh 15y ago
“Should he be beaten with in an inch of his life? Yes.”
No. No. Definitly not. Are you crazy?
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- ugh 15y agoI don’t want to live in a society where unnecessary perilous violence is the norm. Is that a good enough reason for you?
- DannoHung 15y agoSo why do you support his right to make threats to undeserving people? Isn't the threat of violence injurious?
- tptacek 15y agoThis is a stupid debate and it should stop here. Nobody is beating anyone, no matter what the Internet tough guys say.
- ugh 15y agoYou are right. Casual threats of violence get me about as riled up as casual sexism so this was both a perfect storm and an overreaction on my part. I should have silently grumbled and ignored it.
- tekromancr 15y agoI don't think he was advocating /actual/ violence.
- ugh 15y agoWhile better than actual violence I also don’t want to live in a society where threats of violence are common. That seems like an irrational and barbaric way of solving problems. Violence is a tiny bit too serious for to just discount the threat of it as a nice rhetorical flourish.
- piccadilly 15y agoWell, a measured quantity of violence ('violence' being a very broad category) targeted at someone who is clearly causing harm is sometimes the only effective way of stopping a greater amount of harm. No-violence is clearly better, but assuming that (say) a rape is being committed, some degree of violence is a reasonable response to stop things from happening or deter other things.
- anigbrowl 15y agoNeither do the recipients of his harassment, I imagine. Let's not put the cart in front of the horse, here.
- godDLL 15y ago> I don’t want to live in a society where unnecessary perilous violence is the norm. I don't think that's going to change any time soon. Unless they legalize it, that is.