>words can be considered violent in some cases, for instance assault requires no physical contact they can be considered assault under very specific circumstan

>words can be considered violent in some cases, for instance assault requires no physical contact they can be considered assault under very specific circumstances but not violence, which has a meaning. >but don't accuse me of a false equivalence when what I said was literally true. your false equivelance is to equate the idea that some specific circumstances speech can be considered assault, therefore we must consider the idea that any words can be violence. it is on its face a false equivalence. Similarly one can declare that buying illegal goods can be a crime in specific circumstances, therefore a list of which items to not buy in a grocery store might reasonably also stop you from committing crimes, right? So now we can restrict what you can purchase anywhere because we can imagine a tangential and unrelated situation where exchanging money for a good might be illegal. And that is even a stronger case than one you made, because it at least says that illegal acts are illegal, rather than saying 'falls under the statute of assault in some jurisdictions' rather than actually arguing whether it is violence or not. It's a ridiculous false equivalence >Anyway, I can tell you are the type of person that even if you know you are standing on a bad position you will not back down, so I will go ahead and let you have the last word, which I am sure is going to be some kind of re-affirmation that it is my fault for making you act like this. Good day. I'm not acting like anything. I'm merely using your 'logic' on you. if speech can be violence in any case because it might be assault in a specific case, your speech can be violence, and you might make me a victim with your utterances and false equivalence. In fact your speech itself might not matter - only my feeling of fear from hearing it.