I think my concern applies to that situation as well.

I think the disconnect is that I don't view violence as having any moral component in itself. Where as some people view violence as being immoral in nature.

Even if there are some unhinged activists who are nipping at the bit to commit violence as soon as someone says something they find disagreeable, a speaker can't be held responsible for such a third party even if such outliers are not themselves moral agents.

I'm surprised to hear that. You would say that a mugger who kills another person without provocation is immoral, would you not?

If so, what does he do immorally other than violence?

If violence is used to defend something good then it is a moral act. If it is used to defend something evil then it is an evil act. But the violence itself has no moral value/nature.

A mugger attacking someone unprovoked is acting in an immoral way towards him. If an onlooker then used violence on the mugger the onlooker would be morally justified and that violence would be celebrated.

I think we have very different conceptions of what violence is. Violence isn't something that defends; it's something that destroys. Perhaps the best defense is a good offense but if so it does not absolve the offense of its nature.

Destroying things that are evil or immoral is morally good.

I suppose the way I would phrase is that violence is immoral unless justified. There is no such thing as morally neutral violence.

That is to say, it is impossible to disentangle violence from its moral component.

If its immoral UNLESS justified thats just another way of saying that justified violence is not immoral; which is essentially the same thing that Im saying.

The difference is that your statement frames violence negatively while I frame it neutrally.

Then one of us hasn't communicated the core of his meaning because it is the opposite of what I think you said.

Eating a cabbage is a morally neutral act. It is neither a good thing nor a bad thing but merely an expression of personal preference.

Violence is never neutral. It is always righteous or vile.

Does that make the difference clear?

I disagree. Its not the violence itself that is the issue, its the ends that the violence serves that give it its moral character.

Violence is it's own end.

Its why we celebrate soldiers, whose purpose is to kill in defense of the nation.

If a bullet puncturing a heart is good or bad, pulling the trigger is likewise good or bad.

yeah violence has more impact

so when you're misusing the word to use your own meaning, you're stealing the impact of the actual word

and if someone misspells a word, that doesnt mean it's now spelled that way. they're just wrong. when you misuse the word, you're just wrong. not only that, but you're intentionally stealing the impact of the word violence while changing the meaning to suit your needs.

you're intellectually inconsistent on purpose

@Nyaboron I have explained EXACTLY what I meant so if you are still confused that's on you. You are so mad over something that is completely pointless. You are just not equipped to have this conversation.

So your argument is just to tell @Nyaboron that he is “not equipped to have this conversation “

Explaining what you mean isn’t defending the point you made. Just because you have rationalized something in your head doesn’t make you right

Lol @ hours long semantic arguments.

@Unironic Ohio Supremecist lol I wouldn’t have joined in but he called Nyaboron not equipped as like his mic drop

Lol.

is that a personal attack? hmmm

yeah that's his 2nd

he just keeps calling me stupid while he himself doesnt own a dictionary

he doesnt understand that I'm not confused by what he means, but that I'm calling him out on his degenerative misuse of the English language.

@Theo I have defended the point I made multiple times, but for whatever reason @Nyaboron is caught up on one word that I used. Funny how other people were still able to have a good debate but not him?

Because people recognize it for the political and emotional bullshitting that it is

@Nyaboron "you're intentionally stealing the impact of the word violence while changing the meaning to suit your needs.". Yes.

You sound like the Feminists who say looking at them is a sex crime

>Well it's not rape, but it's still a violation of my consent and bodily autonomy, so it's kinda like rape

@Nyaboron "you're intellectually inconsistent". Wrong.