Preezy wrote:Read the last couple of pages with interest, I'm surprised that some of you still can't see what I (and Rightey) were getting at.
I believe in law and order. I wouldn't want to be walking down the street and suddenly get lamped by someone because I held a different political or religious or whatever belief from them. I think that should work both ways. If I see someone spouting hateful poison, I'm not going to punch them, I'm going to argue with them in a reasoned manner (or ignore them altogether if possible), because that's what civilised people should do. They may not be civilised, but you have to rise above it. Free speech of course shouldn't be consequence-free, if you say evil gooseberry fool then don't expect to be greeted with flowers (although that might actually work), but you should also be free to say what you think without getting physically assaulted by anyone, civilian or otherwise. So long as you're doing it peacefull/non-physically and not inciting violence you should be handled as such. If you start getting rowdy and aggressive/violent then it should be the authorities that dish out the punishment, not opposition protestors taking the law into their own hands.
Basically, treat others as you would llike to be treated.
And some philsophical thoughts for the day:
Michael Nyqvist, famous villain philosopher from John Wick antiquity - "Let us not resort to our baser instincts and handle this like civilized men..."
Friedrich Nietzsche - "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster."
Gandhi - "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind."
Personally I'd call punching evil in the face civilised.
You're not "fighting" monsters - you're sitting by passively proud of yourself for being so monster tolerant as they threaten the village.
Actually it wouldn't. It would leave one person blind and flailing and the other a Cyclops dodging.
Preezy wrote: I'm going to argue with them in a reasoned manner (or ignore them altogether if possible), because that's what civilised people should do.
That "if possible" is
incredibly telling as it means to you ignoring them is the most desirable outcome.
So despite presenting it as "don't punch them, fight them a different way" - in reality you're a coward who'd avoid even that engagement if possible. Walk on by...leave them to it.
it's very very easy to be so wishy washy and condescendingly smug when you're completely insulated from any consequences. (I don't think you realised what you're admitted with that "if possible")
If only there was some case in the last 70 or 80 years that showed tolerating and giving into Nazis wasn't a good idea.
Leave other people to be threatened and/or deal with the Nazis. How "civilised" of you.
You're not "principled" Prezzy, you're just privileged (at best. At worst you're a complete coward who wants other people to suffer as a price for getting to claim to be principaled).
I think everyone can see what you're getting at,
We're not talking some vaguely different opinion, or someone on a different political spectrum. We are talking evil.
But hey it doesn't affect you so you should (if possible) be allowed to ignore so can be free to spread, propagate and incite.
Out of interest what's your opinion of these two?
http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-usa-mu ... KKBN18N080They could have just ignored it and walked on by - and according to you that's the desirable outcome?
Got what they deserved for forcefully standing up to hate? (It's not Nazi's obviously - but interesting)
Would you be prepared to tell their families they shouldn't have got involved?
Or the Muslim women that they should have left her to it?