Originally Posted by
Emily's Cat
You've supported the use of preemptive violence against people that you've decided are fascists. Not based on what they've done, but on what they've said. You have supported and lauded aggression and assault as an appropriate response to speech in order to stop "those people" from engaging in "that sort of" speech.
Again with 'preemptive', strawmanning the argument. And pretending that I decided anyone to be anything.
Quote:
What do you think your stance is? Please clarify.
Sure. After you support the 'preemptive' claim you make. It adds on a very different element, so I'm not inclined to let it slide.
Quote:
ETA: I'm basing my responses on these posts of yours:
All of these boil down to "Attacking people is wrong, unless you're attacking a 'fascist', then it's ok".
Only if you are predisposed to a conclusion. There are others you could reach with the same quotes, should you read without bias.