[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: How to act in self defense - concealed carry saves the day

From: Razer <g2s AT riseup.net>
James A. Donald asked a stupid question:

>> why the brass knuckles and the many-on-one odds?

>I can't speak for the participants but quite simply any way you kill a
>nazi is a good way. They think people they target are subhuman. So they
>earn subhuman treatment from the people they target.

Uh, where do I start?  When you say, "...a nazi...", how do you define a nazi?  And is it a person who actually claims to be a 'nazi', or merely somebody that you, yourself, have labelled "...a nazi"?

You've described one of their (you claim) faults:   "They think people they target are subhuman"...    So, you are labelling them as being attackable because of what "they think..."?    That's their freedom of thought you are objecting to, even if you are right.  And you also referred to "people they target...".   What do you mean by "target"?  Actually physically attack?  Or people they openly criticize?  Or people they simply don't like?   Sounds like you're saying you want to physically attack people merely for thinking different thoughts than you, right?

If they are actually actively physically attacking people (as opposed to defending themselves), that sounds like it is unjustified, so you may go ahead and defend the people attacked.  But somehow, I don't think that was what you intended to limit yourself to.

Does it occur to you that if, as you claim, it's okay for a person to attack another simply because of what they THINK, or merely say, that somebody reading what YOU say here might very well come to the same conclusion:  That it's okay to attack (kill?) you simply because you say it's okay to attack people solely because of what they thought or said.

I think the term "slippery slope" comes to mind.  

"And saying that makes the potential victim just like the victimizer is a
logical fallacy. It's also a sociological fallacy that someone peaceful
whose existence is threated"

Depends a lot on what you define as "...whose existence is threated [sic]"   Is your very existence threatened merely because somebody calls himself "a nazi", or "a fascist", etc?    Is your existence threatened merely because YOU call them those names?

" by someone whose violent will continue to be
violent after the threat from their victimizer is exterminated. Whereas
the victimizer... IF they're left to go about their way will simply
commit another act of violence against another victim their ideology
tells them is subhuman."

You are hypothesizing a series of continued attacks, without specific examples.  How often do such attacks actually occur?  And when they do occur, are they actually the fault of "a nazi" or "a fascist"?   Or, did they occur because somebody who didn't like nazis or fascists decided to attack the people they labelled as that?

A famous incident from 1979 was the "Greensboro Massacre",   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensboro_massacre    , where a group of KKK/Nazis drove past a protesting group of Communists.  The Communists attacked them with rocks and boards and guns as well, and the KKK/Nazis then retrieved their guns from their cars' trunks, and began to shoot the Communists.  It may be supposed that the KKK/Nazis expected to be attacked by the Communists, but I don't think that absolves the latter of their obvious guilt in that situation.   

I also see a problem with the labels nazi and fascist.  I strongly suspect that people who heavily use those labels use them merely to refer to others who are:
1.  Conservative or very conservative.     AND
2.   People they desire to attack.    (It's much easier to attack people if you can lump them with other people whose guilt or undesirability is already establlished.)

So, is there any reliable way to distinguish a mere "conservative" from a "fascist"?

   fas·cism     ˈfaSHˌizəm/     noun      an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
    • (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

But that seems to be a circular definition:  It refers to "right-wing", but doesn't explain why (other than common usage) "fascism" is thought to be "right wing".   
I was under the impression that 'traditional' fascism involved government control (but not ownership) of the means of production.  But Socialism, I thought, amounted to heavy taxation of the means of production, which is tantamount to government control, too.  And Communism might simply be labelled a form of extreme Socialism.  So why isn't "fascism" merely seen as being another form of "Socialism"?

I am well aware of the "Nolan Chart",  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart       and the World's Smallest Political Quiz.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_Smallest_Political_Quiz       

Together, they illustrate that 'dictators of the right' and 'dictators of the left' tend to approach a Nolan score of (0/0): Both don't believe in economic freedom, nor do they believe in social freedom.  That would certainly explain why conditions in dictatorships of the left look remarkably similar to dictatorships of the right.

Stop thinking that you can justify physically attacking people just because they have thoughts, or express ideas, that you don't like.  Lest they decide that it's okay to do the same thing to you.  "Golden Rule".

            Jim Bell