>person points gun at you
>shoot him
>self defense
>Nazi chants in your neighborhood
>punch him
>not self defense
Explain this Sup Forums.
The person pointing a gun has not committed an act of violence just like the Nazi so why are you allowed to shoot him, but not the Nazi?
>person endangering your physical safety
compared to
>person endangering your feelings
really makes you think
Because what he says cant hurt you, you retarded leftshit snowflake: you literally just evoked Bush's argument for pre-emptively attacking Iraq, you fucking idiot.
They’re both rational judgements about the future. Neither have yet attacked you. You can assume both pose a threat to you.
What’s the difference?
>Explain this Sup Forums.
>The person pointing a gun has not committed an act of violence just like the Nazi so why are you allowed to shoot him, but not the Nazi?
stix n stones
may break my bones
but words
WILL NEVER HURT ME
show me certified instance of a person dying from hearing another person's words
>mfw idiots can't tell the difference between a dangerous opinion and a deadly weapon
you cant be this fucking retarded. a gunpoint is a physical threat and is not protected under 1A and paltry verbal language is protected under 1A. Do i agree with it? no. But that doesnt mean it isnt free speech you clueless fuck.
>he literally just shot me with the word nigger
This is why the world is laughing at you right now.
I’m saying is we have to make a judgement whether or not it will inflict future harm and merit self defense.
You cannot know for sure whether a gun pointed at you is a physical threat, you can only make a judgement.
You cannot know if a Nazi is not a physical threat, you can only make a judgement.
Both are present judgements of the future,
It’s not the imminent threat of a shout that we’re judging it’s the future possibility of judgement based on his thoughts and beliefs.
Thanks TMNT
Now this will never be a reality
>niggers think they have to kill you because you talked shit
Maybe this is why nigger crime is multiples higher than other races, and why they don't belong in advanced white societies where people have protected free speech.
So why is it illegal to threaten to kill someone?
Why'd you punch him then?
What's that going to do?
If he's so dangerous you'd have to kill him
>I think muslims want to kill me
>muslim shows up at my door
>shoot the muslim in self defense
this is how stupid you sound.
Ok, let's assume you have a point; however, by your logic, the anti-goyim sentiments in the Talmud justify the pre-emptive extermination of all Jews, and the anti-white statements of black panthers and other radical afro-centrists justifies the extermination or expulsion of blacks from white countries. Are you still sure this is logic you want to endorse?
By that same logic, I should be able to shoot-up every SJW and cultural Marxist event near me, because I'm a white male.
Are they Islamic terrorist Muslims chanting Allahu akbar death to all Jews?
because there is literally one century of legal precedent backing up the fact that we're right
>going around pointing guns at people
vs
>saying shit about how whites are superior
these are two totally separate things
the only time it crosses the line is when Nazis openly argue for the extermination of the Jews and try to convince people to do it. then that's a call to action which is, legally, a crime.
>You cannot know for sure whether a gun pointed at you is a physical threat
What the fuck else could it mean you nong?
It's a gun not a fuckin birthday cake.
No. Jews never threatened anyone they only suffered under the holocaust.
>threaten to kill someone
That's kind of the irony of our times, isn't it: whites say "you will not replace us" and you hear "lets kill all the niggers", then you think you're justified engaging in violence. Most of you are two stupid to see the leap you've been indoctrinated to make, because you're more racist than any white person ever will be.
tfw you will never virtue signal so hard that you draw a ninja turtle punching hitler while screaming "for the millions!"
Well it could be unloaded and therefore not a threat. You’re making a judgement of a future event.
I remember these comics. They were set something like 10 years or so in the future with edgier, more adult versions of the turtles.
>No. Jews never threatened anyone
You dishonor Thoth with your lies, Schlomo.
fpbp /thread.
>Jews never threatened anyone they only suffered under the holocaust
Obvious bait thread.
>for the gorillions
2/10
C'mon buddy I just handed you a golden opportunity to crank the doublethink trolling up to 11 and you arsed it.
Israel doesn’t have enough nuclear weapons to destroy Europe.
Europe has enough nuclear weapons to destroy Israel.
Was everyone in the right wing rally calling explicitly for anyones death?
no. any muslim. a muslim comes to my door to preach about their religion and i shoot them in self defense because i think it will blow up.
Since they have exponentially more rallies, I fully support this.
OP you're a faggot btw. No (you). Just a sage.
Well it’s obviously wrong most Muslims are very peaceful people.
...
>person hits your car with a bat
>you run him down
>not self defense
Really jogging my noggin
>someone explicitly pointing a gun at you and threatening you
Vs
>you assuming what someone maybe wants to do who is not called for death
By your logic Eric Harris committed self defence because he thought the entire school was out to get him
>person intends to kill you
vs
>person speaks
The only time speech is limited is when you are literally, directly inciting violence. Not supporting a violent ideology. Not insinuating violence. Actually saying that individuals or groups of people should be harmed or killed. This does not mean that speaking about ideologies or their talking points is illegal. It means that if Joe is up on the podium speaking to a crowd of people, it would be illegal for him to tell them that they ought to kill Tyrone, or that they should go kill every nigger they see. However, Joe is free to say that he thinks all niggers should be killed, because Joe isn't actually going to kill all niggers.
The law is this: your speech must present an imminent and likely danger to violate the law. You cannot tell people to go rob the 7/11 on Main Street if it's likely that they will do it. You cannot tell Frank to shoot Bob if it is likely that he will do it. You can say that you're going to gas every Jew on the planet because it's pretty unlikely that's going to happen any time soon.
A Nazi is as much protected in his free speech as a Republican, Democrat, or Communist, and while they may hate each other, they are all equal under the law because our government's purpose in free speech is to be as objective as possible because the limiting of a person's speech is immoral, no matter how much you might disagree with it.
Also, your bait thread is shitty, your posts are WAY too obvious, saying shit like all muslims are peaceful and Jews dindu nuffin. I know you'll just reply to me with another bait post, but I just want you to know I see right through you.
>Israel threatened to nuke Europe
>Europe has the right to nuke Israel now
Your own logic, friendo.
I guess they were right because he did really kill them. So they were acting in self defense because they rightly predicted his intent.
Speech isn't a wepaon you sperg
Your personal freedom ends where my feelings begin.
Also Hurt Feelings>Physical Violence
thats not the point. you dont attack someone for differing views. this isnt a complicated concept.
Should we be able to kill communists preemptively because of mao, stalin and pol pot?
I’m just wondering why inciting violence is a crime when they’re only words and you’re not committing violence yourself.
How can you place blame the actions of an individual because someone said something to him?
...
I guess you have to decide for yourself.
...
>call everyone right of Bernie Sanders a Nazi
>Hooray I get to punch everyone
it depends on how much you let words hurt you I guess
Pointing a gun at someone is a serious threat. Saying words you don't agree with is not.
Saged.
It’s a threat only because you believe you can predict the future.
If a speaker has a crowd of people in front of him that he's been getting riled up, and then tells them to go down the street, and drag people out of their homes and stab them to death, how has he not committed some fault? He's obviously played some part in those people's death, if not the major part.
no because he is a white man that has genetic instincts about the art of a duel
>every time I start I fight I correctly predict that the other person is about to fight me
By calling others to action to commit illegal acts you are showing legal intent to commit a crime, with the assumption that you are willing to follow up on it.
Laws exist to punish anti-social actscombined with anti-social mindsets. Telling a room full of people to lynch the first nigger they see is a combination of both; telling a room full of people that it is your opinion that niggers by lynched is not illegal because there is no anti-social call to action.
Because there’s no causal relationship between the speech and the crime.
X committed speech
Y committed crime
Unless X forced Y to commit the crime it should solely be the fault of Y.
So we agree that speech is a predictive measure of future intent and that punching Nazis is justified.
Let's compremise and agree that you're retarded. Tell you what. Next time you see a Nazi in the street and he specifically points at you and yells to his friends "KILL THAT CUMM-GUZZLING FAGGOT", you're justified in defending yourself. If he's minding his own business in his SS uniform you aren't justified because that isn't how laws work.
Does the nazi have a gun?
NO
Does the other example have a gun?
Yes
So unless bad opinions can kill you, and they cant. You my good sir have a false equivalency on your hands
Good day
I’m not sure how the double-think works on this forum.
First speech can’t justify violence
Now speech can justify violence
I think you’re on a slippery slope.
...
Jesus you are fucking dense. YOU CAN ONLY INVOKE SELF DEFENSE WHEN SOMEONE IS ACTUALLY MAKING AN ATTACK ON YOU (Or causing others to do so). Someone looking scary IS NOT an attack on you.
also
>forum
Back to r/socialism
>MSW shoop
The act of pointing the gun is illegal, the chant is not.
How can speech cause someone to do a violent act?
Is it a magic hand of God?
Nazi chanting doesn't hurt anyone fucking dumbass
X says kill Y
Y kills Z
X is responsible for the death of Z?
What happened to free will and personal responsibility? How can speech make you kill someone?
ITT difference between make-believe and reality!
...
>Lefties chant about massively migrate millions of third world people into you're country
>shoot them
>self defense because it threatens my well being in the future
>Antfa shouts for revolution
>shoot him
>self defense because it threatens my well being in the future
>BLM shouts "what do we want? dead cops! when? now"
>shoot them
>self defense because it threatens my well being and protection in the future
>Make a peaceful demonstration against demolishing a memorial, then some commie punks come and chants about killing you
>shoot them
>self defense because it threatens my well being
Practically i agree with your autistic(anarchist) animal response to everything.
That's why i should kill every lefty in this country (because they threatened my well being in the future)
>>Nazi chants in your neighborhood
>>punch him
>>not self defense
The idea that Nazi Germany can happen anywhere at any time and that everyone must be eternally vigilant is retarded. It shows that you have not even the most basic understanding about what happened and the opposing forces that were at play, or the German political history prior to the period.
Besides, if I wanted to be disingenuous I could use and the same faulty reasoning to punch the first person I see supporting communism.
brandishing a weapon is a criminal act, pointing a loaded weapon at someone is even moreso, and our justice system deems it acceptable to act in a preventative capacity so long as the person defending themselves acts in a reasonable manner.
shouting unsavory chants at someone is not criminal, nor does it pose any physical threat to anyone, and therefore makes it unacceptable to retaliate with physical force. If anything, the act of physical force is violating someone's civil rights by intimidation.
Try again, as the label of master baiter eludes you.
Because that's some "guilty until proven innocent" type shit. Why should you not be arrested right now? You may be a criminal later on, might as well take you in before it happens.
Your family unit begins where my dicc ends. Raise my kid, whiteboi.
>Threatening one's life with a gun equals to chanting ideological ideas in the street.
Suck a dick and choke on it, faggot. Even tumblrinas screeching landwales can't get this retarded.