Is impulsive violence ever justified?

[Kappo]

I find that people trying to evoke a reaction because they are in need of attention are easily provoked back or put to shame in the battle of wits. They are attention whores. It's not like they are bright.

Put your hands on me, my family/friends or my things? I will do whatever it takes to mow you down and take a crap on your face. Ill get off on the beatdown, but Ill take the criminal charges for the defecation

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Another question I would ask is 'Is it fair to allow a person or group to intentionally inflict emotional suffering on others as free speech?'

The issue goes two ways.

1. Anything anybody says will offend some people and cause them emotional suffering.

2. The intention of some speech is to offend as many folk as one can.

Assholes are very sensitive.

Assholes are very offensive.

The freedom of speech is the freedom to offend. Who decides? It's better to suffer trolls than to silence someone who has a genuine interest in something even is we disagree.

Conformity is an enemy of freedom.

 

[MJinZ]

The freedom of speech is the freedom to offend. Who decides? It's better to suffer trolls than to silence someone who has a genuine interest in something even is we disagree.

Conformity is an enemy of freedom.

The only real freedom of "whatever" is when you're out in the woods and in the middle of no where.

Freedom of speech in a society extends only so far as non-threatening, non-inciting etc.

When people decide that freedoms are worth more than living with other people, then they are free to leave society as well.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The only real freedom of "whatever" is when you're out in the woods and in the middle of no where.

Freedom of speech in a society extends only so far as non-threatening, non-inciting etc.

When people decide that freedoms are worth more than living with other people, then they are free to leave society as well.

That's not what Moonbeam said. He said "offensive". I addressed that.

Schenck v. United States addressed limits on free speech that are necessary in a coherent society.

Now if you define something you find offensive as being grounds for silencing a person, then I strongly disagree.

 

[MJinZ]

That's not what Moonbeam said. He said "offensive". I addressed that.

Schenck v. United States addressed limits on free speech that are necessary in a coherent society.

Now if you define something you find offensive as being grounds for silencing a person, then I strongly disagree.

Yea, Moonbeam has his own definitions for things.

 

[Noobtastic]

Unless violence is predicated on self-defense or self-preservation, I don't support it.

"Impulsive violence" tends to be driven by emotion, and thus not always grounded on facts and reality.

People who have violent tendencies (act violence based on impulse) have no credibility and cannot be defended.

Someone who is impulsively reacting to a threat to their own life is fully justified in whatever happens.

As they say, stay out of the kitchen and you won't get burned.