You have an ethical right to defend yourself against a physical assault - the right to self defense

You have an ethical right to defend yourself against a physical assault - the right to self defense.

It has been reasoned before, though that is arguable, that preemptive strike against a known and certain threat is also self defense. For example, the Israel attack on the Arabs when they formed a coalition and announced they will wage war.
Many people agree that Israel was justified in striking first, in self defense, and thus wiping out the Arab air force before it was in the air, and winning the war.

Can you make an argument that physically assaulting people with despicable moral and political views, who are known to eventually lead to violence, is also self defense, against that soon-to-come violence if they are left alone to preach and convert?

Note: this is about the ethics and morals of physically assaulting people to keep them from spreading violent ideas, which eventually lead to large scale violence. It is not about what these political believes are, or politics. ETHICS AND MORALS please.

This is why the Germans weren't responsible for World War 1 ;^)

What inevitable violent thread were they preemptively striking in self defense against?

You have no rights

threat*, not thread, of course

Stirner, just go die of throat cancer already you twat, you didn't even believe your own ideas enough to put your face behind them, anonymous coward.

The despicable, treacherous French of course.

the weak must fear the strong

Always and forever

I have not come upon any solid evidence that France was preparing to invade Germany (presumably with Russian help) around the time WWI started.
In fact the defensive pact with Italy made Germany more or less immune to such a threat, since Great Britain would not be joining it, and Italy would be on the side of Germany and Austro-Hungary, making it an uneven fight.

A self-defensive act must, in any case, have for a goal to stop and prevent further violence to be committed.
It must thus attempt to incapacitate the opponent.
In this case, punching this guy does not prevent other supremacits from being violent, and does not prevent him to encourage them. On the contrary it's likely to excite them and to make him louder and his audience bigger.


And the puncher had to know this, so it was not self defense or an attempt at it.

If a public speaker is prevented from speaking via threats, protests, or punches to the face, he will eventually stop speaking.
This will make it harder for his group to rally, grow and organize, so they won't achieve their goals (here perceived as being racial conflict).

The violence Y used to prevent the eventual violence X is "worth it", as in X > Y.
My question is if this is ethical and moral. I would hear any attempts at secular logic or religious views.

Obviously depends on your morals, but if you're an advocate for free speech then it's pretty cut and dry that punching / threatening someone you disagree with until their opinion is suppressed based solely on the potentiality the ideology could hurt someone is silly.

If you're all for censorship then sure, bully them into shutting up. But don't feel like you're more morally righteous suppressing a fascist than a fascist is suppressing you.

The Belgian menace.

this

eye for an eyefags never consider the long term

Assuming that you have an ethical right to defend yourself, you would also have a right to defend yourself against anyone who plans to physically assault you.

Meaning it's open season to neo-nazis and revolutionary commies.

You telling me he didn't go far enough?

yeah but how far can he go?
even killing him would not necessarily neutralize his acolytes in this scenario

So the rational, ethical and moral course of action is to ideologically cleanse the world of nazis to prevent them from eventually ethnically cleansing the world of non-whites.
And since nazis are less numerous than non-whites, the biomass borderline checks out.

>borderline
bottom line*
how the fuck did auto correct fuck that one up

Million Dollar Extreme was boring and edgy.

>Can you make an argument that physically assaulting people with despicable moral and political views, who are known to eventually lead to violence, is also self defense
all moral and political views eventually lead to violence

not an argument

>dismissive blanket statement presented as de facto answer

not an argument

>dismissive blanket statement presented as de facto answer
buzzwords

what about national socialism makes it worse than any other ideology which leads to violence

we allow anjem choudary to say his shit without being assaulted

Kill the jews is a move violent ideology than gender equality, for example. Pretty basic stuff.

but gender equality doesn't lead to violence you shit

i'm talking about christianity, anarchism and islam, off the top of my head

6/10 trolling son you could be alright

Anyone got the gif of him being punched?

With that reasoning you can justify them preemptively defending themselves from your preemptive attack.

i aint even trolling son

the left likes to defend islam, well islam has gotten far more people killed than national socialism

sure, I've always wanted to live in 1984 (the book, obviously)

Christianity isn't violent either, only Catholic LARPers start holy wars, and only in the past.

>we allow anjem choudary to say his shit without being assaulted

Yeah but there is no "we" here. If some individual attacked Anjem Choudary, they would be responsible for their own actions.

I don't see how this suddenly turns into some collectivist bullshit, just because one random idiot attacks a retarded nationalist while he's conducting an interview.

>islam is bad, thus hitler was right

Tip top /pol/ logic. Sure told them lefties.

>only in the past.
>it's just the past bro
nazis only killed people in the past dumbass
>If some individual attacked Anjem Choudary, they would be responsible for their own actions.
ok but it's not self defense

read what i was responding to
i don't think islam is bad you imbecille

i also don't think that people should get attacked for saying nazi things

Maybe in the West. On a local level, a lot of African Catholics are just as violent as Muslims when it comes to punishing people outside of their community/faith.

Consider the following:

You are a young Norwegian musician. Your friend is publishing your music.
You two get in a fight, and he says he will kill you.
Later that day, a friend of yours tell you that your publisher is planning to kill you.
You go to his house, and you hear a phone call, during which he tells someone he will kill you.

Is it, or is it not, okay for you to kill him in self defense? Are you convinced enough that he will indeed kill you, or do you have to wait for him to aim a gun at you, when you will have zero means of self defense?

>you hear a phone call, during which he tells someone he will kill you.
spencer has been very careful not to say that he's going to kill people though hasn't he

the argument on the left is that there's no such thing as peaceful ethnic cleansing

I invite a murderer who wants to kill my friend into the house while he's upstairs showering.
When the murderer asks where my friend is, I answer truthfully.
My problem is solved without resorting to violence.

Damn, why didn't I think of that.

Nor was he killed himself. He was punched.
So would you say a punch is adequate self defense against threats that you will be chased out, for example? Or your property confiscated?
He has talked about policies to that regard.

>So would you say a punch is adequate self defense against threats that you will be chased out, for example? Or your property confiscated?
are we talking about communism or national socialism here?

by your logic republicans could punch any liberal who wants them to pay more taxes ie. all of them

>are we talking about communism or national socialism here?
Politics aside, we are talking ethics.
>by your logic republicans could punch any liberal who wants them to pay more taxes ie. all of them
Duty aside, we are talking ethics.

Is it ethical for a republican to punch a liberal who wants to raise his taxes, if he has reason to believe thus punch will prevent the tax raise?
You are applying minor violence and injury to prevent theft. Ethically talking, are you in your right to do so, before the theft occurred, not as justice or retribution, but preemptively?
Thought crime should probably be introduced to the conversation at this point. Thinking about assaulting you is reason enough for you to preemptively assault me back?

Keep it ethics though, of course in a modern estate only government services are allowed to assault, its how our society works. Everyone else assaulting is illegal, regardless of ethics.

>Nazism is ok when we do it

Censorship of harmful sects is not specific to natsoc

all of these questions are dumb so i'm just going to answer the OP
>For example, the Israel attack on the Arabs when they formed a coalition and announced they will wage war.
if someone cocks a punch at you, which is what the arabs were doing when they got their military forces ready, then you can punch them before they punch you

In hindsight we know the arabs were talking shit without meaning to attack though.
They weren't "cocking a punch", they were saying they would hit, while cracking their knuckles.

...

...

wait which war are we talking about

golan heights?

The third one, known as Six Days War.

> In reaction to the mobilisation of Egyptian forces along the Israeli border in the Sinai Peninsula, Israel launched a series of preemptive airstrikes against Egyptian airfields.
> In reaction to the mobilisation of Egyptian forces
that's cocking a punch, doesn't matter if you never intended to throw it

Israeli ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, has acknowledged that both US and Israeli intelligence indicated that troop movements in Egypt had only defensive, not offensive, purposes.
USSR had forbidden Egypt and Syria from attacking until they are allowed, and USSR agents were there ensuring this.
Yet at 3AM, without declaration or anything, Israel announced to international diplomats there that it was invaded and was engaged in combat, responding to "cowardly and treacherous" attack from Egypt. In reality, it was a calculated and prepared attack from Israel which invaded Egypt without warning.

Now, I am a realpolitik kind of guy, and I have no love for Arabs, but it is simply wrong to say that Egypt was cocking a punch. They were talking shit, as they had been for years, the situation was in no way unique. The only thing that made it special was the Israelis deciding to make use of it.

>Israeli ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, has acknowledged that both US and Israeli intelligence indicated that troop movements in Egypt had only defensive, not offensive, purposes.
it's a defensive cocked punch
>USSR had forbidden Egypt and Syria from attacking until they are allowed, and USSR agents were there ensuring this.
so the egyptians were forbidden from throwing the cocked punch

intent doesn't matter, if you act like you're getting ready for a fight you might get punched

Giving credence to an opposing ideology by assaulting members of that ideology only cements that ideology as one that holds water and spurs other followers of that ideology to further their cause.
In the past weeks there have been many people who have called for the death of Trump, some going as far as to say they wish someone shot him. Should everyone who holds these views be rounded up and the more vocal advocates be killed? The OP argument asserts that they present a "credible" threat of fatal violence and should they go unkilled they will only foment unrest until someone does kill Trump.
A preemptive act of violence to deter violence is paradoxical and is only a show of strength to deter action. We only have to look at violence against blacks in the '60s, violence against Irish in the '30s and violence against striking workers in the 1890s to see examples of preemptive violence against groups that were explained away by what the OP is advocating. It is immoral, unethical, amd inhuman.

Preemptive strike =/= preventive strike
This is not preemptive.

If your ideology hinges on using the coercive force of the state to strip people of their rights to disagree with you, you're asking to get punched in the face. Sorry.

A soldier of the civil authority must be taught not to kill men and to refuse to do so if he is commanded, and to refuse to take an oath. If he is unwilling to comply, he must be rejected for baptism. A military commander or civic magistrate must resign or be rejected. If a believer seeks to become a soldier, he must be rejected, for he has despised God.

—Hippolytus of Rome[14]

How many layers of irony are you on right now.

None. Individuals taking it upon themselves and risking arrest and prosecution for carrying out an act of justified violence is not the same as using (or even advocating the use of) law enforcement and military to suppress political dissent.

cheers.
>burgers just go around punching nazis in the neck.
What a time to be american.

>keeps calling liberals cucks all the time
>now calls them bullies
never tolerate the intolerable

>justified violence
You must be joking.

Republicans are liberal.

that guy was only helped by being punched

false flag?

not in the context of american politics

Nope. Just someone who saw an opportunity to attack someone whose ideology they find horrendous who wasn't thinking about long-term consequences.

Not at all. Is that upsetting to your delicate lady sensibilities?

>who wasn't thinking about long-term consequences.
what a dumbass

The guy was going around spreading his abhorrent discussion on how to neuter fellow american citizens based on the color of their skin.

Him getting punched doesn't strengthen him. On the contrary, whenever someone comes up with the spineless lefty drivel, people can point to the webm.

>Him getting punched doesn't strengthen him.
Are you unaware? Are you 12? Are you from leftypol?

I would be all in for exterminating the far right and far left, round up every trump and sanders supporter and send them to a gulag, then install a technocratic government where public officials must at least have a phd and pass comprehensive economic and law examinations.

Yup, me and my vagina are super salty.
Going entirely off your logic, I am within my rights and justified to attack an abortion clinic and kill the doctors there because they engage in murder of unborn fetuses, and while I may get arrested for my individual act I have taken it upon myself to carry out an act of justified violence. Keep in mind in my culture a fetus is a human being, the doctors had made a premeditated decision to kill those fetuses, and they would have done so if I didn't act.

> Individuals taking it upon themselves and risking arrest and prosecution for carrying out an act of justified violence
>sucker punching someone while wearing a mask is now "risking arrest"
lol the only way this differs from fascism is in terms of scale and impact
>On the contrary, whenever someone comes up with the spineless lefty drivel, people can point to the webm.
you're not going to convince anyone who isn't an anarchist lunatic that way

i shudder to think what you'd do if you stepped out of your cosy left wing bubble

>right
SPOOKY
P
O
O
K
Y

>then install a technocratic government where public officials must at least have a phd and pass comprehensive economic and law examinations.
you really don't fucking want that, look at the history of every bureaucracy ever

>in my culture a fetus is a human being,
No it isn't, sorry. You personally might think that but clearly there isn't a consensus in society about whether or not fetuses are human beings. Nice try though

>Note: this is about the ethics and morals of physically assaulting people to keep them from spreading violent ideas, which eventually lead to large scale violence. It is not about what these political believes are, or politics. ETHICS AND MORALS please.
Except you punch a Nazi for self gratification, just like burning mosques. It only radicalizes them more and you've done more societal harm than good. But at least you personally feel good for throwing a punch.

I think we had a thread on this

>the only way this differs from fascism is in terms of scale and impact
>fighting against fascism is fascism
Doublethink much?

>lol the only way this differs from fascism is in terms of scale and impact
So actual fascism is justified despite it's scale and impact?

>i shudder to think what you'd do if you stepped out of your cosy left wing bubble
>cosy left wing bubble

Most on the left have condemned this shit. Those that haven't are either stupid or false flagging.

I remember a ned stark looking guy in Belgium punching a 'numale' and the right had an orgasm.

>alt-right steps outside of their cozy right wing bubble
>get rekt
>threatens that the same will happen lefties leave their 'bubble'

This only helps fascism you shits.

So what would you do to combat fascism? Nothing?

Right, a Hindi doesn't know what their society dictates, sorry. Do go on.

Talk.
None of their stuff make any sense including the conclusions they draw from the race science.
All it takes is to use words.

>fighting against fascism is fascism
>muh doublethink
what, so you're saying that fascists can't fight each other?
no
>Most on the left have condemned this shit.
they have fucking not lmao, at least on the internet
i meant to say western bubble, india is ruled by literal nationalists who lynch people

I guess it's better to elect idiots who think that the world is 6000 years old or that your sex can be a trans-pansexual-attack-helicopter kin...

>who are known to eventually lead to violence,

This is based on heavy presumption and cannot really be proved until it actually happens. Steps and measures can be taken to subvert that course but to resort to violence immediately given specific contexts is just pig-headed, arrogant, and non-constructive.

>idiots who think that the world is 6000 years old
their reasoning is more complicated than that, people are less stupid than your tiny fedora mind believes

No sorry. How do you think the Trump team got into power in the first place? American people don't care about words or talking or the truth.

>western bubble, india is ruled by literal nationalists who lynch people
The fuck? We are speaking in a strictly western context

Yea words sure stopped the rise of nazism

That's false.
The truth talking side wins almost always, it just takes time. Maybe years, maybe decades.
Those were different times. Much more violent and primitive.

annoying cunts getting punched is just fine really

>We are speaking in a strictly western context
why the fuck should we be speaking in a strictly western context in a globalised world

>almost always
That's not good enough

You are rationalizing here, not reasoning.

talk shit get hit

always been that way

>literal nationalists who lynch people
People in India lynch each other all the time. It's basically just banter here.

There also isn't a consensus as to the danger of white nationalism. Can we now agree that punching people you don't agree with is wrong?