That's what it's *there* for. The entire concept is present to legitimise violence against people you disagree with by simply asserting the harm your opponent's speech does.
C.M. Bradley I would be interested in you reviewing the “serpent seed” the premise where Eve was physically seduced by Satan, thus where Cain came from. As Cain is not listed in Adam’s genealogy. An interesting topic imo. But just a suggestion. Thanks again.
Hoppe's argumentation ethics is checkmate: _argumentation_ is essentially non-violent. I say, however, that argumentation is a subset of speech and in practice, and especially in politics, a rather small one. Whether speech is violent, then, is determined first by the intention of the speaker, which God only knows, and second by whether that speech violates property, which we humans have a much better chance of establishing. What is the proper response to violence is another issue... Anything goes in the hallucination of "systematic oppression" espoused by the leftists featured on this video; even the rejection of your argument (which I find convincing for its purpose), because they would simply assert that the "systematic status" of their attitudes and behaviors following from (3) is different from those of their opponents following from (1), where the latter is "oppression", therefore violent, whereas the former is not. Ultimately, leftists deny property and your argument rests on it. Being "attacked with a chemical" is violence because it infringes on property over one's body. Being deplatformed is violence only insofar as the associated "freedom of speech" is, in fact, the exercise of property-clearly, you have more of a right to use your own bullhorn rather than a stolen one, or to speak in your house rather than someplace you are trespassing in. Property, correctly understood, is quite the flaming laser sword. Speech that defends central banking, on the other hand, is violent because it is complicit with the resulting inflation and theft.
Hmm, I appreciate what you wrote; I'm not familiar with Hoppes. I'm not sure in what way my argument rests on a concept of property, since it merely reveals that the nebulous breadth of the term "violent speech"--at least, how it's typically used by leftists--makes any accusation of such an instance of it itself. However, if I wanted to go further in making an argument on how the term is nefarious, then I could see an opening for what you're saying, unless I'm simply misunderstanding you.
@@CMBradley Thank you. Please check my featured playlist if I have succeeded in in sparking an interest in Austrian economics. "Austro-libertarians" have a commitment to a priori logic that makes them somewhat unworldly in our age. I am very interested in finding points of agreement between them and Orthodoxy. I find a lot of mileage in their concept of property which, interestingly, takes an extreme form in Rothbard (too extreme, personally) via a sort of "Catholic natural rights" view. I'm not sure you misunderstand. I affirm, anyways, that property is the most powerful way of contextualizing, in secular terms, harm or violence: so, your argument implicitly relies on it and would be stronger if that were explicit.
@@TheGerogero violence: the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy; intentional use of physical force or power, threatened against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation. Cf. “undue (harm)”. Therefore, the term “violence” should NEVER be used in cases of just force. “Just force” is any means necessary to overcome an (objectively) evil adversary or oppressor. To use a simple and obvious example (obvious, that is, to a holy and righteous soul), if the servant of a corrupt (i.e. non-monarchical) government was to try to apprehend a man for administering proper punishment to one of his subordinates, such as his wife, child, or employee, it would be not only justified for that man to retaliate against the governmental minion, but a truly holy and righteous act, worthy of a veritable saint. A far more palpable example would be the instance of a person (or even an animal) killing another person or an animal in self- defence. If you, the reader was to be physically-attacked by an aggressive person, and you were forced to end the life of that person in order to save your own life, no decent soul would accuse you of being violent. Therefore, just force is not, by definition, violence. One of the most popular works of fiction ever composed, “Bhagavad-gītā”, revolves around the narrative of an Indian monarch trying to convince one of his warriors to kill his own extended family and his own teachers, not out of enmity, but due to his kin committing certain criminal acts, such as withholding a kingdom from that warrior, and supporting an objectively evil and corrupt regime. That monarch, Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, after explaining to His friend, Prince Arjuna, that his hesitancy to fight against his kin was based on illusory considerations, convinced him to execute his duty of fighting for a righteous cause, thereby fulfilling his dharma (societal duty). Therefore, when Indians use the phrase “Dharma hiṃsā tathaiva ca”, not only are they INVENTING a phrase which does not appear in any recognized Vedic scripture (though they pretend that it is from an ancient source), they are confusing just force with violence.
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices It seems to me that property, again in these cases, is the best conceptual tool. I'll obliquely preface the following by sharing that in skimming your comment, my happiness at the reference to the Bhagavad Gita overcompensated my disappointment at the dictionary definition. Why, for instance, "_physical_ force"? Implying, perhaps, that verbal violence is an oxymoron; although later we have "_psychological_ harm". And the consequentialist logic of "resulting in or having a high likelihood" is, of course, just rank. This is an unhelpful hodgepodge definition. As an aside, are you saying that monarchical government is equivalent to incorrupt government? A person who attacks you-in the act of disrespecting property in your person-forfeits the right in his own, and therefore may be the object of "just force" even to the point of killing him. My case becomes more difficult, I'll admit, when we come to the Bhagavad Gita. I say, however, that to be in union with a monarch is, in a corresponding sense, to become his property-in the same way that any body could be the property of its head. Lord Krishna happens to be a just monarch, so the actions of the recalcitrant kin, violating that union, violates a relation of property, which is what makes them too the object of just force.
The 'Thug Life' meme was the icing on top. Very interesting format, first time seeing a logical breakdown of a syllogism inside my Rekt SJW compilation videos.
That's what it's *there* for. The entire concept is present to legitimise violence against people you disagree with by simply asserting the harm your opponent's speech does.
As true as that is, a disturbing amount of people think it's a legitimate concept.
Mr Smith, could you please remind the idiots, that call themselves liberals that if they believe this bollocks, then they're not liberals. Thank you.
It gets worse. Now they say "silence is violence"
At least silence and violence rhyme.
There's no defeating rhyming slogans.
@@CMBradley Darn
❤️
Interesting video as always serve keep up the good work. I would definitely like to see more work of yours on Christianity.
Thanks, Gamza. I'll likely be returning to videos on Christianity. If you have any suggestions, by all means let them be known.
C.M. Bradley I would be interested in you reviewing the “serpent seed” the premise where Eve was physically seduced by Satan, thus where Cain came from. As Cain is not listed in Adam’s genealogy. An interesting topic imo. But just a suggestion. Thanks again.
I haven't heard about that interpretation in years haha. I'll think about it! Thanks for the suggestion!
I would have titled this: Is a claim of "violent speech" itself violent speech?
🤔 I'll give it some thought. Something close to that is probably optimal.
By labeling it "violent speech" you are literally empowering it. You are increasing the sensitivity too it.
Dude you need way more subs! Great vid.
Thanks, Dan! Feel free to share haha
Hoppe's argumentation ethics is checkmate: _argumentation_ is essentially non-violent. I say, however, that argumentation is a subset of speech and in practice, and especially in politics, a rather small one. Whether speech is violent, then, is determined first by the intention of the speaker, which God only knows, and second by whether that speech violates property, which we humans have a much better chance of establishing. What is the proper response to violence is another issue...
Anything goes in the hallucination of "systematic oppression" espoused by the leftists featured on this video; even the rejection of your argument (which I find convincing for its purpose), because they would simply assert that the "systematic status" of their attitudes and behaviors following from (3) is different from those of their opponents following from (1), where the latter is "oppression", therefore violent, whereas the former is not.
Ultimately, leftists deny property and your argument rests on it. Being "attacked with a chemical" is violence because it infringes on property over one's body. Being deplatformed is violence only insofar as the associated "freedom of speech" is, in fact, the exercise of property-clearly, you have more of a right to use your own bullhorn rather than a stolen one, or to speak in your house rather than someplace you are trespassing in. Property, correctly understood, is quite the flaming laser sword. Speech that defends central banking, on the other hand, is violent because it is complicit with the resulting inflation and theft.
Hmm, I appreciate what you wrote; I'm not familiar with Hoppes. I'm not sure in what way my argument rests on a concept of property, since it merely reveals that the nebulous breadth of the term "violent speech"--at least, how it's typically used by leftists--makes any accusation of such an instance of it itself. However, if I wanted to go further in making an argument on how the term is nefarious, then I could see an opening for what you're saying, unless I'm simply misunderstanding you.
@@CMBradley Thank you. Please check my featured playlist if I have succeeded in in sparking an interest in Austrian economics. "Austro-libertarians" have a commitment to a priori logic that makes them somewhat unworldly in our age. I am very interested in finding points of agreement between them and Orthodoxy.
I find a lot of mileage in their concept of property which, interestingly, takes an extreme form in Rothbard (too extreme, personally) via a sort of "Catholic natural rights" view. I'm not sure you misunderstand. I affirm, anyways, that property is the most powerful way of contextualizing, in secular terms, harm or violence: so, your argument implicitly relies on it and would be stronger if that were explicit.
@@TheGerogero
violence: the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy; intentional use of physical force or power, threatened against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation. Cf. “undue (harm)”.
Therefore, the term “violence” should NEVER be used in cases of just force.
“Just force” is any means necessary to overcome an (objectively) evil adversary or oppressor. To use a simple and obvious example (obvious, that is, to a holy and righteous soul), if the servant of a corrupt (i.e. non-monarchical) government was to try to apprehend a man for administering proper punishment to one of his subordinates, such as his wife, child, or employee, it would be not only justified for that man to retaliate against the governmental minion, but a truly holy and righteous act, worthy of a veritable saint.
A far more palpable example would be the instance of a person (or even an animal) killing another person or an animal in self- defence. If you, the reader was to be physically-attacked by an aggressive person, and you were forced to end the life of that person in order to save your own life, no decent soul would accuse you of being violent. Therefore, just force is not, by definition, violence.
One of the most popular works of fiction ever composed, “Bhagavad-gītā”, revolves around the narrative of an Indian monarch trying to convince one of his warriors to kill his own extended family and his own teachers, not out of enmity, but due to his kin committing certain criminal acts, such as withholding a kingdom from that warrior, and supporting an objectively evil and corrupt regime. That monarch, Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, after explaining to His friend, Prince Arjuna, that his hesitancy to fight against his kin was based on illusory considerations, convinced him to execute his duty of fighting for a righteous cause, thereby fulfilling his dharma (societal duty).
Therefore, when Indians use the phrase “Dharma hiṃsā tathaiva ca”, not only are they INVENTING a phrase which does not appear in any recognized Vedic scripture (though they pretend that it is from an ancient source), they are confusing just force with violence.
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices It seems to me that property, again in these cases, is the best conceptual tool. I'll obliquely preface the following by sharing that in skimming your comment, my happiness at the reference to the Bhagavad Gita overcompensated my disappointment at the dictionary definition.
Why, for instance, "_physical_ force"? Implying, perhaps, that verbal violence is an oxymoron; although later we have "_psychological_ harm". And the consequentialist logic of "resulting in or having a high likelihood" is, of course, just rank. This is an unhelpful hodgepodge definition. As an aside, are you saying that monarchical government is equivalent to incorrupt government?
A person who attacks you-in the act of disrespecting property in your person-forfeits the right in his own, and therefore may be the object of "just force" even to the point of killing him. My case becomes more difficult, I'll admit, when we come to the Bhagavad Gita. I say, however, that to be in union with a monarch is, in a corresponding sense, to become his property-in the same way that any body could be the property of its head. Lord Krishna happens to be a just monarch, so the actions of the recalcitrant kin, violating that union, violates a relation of property, which is what makes them too the object of just force.
@@TheGerogero "verbal violence" is normally termed "verbal ABUSE".
The 'Thug Life' meme was the icing on top.
Very interesting format, first time seeing a logical breakdown of a syllogism inside my Rekt SJW compilation videos.
TH-cam needs more syllogisms.
Nice job - great video
Thanks, Devin