Whose side do you take?

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Person A: is standing in a public park spewing all kinds hateful speech, using racial slurs, but not physically threatening anybody

Person B: is a hippy and speaks nothing but peace and equality for all

Situation: B is listening to A talk from a nearby park bench. Person B begins to notice people walking away from A visibly distraught. This upsets him and he approaches A and begins to speak out against him. Growing frustrated at the hateful speech person B attacks person A.

Was person A wrong for their actions? Ideologically it may be easier to side with world peace but is it ok to physically attack?

Now this all should be fairly obvious to most of us, but by some of the recent conversation I'm curious as to what some of you will say

 

[Kitafuji]

Why does this sound so familiar?

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Why does this sound so familiar?

Obvious reasons but for the sake of discussion I stripped it away to the most basic of questions

 

[Pwent]

We live in a country of free speech

A is an asshole but assholes have a right to exist and you can't assault someone because they triggered you

We learned this in kindergarten

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

We live in a country of free speech

A is an asshole but assholes have a right to exist and you can't assault someone because they triggered you

We learned this in kindergarten

Agreed, just to play devils advocate.... what if the person just accepted the consequences, or expected not to get caught?

 

[Pwent]

Agreed, just to play devils advocate.... what if the person just accepted the consequences, or expected not to get caught?

I guess one could admire their willingness to fight and accept the consequences but they should still accept the consequences

 

[Devout Pessimist]

I am against the person who resorts to physical violence. Use words not fists.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

Person A: is standing in a public park spewing all kinds hateful speech, using racial slurs, but not physically threatening anybody

Person B: is a hippy and speaks nothing but peace and equality for all

Situation: B is listening to A talk from a nearby park bench. Person B begins to notice people walking away from A visibly distraught. This upsets him and he approaches A and begins to speak out against him. Growing frustrated at the hateful speech person B attacks person A.

Was person A wrong for their actions? Ideologically it may be easier to side with world peace but is it ok to physically attack?

Now this all should be fairly obvious to most of us, but by some of the recent conversation I'm curious as to what some of you will say

ive wondered if there is a clear side that started the violence in charlottesville? i havent heard one way or the other. id imagine it began so chaotically that it would be difficult to make a claim on the matter.

ive been struggling with the issue in the OP lately. id have to side with freedom of speech though. to me, attempting to silence people can be a bit like throwing a blanket over hot coals. it will not put the coals out, but only intensify the blaze. you saw this with the idiots who tried to stop trump from speaking on the campaign trail. they handed him victim status on a silver platter. allow groups that you disagree with to have their views exposed to the light of day, and attack their merits or lack of, rather than the messengers.

the danger though is.....what happens if more and more people start to agree with the views of person A in the OP? attempting to silence him though could just as easily lead to those types gaining more power though, so i suppose id go with free speech.

 

[zebby23]

B is wrong but in real life A is the one attacking

 

[*Z*]

The one who resorts to violence is always wrong. The constitution protects both of their rights to speak about anything they want. There is no such protection for violence.

 

[Pale Man In Black]

You cant physically assault someone just because you don't like what they stand for.
Last time I checked, that was illegal.

 

[panamaican]

Did Person B fear for his life?

Where did Person B park his Dodge Challenger?

 

[SaiWa]

I guess one could admire their willingness to fight and accept the consequences but they should still accept the consequences

And what if person A and B showed up with armor, shield and weapons and started arguing with each other.. what is the intent there?

 

[Fox by the Sea]

leave A alone

 

[Pwent]

And what if person A and B showed up with armor, shield and weapons and started arguing with each other.. what is the intent there?

I can't assume someone's intent with such little information

They probably are looking for a fight but they also could have it for self defense because they get attacked from party B every time they go out and speak their views

Carrying a shield doesn't mean everyone's allowed to attack you

 

[TheGreatA]

I don't think any sides need to be taken here. Person A is inviting the violence, but person B is still an emotionally unstable individual who's seeking moral justifications to the use of violence.

Let's not forget, that the egalitarian ideal has led to as many massacres as the discriminatory ideal. In practise, they often amount to the same end result.

 

[Madmick]

I'll take "Loaded Deck" for $1000, Alex.

 

[KILL KILL]

We live in a country of free speech

A is an asshole but assholes have a right to exist and you can't assault someone because they triggered you

We learned this in kindergarten

Agreed. With the protests in Charlottesville, the counter protestor were in the right UNTIL they resorted to violent behavior. I doubt anyone would disagree that protesting nazis is a bad thing, but throwing shit at them, assaulting, etc brings you down to their disgusting level.

I don't understand why people feel inclined to assault people or break the law at a protest because regardless of how noble their intentions may be, once they cross that line, it becomes less about theit message, and more about what a piece of shit they are as an individual.

 

[SaiWa]

I don't think any sides need to be taken here. Person A is inviting the violence, but person B is still an emotionally unstable individual who's seeking moral justifications to the use of violence.

Let's not forget, that the egalitarian ideal has led to as many massacres as the discriminatory ideal. In practise, they often amount to the same end result.

I can assure you this... if a group consisting of A people spewed hateful shit without any weapons of defensive items and group B was fully loaded and attacked group A, cops would have intervened and defended A. People like me would have called out group B for being dickwads..

But that didn't happen.. so fuck group A.. and group B are dicks too but whatever.. group A are hateful and deserved it. At least nobody died in group A...

 

[S-dot]

It's always the initiator of the violence who is wrong. If person B starts yelling at person A to stop and person A says "free speech, commie!" and punches person A, it's person As fault now. If B starts threatening Immediate violence against A and A whoops that ass, it's Bs fault. A lot of times both A and B share the fault though in real life.