03-07-2017, 08:24 PM
(03-07-2017, 08:14 PM)Dill Wrote: When you claim that the lost votes in the election of November '32 proves the Nazi party was on the wane, and I respond that they received more votes in March '33, that is not "repeating a tired argument." That is correcting a mistaken premise. You blow smoke; I dissipate it.
The point of my previous posts is certainly related to the thread topic of press freedom, as an aspect of freedom of speech. You reference a supposed wave of "left wing" violence and assert that If your ideas cannot be articulated into words sufficient to win over the people then you only have yourself to blame.
Contra you, I say it is wrong to blame victims of political violence because their arguments do not persuade voters to turn away from violent, bigoted leaders.
You don't seem to consider that for some arguments, there may be no effective "counter with words," and the end effect of those arguments is harm for some individual or group. There were articulate, public counterarguments to Nazis in Weimar Germany in newspapers, on the radio, even on street corners. Street violence did not prevent their exposure to the bulk of the population. And the counterarguments did not work if 44% of the population voted for Nazis in March of '33, making Hitler the major player in the Reichstag.
Still a Jew who countered Nazi words in '33 with violence would be a "thug" in your terms, with only himself to blame for Hitler's rise to power. But he would not be a "thug" in my terms.
Which is why I say much depends upon the words, and upon the context in which they are uttered.
I'll reiterate since you seem to be stuck in a loop.
I'll merely summarize the major way in which you're wrong that has to do with the thread topic; responding to words with violence is wrong and cannot be justified. If you believe otherwise then you are a thug who cannot counter an argument with words. No need to use four separate posts to respond to this, if choose to do so. One will do.
In your example the Jewish person was responding to violence with violence.
The utter lack of faith you have in your own argument is displayed by your failure to address salient points. I'll reiterate, again. Hitler was not appointed Chancellor by the people, his party was in decline. He was foisted upon the German people by the machinations of von Schleicher, von Papen and the acquiescence of a weak Hindenburg. His ideology was losing, his arguments were being defeated, the counter arguments were working. He was backdoored into the office by a bitter von Papen. Kindly stop wasting my time with endless regurgitation that ignores salient points.
