Well thanks for replying. I learned a lot in what you said, and in what you didn't answer.
For anyone who finds this type of view compelling, I think you need to ask these questions for yourself. Where is the harm? If you are saying that it is an emotional / psychological harm, then would would someones subjective offense justify and equal return of force as the OP? Is physical harm justified, because I am offended by your ideas? In which direction is the thinking running in this. Is it moving from the basis, and the general up (moving forward). Or is it starting off with X is wrong, and then moving backward to connect it?
For anyone who finds this type of view compelling, I think you need to ask these questions for yourself. Where is the harm? If you are saying that it is an emotional / psychological harm, then would would someones subjective offense justify and equal return of force as the OP? Is physical harm justified, because I am offended by your ideas? In which direction is the thinking running in this. Is it moving from the basis, and the general up (moving forward). Or is it starting off with X is wrong, and then moving backward to connect it?
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
