• Knightfox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Nothing you are saying makes sense in the framework of legal functionality. You’re basically advocating for non-gun castle doctrine in which you have the right to do whatever you want against people who you disagree with and who have the potential to do something against you. We live in a society where rules apply, when you say these things you should take a second to think how these decisions would apply if they were turned against you.

      • Knightfox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yet you live in a world where laws and nation states exist. Just because you divorce yourself from these rules or think they do not apply to your beliefs does not make it so. You’re commenting like a Sovereign Citizen in the US, but the laws and legal frameworks exist whether you believe in them. To a point you must frame your discussion in their context and if you do not then your opinion doesn’t matter until you change that very framework.

        If your argument hinges on ignoring the legal framework then you have to be Robin Hood or the Unibomber, anything less is meaningless.

    • edible_funk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      This argument does not apply to anti-social ideologies such as white supremacy that are incompatible with society.

      • Knightfox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yeah it does, even mass murders are due the process of law and protections under it. We don’t drag murderous sociopaths into the public square and execute them without trials. You can’t fight for fair and equal rights while also saying other people aren’t entitled to those same rights.