Conquer Club

owenshooter wrote:i feel as if everyone should see the video to keep their responses in context. feel free to post it in your initial post.




the black jesus has helped...-Jésus noir

thegreekdog wrote:Acceptable in what way and in what context? Seems like Captain America was punching some Nazis because the United States was at war with Germany at the time. As far as I know, we're not at war with Germany now (or with American Nazis). I'm also fairly certain punching is battery, which is a punishable crime. Perhaps we look the other way when a crime is committed and the victim is someone we do not like. That seems consistent with the American values of freedom and liberty - "Your views are not the same as ours, therefore it is okay to punch you."

jonesthecurl wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Acceptable in what way and in what context? Seems like Captain America was punching some Nazis because the United States was at war with Germany at the time. As far as I know, we're not at war with Germany now (or with American Nazis). I'm also fairly certain punching is battery, which is a punishable crime. Perhaps we look the other way when a crime is committed and the victim is someone we do not like. That seems consistent with the American values of freedom and liberty - "Your views are not the same as ours, therefore it is okay to punch you."

It seems that Captain America no 1 was March 1941, when the US was not at war with Germany.

In October 1951, Camus published The Rebel. In it, he gave voice to a roughly drawn ‘philosophy of revolt’. This wasn’t a philosophical system per se, but an amalgamation of philosophical and political ideas: every human is free, but freedom itself is relative; one must embrace limits, moderation, ‘calculated risk’; absolutes are anti-human. Most of all, Camus condemned revolutionary violence. Violence might be used in extreme circumstances (he supported the French war effort, after all) but the use of revolutionary violence to nudge history in the direction you desire is utopian, absolutist, and a betrayal of yourself.

‘Absolute freedom is the right of the strongest to dominate,’ Camus wrote, while ‘absolute justice is achieved by the suppression of all contradiction: therefore it destroys freedom.’ The conflict between justice and freedom required constant re-balancing, political moderation, an acceptance and celebration of that which limits the most: our humanity. ‘To live and let live,’ he said, ‘in order to create what we are.’

notyou2 wrote:Racist hate spewing douches deserve to be punched. If you are going to espouse hate, prepare for the consequences. I don't believe in free speech when it's hate mongering. People like that piece of shit can be charged in Canada, Germany, and many other democratic nations that have free speech.

patches70 wrote:Ok, lemme get this straight, it's ok to punch someone who is not engaging in any violent activity, theft or anything else illegal and is instead engaged in political speech and/or exercising their right to assembly so long as one disagrees with that person's speech. Got it.


You guys are silly, and ridonkulous.

Borderdawg wrote:the puncher was a gash. If he had any balls, he would have just verbally provoked the dingus until dingus made the first move, THEN he could have whupped his ass properly, AND filed assault charges on him. (always worked for me anyway, less the filing charges.) But noooo, he sucker punched and ran like a p*ssy. But, that's what libbies do. A neo-nazi and a libbie, and they couldn't muster a full mansack between the two of 'em.

Symmetry wrote:

Borderdawg wrote:the puncher was a gash. If he had any balls, he would have just verbally provoked the dingus until dingus made the first move, THEN he could have whupped his ass properly, AND filed assault charges on him. (always worked for me anyway, less the filing charges.) But noooo, he sucker punched and ran like a p*ssy. But, that's what libbies do. A neo-nazi and a libbie, and they couldn't muster a full mansack between the two of 'em.

You punched a Nazi?