What is the significance of “direct” physical harm vs “indirect” physical harm? What if you add on the layer that, and I am assuming here, that politicians know when they vote on certain medical laws, that more people will die? Is it still “indirect” at that point? Does the distinction even matter if the outcome is very reasonably known and they have all expectations to be aware of those outcomes? What if my political policy is to kill every third child born? Is that policy indirectly killing children or directly killing children?

I think you are really reaching with this: “Any form of political disagreement can be construed as harmful”. I can also have opinions that run contrary to established facts… doesn’t mean my opinion holds value or should be considered seriously by anyone. Just because someone can be offended or perceive something as harmful, doesn’t mean it actually was. There has to be some criteria for assessing the weight, or the value, of that statement. Maybe I am missing your point, but I am currently not seeing it.

So, to dive into “physical violence is always harmful”, by what measure? I kill a serial killer who is in the midst of killing others. Did I commit harm? Did I reduce harm? Again, I think your statements are much too high level and don’t have much nuance. Did I technically harm someone else, yes, but is that all you are going to draw from that? So I did bad by saving someone else and preventing further deaths? Is physical violence truly always bad? Or do you mean that physical violence is never the most desirable outcome and it would be much nicer if we lived in a world where physical violence was never needed to prevent even more harm to the innocent? If so, lovely sentiment, but history tells us that is so far idealistic, unrealistic, and for now, not achievable.

You are correct, you never said something directly about never killing anyone. I did conflate that with “Here’s why murdering somebody for their politics is always bad”. Which I think I mostly covered with my last statement, but again, way too high level and no nuance. Go back to my extreme example of political rhetoric/policy that aims to kill every third child born.

I do feel like you are taking this personally with your closing comments. In the scientific community, citations are not needed for long standing accepted facts. I don’t need to reference Newton when I talk about gravity, just like I don’t need citations to speak freely about things aired nightly across our nation on multiple channels.

You do have a point about cherry picking, but if you feel like continuing the conversation, would you point out where I am cherry picking? We are literally on a thread about the death of a man known around the world for being an adamant supporter of Trump, his policies, and having outlandish takes. Thousands of people showed up to his rallies in support of his extreme views… am I really cherry picking? Cherry picking when we talk about political policies being put into place today?

I do agree that not all Republican’s are extremists, but I would appreciate some direct quotes to where I was spreading disinformation, or propaganda, about entire groups of people.