this doesn't address the argument. people who say it's okay to 'punch nazis' are the same people who hit people with bike locks, assault people, destroy property and torture people. all you have to do is label a person you dislike a 'nazi' and it's a thoughtless greenlight for righteous bloodshed and alienation.

He never claimed he was addressing the argument. He just showed where you were incorrect, and you were.

i said there was a nonzero number of people who might identify as literal nazis.

You wrote:

>is there a nonzero number of people who wholly subscribe to the nazi party's politcal platform, and want that specific party to be reborn? i suppose that's likely

That's about as truthful as, "Did Hitler kill Jews? i suppose that's likely."

i don't know what you mean by 'truthful'. it's not wrong, and it's simply a nod to possibility, as that wasn't even the argument. this is just a waste of time on a tangent so someone feels like they had some kind of point.

further, your comparison doesn't seem very apt. you're talking about a historical event. compared to applying labels to people today who haven't necessarily identified as those labels, as a way to rationalize and endorse violence.

> i don't know what you mean by 'truthful'. it's not wrong, and it's simply a nod to possibility, as that wasn't even the argument.

Yes, it is wrong. Saying something is "likely" to occur, is the same as saying there is some doubt. There isn't.

>this is just a waste of time on a tangent so someone feels like they had some kind of point.

Then why are you adamant about it? Do you have to "win" every argument? The poster was right, you could have said so.

> further, your comparison doesn't seem very apt. you're talking about a historical event. compared to applying labels to people today who haven't necessarily identified as those labels, as a way to rationalize and endorse violence.

I was just trying to quickly show why what you wrote wasn't truthful via an example. Instead it seems I had to spell it out.