So if I get this right, If I tell someone to kill your kids and that person kills your kids, only the person who actually committed the act should be punish.  

As to your second paragraph, yeah that would be great.  If only there was a president who was smart enough to understand his position and increase jobs, reduce taxes but doesn't put the country into such debt that it will take decades to recover.  Oh well, as long as the economy is hot all is good huh.

When you say everyone should be held to the same standard, are you saying that the one who advocated for violence should be considered less then the one who actually committed the violence.  Am I reading what you are saying correctly.

As to your second paragraph, who is judging someone less evil because they have less influence.  The question is does someone with more influence should be held to a higher standard.  With that statement, do you believe that if Trump advocated violence and violence was done in his name, only the people who committed the violence should be punished.

Don't even try to sugar coat the facts and say the president can't be accountable.

edit: the person inciting the act of violence, and the person acting out the violence should be equally accountable, and those doing nothing about it is complicit.

the last 20sec is quite interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIs2L2nUL-0

Just to give you a heads up. I'm done with this argument as I don't like banging my head against the wall over an argument that goes nowhere. It seems that people like you can't comprehend that all people should be held on the same standard of ethics. Someone has already given a much better explanation about this argument. So as people don't become hypocrites.

Now I would appreciate it if you don't quote or reply to me again regarding this matter. Thanks.

...Of course they are bound by the law. Hence my statement that from a law perspective everyone should be seen as equals.

*You haven't been arguing with me.

Who is arguing with you.  I have not made one statement that says I agree or not agree with your statement but asked for clarification.  Did you even read the questions I ask or did you just ignore it because you do not want to support your opinion.  So you will still not answer my question.  I asked pretty specific questions to you because I do not care what someone else stated unless I responded to them.  You can ignore this question again but here goes, if someone promote violence and someone commits violence in that person names are all parties equally to blame.

Either way, if you make another comment on the subject or in this thread, I may or may not response to you.  There is pretty much nothing you can do about it but ignore it.  Why make comments if you are not willing to defend them.  I guess if you believe your opinion is right then you can take that stance.  Nothing shows arrogance then not willing to defend your opinion.

Depends on your beliefs. Some people believe only the person who said it first should be totally guilty, some think the initiator should be more at fault but everyone is guilty to some degree, some think everyone is equally guilty, and some think only the act committer is guilty. I think everything factors into it one way or another. Just because someone 'said it first' doesn't necessarily mean they didn't learn or interpret that from something else that someone said or wrote before. How far back do we go? Just because someone takes action, doesn't mean they were specifically told to, or interpreted the meaning incorrectly.

I'm just saying to try and put complete blame on someone for saying something doesn't seem overly logical. I've been told/taught many things in my life, yet I don't do/follow many of them, since I don't agree and think they aren't useful or productive. Not everyone is like me though. So do we let everyone make up their own minds and hope for the best, or do we lead everyone by strict rules, or do we try and find a balance and just deal with the odd issue from time to time?

Lastly, if your going to put blame on the loud voices that are apparently directly leading to this violence, it needs to apply to all speakers, so not only would someone like Trump be at fault, but so would many Dems, journalists, anchors, actors, etc. Limiting speech is an extremely tricky thing and the enforcement of it is even trickier.

Other than during wartime correct? What if Trump never said anything close to inciting violence, but many of his well known, non political followers were? Are they off the hook? How much weight would they hold? What about if the followers of those followers who had fairly respectable numbers of followers on their social media platforms, were inciting violence? Do they get a free pass? They aren't all that important, and would be ant's considered to Trump right?

I would have to assume everyone below Trump wouldn't be guilty of anything because if they weren't getting it from Trump, then there wouldn't be anything to worry about since he would be the most influential. This would explain why it seems the lefty groups or individuals rarely get fingers pointed at them, because the Dems weren't really inciting violence until more recently and yet there was violence erupting from the left since Trump was voted in. So why is it that it must be Trump who's at fault?

Trump never gets under my skin or causes me to get upset, but my own PM, JT, a Liberal, who wouldn't dare say anything mean ever, makes my blood boil sometimes. So should we ban 'polite speech' so people like me aren't ever pushed over the edge? What makes people go crazy or get to the point of harmful physical violence can be so many different things that simply pointing to certain words said by someone isn't ever going to solve the problem. Now it may help in certain situations potentially, but why bother trying to help if your going to end up being blamed regardless? If the finger always gets pointed at you, then you might as well do whatever you want anyway, right?

I wouldn't exactly say your being totally unreasonable, but I find it extremely hard to believe you can strongly connect all those actions directly to only those 'initiators'. Just because they may have been the largest platforms where it was picked up by the masses, doesn't mean it was their idea. The idea holder should be much more at fault then the individual further spreading that idea. If it was such a horrible idea to begin with, it should have been made illegal. Again, this is a tricky thing to try an accomplish when you want free speech and the freedom that comes with it. 

You also can't know who else may have spread the idea if that certain individual hadn't done so already, and you can't know if those followers would have ever picked it up elsewhere, or eventually came up with it themselves. This also assumes that everyone in the spotlight is an extremely intelligent, moral, just, etc, individual, which many are not. Do we all have to vote now on who can become famous and influential, to make sure they don't ever cross the line, wherever it has moved since it last stood? When they get out of line, do we just ban them from the spotlight forever because apparently people never learn, whether that's the praised person or the follower?

Holder, Waters, Clinton, etc.

You don't want to ban "orange juice" but what about racist or sexist or homophobic words used by people that upsets or triggers or demeans them or anyone else? I won't mention them but I'm sure you can guess what kind of words I'm talking about. If we can help just one person isn't that worth it? If some people are willing to ban guns so less people get shot, and ban private pools so less people drown, then why not ban more words?

If Trump says he loves KFC, which he does, and someone goes out and eat's KFC, and get's fat or ill because of it, is it Trumps fault? Should he never mention what he eats, like McD's as well? Should we ban all that food?

I feel like you’re splitting hairs here. You simply assigned a arbitrary technical criteria on what you consider dangerous. I feel any incitement can lead to violence and telling ppl to gather and aggresively harass can lead just as much to joking about punching someone and paying the legal bills. You can’t predict what angry and unhinged ppl would do, and masses of angry and unhinged ppl only amplifies the danger. I mean, what do you think would eventually happen? It’s like saying “go drink 2 liters of vodka and drive at full speed with your eyes closes” and saying “well I didn’t exactly tell him to drive into a dozen pedestrians, did I?”. I don’t buy into the whole “not-as-bad-by-technicality-I-define” logic.

How about Madonna talking about the White House or that actress whose name I can’t recall who held a depatitated head or that actor (was it Shia Lebouf?) who actually assaulted someone (the nazi guy I think)? Or the Rock in SNL “advocating” violence against GoP politicians by essentially brutalizing them (The Rock Obama skit)? Are those ppl Trump+ in scumminess? Did you consider what they said/did far worse? OR did you get a little chuckle or felt good when they said what they said? Be honest now.

I would say myself you are just as guilty, based on the way in which you worded it, if what you said about Oprah wasn't definitely true. CNN also shouldn't ever pick that story up, without confirming it, so they would also be guilty. Now if you phrased it in a different way in which it was a little bit hard to tell whether you were joking or not, and you were joking, and CNN ran it because they didn't properly vett the claim, then you really wouldn't be at fault at all, and CNN would be mostly if not entirely at fault.

Ok, but who has the power to make them pay for their wrongdoings, are they moral and just people, and do they always make the right decisions? Social media only goes so far for the public, and not everyone in the public agree's, and how do you withhold your money to show your disgust if your also hurting many other innocent individuals because of it?

To what I would call a normal individual, sure, you have to say hateful things in a certain way, and mean them, for it to be considered promoting violence, but there are some who want to read between the lines, and they seem to be getting a lot of attention and are promoted, especially from the media. Why aren't those people or the media punished? Saying something like 'I like a guy who can do a good body slam', isn't much different to some people, then him posting a picture eating KFC or McD's. Some would say he's non verbally endorsing unhealthy food and obesity and because he's influential, people will also eat it and pay for it in a non violent way. Then you have to ask what's worse, a few violent followers which could lead to some injury or death, or a bunch of fat, unhealthy, or dead followers?

I mostly agree on the speech thing, as long as everyone in the group, etc, is reasonable about it. If someone isn't warned at least twice before being punished then I wouldn't be on board. I also would say that punishment should rarely be a permanent ban immediately. If you don't like that, it's a free Country, so only come here if you have to, follow the rules as your required, then leave, or don't come around at all if you don't have to. This idea of the rules having to always be the exact same everywhere doesn't make sense to me. The groups that are too restrictive will suffer one way or another eventually, so the system would mostly take care of itself as long as the overall amendment exists.

Waters was walking a super thin line. She was promoting stalking and harassment, was borderline pushing violence, and she wasn't exactly doing so in a calm cool manner. 'You get out and you create a crowd, you push back on them, and you tell them they're not welcome'. Pushing someone would be physical violence. Some may take what she meant to mean push back verbally, but some may take it as physically. Even Trump had to tell her to watch her words.

Holder said 'when they go low, we kick them', and he was talking about Republicans. He was taking Michelle Obama's 'we go high' line and instead of saying we go lower or something like that, he said 'we kick them'. That speaks for itself. Clinton said 'you cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about, that's why I believe that if we are fortunate enough, to win back the house and or the senate, that's when civility can start again.' She also makes a point about how it seems that Republicans only seem to understand and respect strength. Politics is not violence first, it's civil debate and discussion, and when that fails, it becomes violence when civility no longer is useful. The opposition also does not want to destroy the Dems, they simply prefer their way of governing, and the people chose that this time around. It's the Dems job to find out where they went wrong and what the people want and then offer it to them. The people don't buy into whatever the party is selling, the party caters to the people. That's how it works.