once,why you think it would take more?

You've asked it several times already despite multiple individuals having said that criticism of Ngo does not excuse anyone for committing violent acts. If that condemnation was too subtle, I will gladly say as clearly as possible that nothing excuses the violence committed against Ngo even if criticisms can be made against Ngo.

Good we agree on that.

You're letting me down.

Unavoidable to use violence because of opinions hurting us?

How much do you want to violate the intolerant for them just using words?

can the people claiming that andy ngo was a proud boy or "far right" actually provide some evidence?

"

Also contains a sample of Ngo's work which is hilariously bad.

EDIT2: This is so funny that it deserves its own link.

https://splinternews.com/london-has-fallen-according-to-this-racist-wall-street-1828725242"

yeah... he's afraid of islam's growing influence... the same as many who are apparently trying to victim blame him

had I done this thread on whether religion is delusional and needs to go the way of the dinosaur I can assure you that almost every single person victim blaming him would enthusiastically agree with that proposition

this does not mean he's far right(or even right at all) and it certainly does not mean he's a proud boy

"he video of Fox News describes the situation as Ngo getting beaten almost to death, but the whole thing lasted only about ten seconds and Ngo could walk away on his own feet. People suffer more bruises from an average game of American football."

"it's hilarious that a pansy like Ngo gets the spotlight for suffering minor injuries"

he had bleeding in his brain, are you seriously trying to argue that this is a minor injury?

"we still get a bunch of people who defend a far-right journalist."

how is he far right? and even if he was why shouldn't he be defended from violence?

" If you are right-leaning, why not distance yourself from this journalist as well as the groups he sympathizes with?"

i've seen no evidence so far to show that he's a proud boy

You've made a logical fallacy, but I'm not surprised considering it's you lmao

can you explain how its a fallacy beyond assertion?

the left states constantly that questioning a victim's actions is victim blaming (when its a woman)

"Victim blaming occurs when the victim of a crime or any wrongful act is held entirely or partially at fault for the harm that befell them. The study of victimology seeks to mitigate the prejudice against victims, and the perception that victimsare in any way responsible for the actions of offenders."

now the left beat the shit out of a journalist and what is happening? suddenly its completely ok to criticise the actions of the victim and lets not forget that his actions were simply standing there with a camera

ok look, here's a dude kicking the shit out of a woman

is it ok to victim blame her too? or is it different because she's a woman?

Cool story but you're foundation is based in a fallacy known as false equivalence so your argument doesn't stand and you're wrong.

"A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result. False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors. The pattern of the fallacy is often as such: "If A is the set of c and d, and B is the set of d and e, then since they both contain d, A and B are equal". d is not required to exist in both sets; only a passing similarity is required to cause this fallacy to be used."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence