Comment: Round 2?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: You talk a lot and say nothing. (see in situ)

Round 2?

"Those who rule over you do so by violence while telling you that violence solves nothing."

False people typically contradiction themselves in one sentence, and the above is as good an example as any I've seen.

Violent people teach by example.

Here are more words on that subject (for those who like to read, and not for those who prefer sound bites):

"We shall be told: what can literature possibly do against the ruthless onslaught of open violence? But let us not forget that violence does not live alone and is not capable of living alone: it is necessarily interwoven with falsehood. Between them lies the most intimate, the deepest of natural bonds. Violence finds its only refuge in falsehood, falsehood its only support in violence. Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose falsehood as his PRINCIPLE. At its birth violence acts openly and even with pride. But no sooner does it become strong, firmly established, than it senses the rarefaction of the air around it and it cannot continue to exist without descending into a fog of lies, clothing them in sweet talk. It does not always, not necessarily, openly throttle the throat, more often it demands from its subjects only an oath of allegiance to falsehood, only complicity in falsehood."

A question can be answered in Round 3, by the opposition.

Does the opposition to Liberty make aggressive violence only legal for their number to perpetrate while making aggressive violence a crime for anyone other then their number to perpetrate?

I think that the question is on-topic and worthy of reasonable discussion. Those who are willing to resort to violence are easily understandable as being those who are as willing to resort to deceit.