Inauguration Violence?

[Sparko]

Pacifist/conscious objector with regard to war. I am fine with violence as a tool of political protest, though observe that it is not usually as effective as non-violent political protest, as I have previously discussed with CP.

In other words as long as violence get you what you want, you are fine with it. Got it.

You realize that war is the ultimate in political action right?

[Starlight]

You realize that war is the ultimate in political action right?

Huh?
I think people have the right to self-determination, and thus have the right to engage in political action within their own countries to protest the government's actions and/or demand that the government take action on certain issues. Their country = their government = their right to vote and speak and protest. People have the right to not be slaves, and thus have the right to engage in many and various ways with those who 'rule' over them and lead them.

War between nations is something totally different. It is not about a individuals engaging with the ones ruling over them. It is about some sort of conflict between the ones ruling over them with the ones ruling over others. And it is about those rulers using their people as pawns and cannon fodder to resolve arguments between the rulers and foreign rulers, where the rulers themselves are not in the line of fire or at risk. It is about needless lives being sacrificed for the egos of the rulers and their inability to settle their arguments themselves or take personal responsibility for their actions. The average person in one nation has no issue with the average person in another - they might get on well, they might be friends, or they might find they don't want to spend much time together as they rub each other the wrong way - but in a war their leaders demand they kill each other not because they have strong dislike of that other individual nor have they likely ever met the individuals they are being asked to kill, but because the leaders are too dumb / stupid / egotistical / incompetent / arrogant to resolve some sort of disagreement they are having with the other person's leaders. Why should I kill someone I've never met and have nothing against? That's horrible. It's horrible to ask me or anyone else to do that sort of thing. War is nothing but a callous game played between leaders with the lives of their own people, where the leaders themselves risk nothing.

So, in short, I support democracy and political protest because I believe in people having self-determination and am against slavery, and hence think people have every right to address those leading them in any way they see fit. I am against war for the same reason, because I believe in the self-determination of people and do not believe their leaders have any right to spend the lives of their people in pointless and stupid wars where the people are being asked to bleed, die, and kill people they have never met and have nothing against, just because the leader finds it convenient for themselves to spend their people's lives in such a way. Frankly I would find it convenient to spend the leader's life in such a way, and would much rather kill a leader who was trying to force me and enslave me into killing someone I'd never met and had nothing against, than I would to kill such a stranger who had never done me the least wrong and whom I might find made a great friend if I were to chat to them over coffee.

[Darth Ovious]

Pacifist/conscious objector with regard to war. I am fine with violence as a tool of political protest, though observe that it is not usually as effective as non-violent political protest, as I have previously discussed with CP.

[Cow Poke]

Huh?
I think people have the right to self-determination, and thus have the right to engage in political action within their own countries to protest the government's actions and/or demand that the government take action on certain issues. Their country = their government = their right to vote and speak and protest. People have the right to not be slaves, and thus have the right to engage in many and various ways with those who 'rule' over them and lead them.

War between nations is something totally different. It is not about a individuals engaging with the ones ruling over them. It is about some sort of conflict between the ones ruling over them with the ones ruling over others. And it is about those rulers using their people as pawns and cannon fodder to resolve arguments between the rulers and foreign rulers, where the rulers themselves are not in the line of fire or at risk. It is about needless lives being sacrificed for the egos of the rulers and their inability to settle their arguments themselves or take personal responsibility for their actions. The average person in one nation has no issue with the average person in another - they might get on well, they might be friends, or they might find they don't want to spend much time together as they rub each other the wrong way - but in a war their leaders demand they kill each other not because they have strong dislike of that other individual nor have they likely ever met the individuals they are being asked to kill, but because the leaders are too dumb / stupid / egotistical / incompetent / arrogant to resolve some sort of disagreement they are having with the other person's leaders. Why should I kill someone I've never met and have nothing against? That's horrible. It's horrible to ask me or anyone else to do that sort of thing. War is nothing but a callous game played between leaders with the lives of their own people, where the leaders themselves risk nothing.

So, in short, I support democracy and political protest because I believe in people having self-determination and am against slavery, and hence think people have every right to address those leading them in any way they see fit. I am against war for the same reason, because I believe in the self-determination of people and do not believe their leaders have any right to spend the lives of their people in pointless and stupid wars where the people are being asked to bleed, die, and kill people they have never met and have nothing against, just because the leader finds it convenient for themselves to spend their people's lives in such a way. Frankly I would find it convenient to spend the leader's life in such a way, and would much rather kill a leader who was trying to force me and enslave me into killing someone I'd never met and had nothing against, than I would to kill such a stranger who had never done me the least wrong and whom I might find made a great friend if I were to chat to them over coffee.

How, eggzackly, does that address your professed amusement at somebody punching somebody else in the face?

I was particularly amused by the White Supremacist getting punched in the face during his interview, and by the gay dance parties designed to block the entrances.

Would you have been dancing in glee had the 'White Supremacist' been stabbed with a knife?

[Starlight]

How, eggzackly, does that address your professed amusement at somebody punching somebody else in the face?

Because the alt-right are a bunch of horrible people advocating horrible things, and it is cathartic to see a leader of that movement get a punch in the face. Watching a gif of it over and over gives one a sense of karma and reminds one that sometimes bad people do get a little bit of what they deserve.

Would you have been dancing in glee had the 'White Supremacist' been stabbed with a knife?

I would probably be mildly happy that the world was now a slightly better place and then get on with my life. But someone getting killed is not the same kind of thing as someone getting hit in the face with a cream pie, or a wet fish (or hilariously in the case of one NZ politician, a sex toy). A punch in the face is deserved comeuppance and funny, getting stabbed to death isn't funny but all things considered he would deserve it so I'd have no sadness over it.

[Darth Ovious]

How, eggzackly, does that address your professed amusement at somebody punching somebody else in the face?

It doesn't because he is a thug. He's just looking for an excuse. Even Russell Crow would have a better excuse than that to start a fight.

Would you have been dancing in glee had the 'White Supremacist' been stabbed with a knife?

He would have joined in.

[Adrift]

Huh?
I think people have the right to self-determination, and thus have the right to engage in political action within their own countries to protest the government's actions and/or demand that the government take action on certain issues. Their country = their government = their right to vote and speak and protest. People have the right to not be slaves, and thus have the right to engage in many and various ways with those who 'rule' over them and lead them.

War between nations is something totally different. It is not about a individuals engaging with the ones ruling over them. It is about some sort of conflict between the ones ruling over them with the ones ruling over others. And it is about those rulers using their people as pawns and cannon fodder to resolve arguments between the rulers and foreign rulers, where the rulers themselves are not in the line of fire or at risk. It is about needless lives being sacrificed for the egos of the rulers and their inability to settle their arguments themselves or take personal responsibility for their actions. The average person in one nation has no issue with the average person in another - they might get on well, they might be friends, or they might find they don't want to spend much time together as they rub each other the wrong way - but in a war their leaders demand they kill each other not because they have strong dislike of that other individual nor have they likely ever met the individuals they are being asked to kill, but because the leaders are too dumb / stupid / egotistical / incompetent / arrogant to resolve some sort of disagreement they are having with the other person's leaders. Why should I kill someone I've never met and have nothing against? That's horrible. It's horrible to ask me or anyone else to do that sort of thing. War is nothing but a callous game played between leaders with the lives of their own people, where the leaders themselves risk nothing.

So, in short, I support democracy and political protest because I believe in people having self-determination and am against slavery, and hence think people have every right to address those leading them in any way they see fit. I am against war for the same reason, because I believe in the self-determination of people and do not believe their leaders have any right to spend the lives of their people in pointless and stupid wars where the people are being asked to bleed, die, and kill people they have never met and have nothing against, just because the leader finds it convenient for themselves to spend their people's lives in such a way. Frankly I would find it convenient to spend the leader's life in such a way, and would much rather kill a leader who was trying to force me and enslave me into killing someone I'd never met and had nothing against, than I would to kill such a stranger who had never done me the least wrong and whom I might find made a great friend if I were to chat to them over coffee.

Wait, what? This is an incredibly naive understanding of war. Like something I'd imagine a child coming up with. Based on the premises you lay out here, would you be okay with Civil War? How about a war of aggression and occupation. Would the Ukranians have the right to fight back against Russian incursions? Did the Polish Underground have the right to resist German occupation?

You really haven't thought this out very clearly, have you?

[Cow Poke]

I was particularly amused by the White Supremacist getting punched in the face during his interview, and by the gay dance parties designed to block the entrances.

So, I wasn't exactly sure what "White Supremacist" you were talking about, but I'm guessing this is it....

He's just speaking calmly, and somebody rushes in and assaults him. Let's be clear --- is THAT what amuses you?

(By the way, even HuffPo doesn't call him a 'White Supremacist' - they call him a White Nationalist. Can you discern the difference?)

White Nationalist Richard Spencer Punched In The Face On Camera

[Adrift]

Because the alt-right are a bunch of horrible people advocating horrible things, and it is cathartic to see a leader of that movement get a punch in the face. Watching a gif of it over and over gives one a sense of karma and reminds one that sometimes bad people do get a little bit of what they deserve.

I would probably be mildly happy that the world was now a slightly better place and then get on with my life. But someone getting killed is not the same kind of thing as someone getting hit in the face with a cream pie, or a wet fish (or hilariously in the case of one NZ politician, a sex toy). A punch in the face is deserved comeuppance and funny, getting stabbed to death isn't funny but all things considered he would deserve it so I'd have no sadness over it.

You are screwed up, dude.

[Darth Ovious]

Because the alt-right are a bunch of horrible people advocating horrible things, and it is cathartic to see a leader of that movement get a punch in the face. Watching a gif of it over and over gives one a sense of karma and reminds one that sometimes bad people do get a little bit of what they deserve.

Be careful what you wish for.

I would probably be mildly happy that the world was now a slightly better place and then get on with my life. But someone getting killed is not the same kind of thing as someone getting hit in the face with a cream pie, or a wet fish (or hilariously in the case of one NZ politician, a sex toy). A punch in the face is deserved comeuppance and funny, getting stabbed to death isn't funny but all things considered he would deserve it so I'd have no sadness over it.

I suppose in the same way that an infant child deserves to be stabbed using a scalpel.

[Darth Ovious]

You really haven't thought this out very clearly, have you?

Please Adrift, stop it. You're making my sides split.

This would actually require starlight to have the ability to think in the first place.

[Cow Poke]

Because the alt-right are a bunch of horrible people advocating horrible things, and it is cathartic to see a leader of that movement get a punch in the face.

Wow - you're nearly subhuman, Star.

Even if you were giving a speech on why you believed young children could legally be murdered, and somebody punched you in the face, I wouldn't be amused - I wouldn't cheer on the attacker - I would agree that he should be prosecuted for battery.

What a dark foolish heart you have.

[Darth Ovious]

So, I wasn't exactly sure what "White Supremacist" you were talking about, but I'm guessing this is it....

He's just speaking calmly, and somebody rushes in and assaults him. Let's be clear --- is THAT what amuses you?

(By the way, even HuffPo doesn't call him a 'White Supremacist' - they call him a White Nationalist. Can you discern the difference?)

White Nationalist Richard Spencer Punched In The Face On Camera

I would also point out that he denies being a Neonazi and says that Neonazi's actually hate him.

[Cow Poke]

You are screwed up, dude.

How old do you think he is? This is NOT adult thinking.

[Cow Poke]

I would also point out that he denies being a Neonazi right before this and says that Neonazi's actually hate him.

This is a classic case of "I disagree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it" -- failure.

Liberals want their rights to say stupid stuff defended, but attack anybody who disagrees. So much for the tolerance that they preach so much.