LogFAQs > #901906742

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, Database 3 ( 02.21.2018-07.23.2018 ), DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Conservative Heifer, Tomi Lahren gets WATER thrown on her as Everyone CHEERS!!!
Trespasser2003 05/24/18 12:01:56 PM #65:	wah_wah_wah posted... Trespasser2003 posted... OhhhJa posted... adjl posted... OhhhJa posted... VeeVees posted... Violence is never the answer, but we need our guns to fight the evil government. I don't believe we need to actually fear a government invasion but yeah... obviously, violence to combat violence is reasonable And if they oppress you non-violently? Forgot to respond to this. Non violent protests have been successful in the past. MLK never addvocated violence and had plenty of success. Words and demonstrations can be powerful. As far as governments go, hitting them where it hurts can have success. Hit them in their pockets Fascinating theory. https://timeline.com/by-the-end-of-his-life-martin-luther-king-realized-the-validity-of-violence-4de177a8c87b If you make it a game of violence, the hard right automatically wins. They give no fucks about people and are therefore best set up to win that fight. Martin Luther King never said that violence is the first means, only that force should only be the absolute last resort if dialogue is impossible. Of course it's a last resort... but it's also flat-out idiotic to think that being peace-minded liberal wanting equality and/or tolerance means that you should just roll over and constantly take the abuse. Being angry is reasonable, and fighting back is reasonable. The people who always are the ones telling people to sit down, stand up, stop using violence, protest peacefully... those people tend to be the ones who are in power and do not want to share. AND they are usually the ones who tend to think that war is great and everyone should have guns because violence is the answer. --- Itchy itchy. scott came. ugly face so killed him. Tasty. 4// itchy. tasty. <cite>Trespasser2003 posted [p:901906742] in Conservati... [t:76634870]...</cite> <quote><cite>wah_wah_wah posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Trespasser2003 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>VeeVees posted...</cite> <quote>Violence is never the answer, but we need our guns to fight the evil government.</quote> I don't believe we need to actually fear a government invasion but yeah... obviously, violence to combat violence is reasonable</quote> And if they oppress you non-violently?</quote> Forgot to respond to this. Non violent protests have been successful in the past. MLK never addvocated violence and had plenty of success. Words and demonstrations can be powerful. As far as governments go, hitting them where it hurts can have success. Hit them in their pockets</quote> Fascinating theory. https://timeline.com/by-the-end-of-his-life-martin-luther-king-realized-the-validity-of-violence-4de177a8c87b</quote> If you make it a game of violence, the hard right automatically wins. They give no fucks about people and are therefore best set up to win that fight. Martin Luther King never said that violence is the first means, only that force should only be the absolute last resort if dialogue is impossible.</quote> Of course it's a last resort... but it's also flat-out idiotic to think that being peace-minded liberal wanting equality and/or tolerance means that you should just roll over and constantly take the abuse. Being angry is reasonable, and fighting back is reasonable. The people who always are the ones telling people to sit down, stand up, stop using violence, protest peacefully... those people tend to be the ones who are in power and do not want to share. AND they are usually the ones who tend to think that war is great and everyone should have guns because violence is the answer. --- Itchy itchy. scott came. ugly face so killed him. Tasty. 4// itchy. tasty.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1