When is violence acceptable?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Avatar4321, Nov 9, 2010.

  1. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,542
    Thanks Received:
    8,161
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,157
    When in politics is violence acceptable? It's become clear that there are some on the right and the left calling for violent revolution. It's also become clear that there are people on both sides of the aisle who have no problem justifying/excusing it when their guys call violence.

    But when is actually acceptable?
     
  2. Ravi
    Offline

    Ravi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    81,332
    Thanks Received:
    12,695
    Trophy Points:
    2,205
    Location:
    Hating Hatters
    Ratings:
    +29,778
    There is a big difference between politicians and private citizens calling for violence.
     
  3. LiberalNut
    Offline

    LiberalNut Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Messages:
    741
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +49
    Given that we have a constitutional system that allows for non-violent altering and indeed abolishion of government, violence as a means for governmental change is NEVER acceptable. As long as the constitution functions, using violence as a means to induce societal change is TREASON.

    I am sworn to support and defend said contitution. Commit this sort of treason and i will shoot you. Left, right, no matter. I will shoot you. or one of my brothers and sisters in arms will.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. Liberty
    Offline

    Liberty Silver Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,058
    Thanks Received:
    548
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    colorado
    Ratings:
    +548
    i'd like to think if anyone tries to come to my house without a warrant and is there to take my guns that I go out in a blaze of glory because a disarmed nation is a nation of serfdom imo and i would rather die. But idk I might chicken out. lol
     
  5. loosecannon
    Offline

    loosecannon Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,888
    Thanks Received:
    263
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +264
    Gee, that sounds like a fairly violent response.

    There are two correct answers to the question asked:

    1) after the fact when the victors get to make the new rules

    2) when the state adopts violence, as states always claim a monopoly on the use of force.
     
  6. rightwinger
    Offline

    rightwinger Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    120,262
    Thanks Received:
    19,822
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    NJ & MD
    Ratings:
    +45,337
    If anything, I think it shows how extreme the rhetoric is getting. It is no longer sufficient to try to explain why your political opponent may be wrong. It is now necessary to demonize him, ridicule him and question his or her patriotism.
    Once you have labeled your opposition as evil incarnate it becomes impossible to engage in constructive dialogue. How can you ever make deals with someone you have publically labeled the devil?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. Dr.Traveler
    Offline

    Dr.Traveler Mathematician

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    3,943
    Thanks Received:
    652
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    In a Non-Euclidean Manifold
    Ratings:
    +1,052
    Agreed.

    The Constitutional Convention option has never once been utilized, and we still have free elections along with mechanisms for recall for may elected offices. In general, violence should always be the option of last resort, and thankfully the Constitution provides for enough options that violence should never need be resorted to.

    I'd also add, that even if YOU feel violence is justified, once you resort to violence you need to accept that there will be consequences to that, even if you do win. Which you probably won't. Once Violence is used as a means to an end, it makes violence and acceptable option whenever someone has a disagreement with you. A cycle of violence, once started, is almost impossible to stop.

    Specifically, if you feel that things have deteriorated to the point that you think violence is justified against police or law enforcement, don't expect me to stand up for you when they outright kill your ass, if you'll pardon my French. Once you open fire on the police, you're pretty much dead and the argument is moot.
     
  8. rightwinger
    Offline

    rightwinger Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    120,262
    Thanks Received:
    19,822
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    NJ & MD
    Ratings:
    +45,337
    You would only react violently if they came to take your guns?

    What if they came to take your wife?
     
  9. Dr.Traveler
    Offline

    Dr.Traveler Mathematician

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    3,943
    Thanks Received:
    652
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    In a Non-Euclidean Manifold
    Ratings:
    +1,052
    If that happens, which it won't, I'd advocate refusing to comply/hiding your weapons and getting a lawyer. I'd definitely NOT advocate opening fire on the police. That's pretty much never an option, and once you go down that path you end up dead.
     
  10. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,542
    Thanks Received:
    8,161
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,157
    Is there? Is anyone less injured or dead if a private citizen calls for violence than when a politician does or vice versa?
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

is political violence acceptable