TakeAStepBack
Gold Member
- Mar 29, 2011
- 13,935
- 1,742
- 245
I see. So you believe that the founding fathers of this nation were terrorists.
What is truly ugly is the mentality of people like you.
Yes, they were. I never, however, put any moral judgement on them or Mandela. I'm pouinting out the hypocrisy of Statists who believe they have the moral authority to make the judgment in who is justified in violence and who is not.
Your inability to comperhend that isn't shocking or alarming,
Doesn't there have to be an ethical standard? If all opposition is equal and equally valid, we have the moral equivalence that leads to anarchy, chaos, and the idea that because the Hitlers, Maos, and Mussolinis were justified in their own minds, they were justified in their actions.
Not for nothing, but in his time in prison at hard labor, Mandela came to follow Gandhi, and advocated the bulk of his life to non-violent means of protest, advocacy, and rebellion against horrifically unjust repression. I'm not sure I would agree with all that. I could get to a point under the conditions many live their lives today that, were I faced with the same set of facts, any means necessary to remove the boot from my loved one's necks would be something I could live with.
That said, I still think that those who jumped at this time to vilify this man are ghouls. The man isn't even cold in his grave, and here you all are talking mad trash for cheap and sleazy political framing.
Again, my point is that some are arguing a moral authority to the use of violence in this instance because they agree with Mendela's cause. At the same time, the Palestinians and many other groups who employ violence in opposition to oppression get labelled far differently. We're fighting a ear on terror in the US right now and have been for over a decade due tot he tactics used by Mendela's group in S. Africa. I do not condemn Mendela, nor the founders, nor any other group that uses violence to ward off or oppose oppression.
My problem is that we create ethical and moral judgments based on hypocrsiy as the authority of the issue when it is political convenient for politicians and sycophants to do so. And we vehemently and violently oppose it from groups who feel they do not have the moral right to defy oppression when it doesn't suite us. Violence is always negative, yet you would never think so when STatists clamor for its necessity.