We need one standard of non-violence
If there was a TV show with Nazis getting smacked around and kicked, I'd probably purchase goods from its sponsors. Even more so if it was by machines designed specifically to smack and kick Nazis. I think the further you remove Nazis from the touch of humanity the better.
Gilgul said:
Two wrongs do not make a right.
And I would think that you would all realize that sanctioned vigilantism never ends well.
The French Resistance? History has generally smiled on those who fight state sponsored Nazis.
Gilgul said:
Two wrongs do not make a right.
And I would think that you would all realize that sanctioned vigilantism never ends well.
That's what the Boston Tories said of those Tea Party thugs.
Klinker said:
maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/Gilgul">Gilgul said:
Two wrongs do not make a right.
And I would think that you would all realize that sanctioned vigilantism never ends well.
The French Resistance? History has generally smiled on those who fight state sponsored Nazis.
The French Resistance considered themselves the legitimate government in exile.
Gilgul said:
maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/Klinker">Klinker said:
maplewood.worldwebs.com="" profile="" discussions="" u="" gilgul"="" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/Gilgul">Gilgul said:
Two wrongs do not make a right.
And I would think that you would all realize that sanctioned vigilantism never ends well.
The French Resistance? History has generally smiled on those who fight state sponsored Nazis.
The French Resistance considered themselves the legitimate government in exile.
Ummm.... no, not so much. Most (but certainly not all) resistance groups were willing to collaborate with De Gaulle and the Free French but to claim that they considered themselves part of a "government" would reveal a ignorance of the specific history of the period and the general state of French society in the 1940s.
when one says they're anti-violence, with no qualifications, how is that not an absolutist position?
BrickPig said:
drummerboy said:
read my post on being "anti-violence". I doubt either of you are absolutists on this, so you're kind of taking the easy way out by claiming that you are.
maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/BrickPig">BrickPig said:
maplewood.worldwebs.com="" profile="" discussions="" u="" marylago"="" target="_blank"> https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/marylago">marylago said:
Way to make generalizations, dude. As a liberal ... I don't care how much I disagree with Trump and his minions, I am anti-violence. In fact, I am anti-ad hominem attacks as well. Make your point, but curb your fists and your words.
Second.
I didn't say I'm a pacifist. Yes, if someone's life or physical safety were being threatened, I might resort to violence if I thought that would help the situation. I don't really think that negates my statement that I'm anti-violence. YOU said "absolutist," not me or Marylago (who may or may not be an absolutist, I don't know).
Consider it qualified.
drummerboy said:
when one says they're anti-violence, with no qualifications, how is that not an absolutist position?
BrickPig said:
drummerboy said:
read my post on being "anti-violence". I doubt either of you are absolutists on this, so you're kind of taking the easy way out by claiming that you are.
maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/BrickPig">BrickPig said:
maplewood.worldwebs.com="" profile="" discussions="" u="" marylago"="" target="_blank"> https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/marylago">marylago said:
Way to make generalizations, dude. As a liberal ... I don't care how much I disagree with Trump and his minions, I am anti-violence. In fact, I am anti-ad hominem attacks as well. Make your point, but curb your fists and your words.
Second.
I didn't say I'm a pacifist. Yes, if someone's life or physical safety were being threatened, I might resort to violence if I thought that would help the situation. I don't really think that negates my statement that I'm anti-violence. YOU said "absolutist," not me or Marylago (who may or may not be an absolutist, I don't know).
Klinker said:
Gilgul said:
maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/Klinker">Klinker said:
maplewood.worldwebs.com="" profile="" discussions="" u="" gilgul"="" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/Gilgul">Gilgul said:
Two wrongs do not make a right.
And I would think that you would all realize that sanctioned vigilantism never ends well.
The French Resistance? History has generally smiled on those who fight state sponsored Nazis.
The French Resistance considered themselves the legitimate government in exile.
Ummm.... no, not so much. Most (but certainly not all) resistance groups were willing to collaborate with De Gaulle and the Free French but to claim that they considered themselves part of a "government" would reveal a ignorance of the specific history of the period and the general state of French society in the 1940s.
Not ignorance, just alternative facts.
okey dokey
BrickPig said:
Consider it qualified.
drummerboy said:
when one says they're anti-violence, with no qualifications, how is that not an absolutist position?
BrickPig said:
drummerboy said:
read my post on being "anti-violence". I doubt either of you are absolutists on this, so you're kind of taking the easy way out by claiming that you are.
maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/BrickPig">BrickPig said:
maplewood.worldwebs.com="" profile="" discussions="" u="" marylago"="" target="_blank"> https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/marylago">marylago said:
Way to make generalizations, dude. As a liberal ... I don't care how much I disagree with Trump and his minions, I am anti-violence. In fact, I am anti-ad hominem attacks as well. Make your point, but curb your fists and your words.
Second.
I didn't say I'm a pacifist. Yes, if someone's life or physical safety were being threatened, I might resort to violence if I thought that would help the situation. I don't really think that negates my statement that I'm anti-violence. YOU said "absolutist," not me or Marylago (who may or may not be an absolutist, I don't know).
hoops said:
this is two entirely different things. I feel like the ACLU did exactly the right thing, defending the first amendment, defending our rights to demonstrate, even if we are a group of disgusting pigs.
The ACLU is great. Period. What they do is necessary and the fact that they exist means there is a need for them....
Just curious. Do you feel the same of the NRA?
TomR
it is not possible to rationally think that both the ACLU and the NRA are good.
Tom_R said:
hoops said:
this is two entirely different things. I feel like the ACLU did exactly the right thing, defending the first amendment, defending our rights to demonstrate, even if we are a group of disgusting pigs.
The ACLU is great. Period. What they do is necessary and the fact that they exist means there is a need for them....
Just curious. Do you feel the same of the NRA?
TomR
I would respectfully disagree. So long as an individual goes through the initiatives/policy positions of each group and then pick out the ones with which they agree.
For example, I strongly support the ACLU's position on unabridged free speech. And, at the same time, strongly support the NRA's support for scientific wildlife conservation (whichgains financial support through taxes on ammunition and firearms in order to fund government agencies charged with environmental research and conservation management). There is no organization which exactly matches my values. As a result, I make my decisions based on the policies of each and every organization in an a la carte fashion.
drummerboy said:
it is not possible to rationally think that both the ACLU and the NRA are good.
Tom_R said:
hoops said:
this is two entirely different things. I feel like the ACLU did exactly the right thing, defending the first amendment, defending our rights to demonstrate, even if we are a group of disgusting pigs.
The ACLU is great. Period. What they do is necessary and the fact that they exist means there is a need for them....
Just curious. Do you feel the same of the NRA?
TomR
regardless of one's position on guns and the 2nd Amendment, it should be pretty clear to anyone that the NRA and ACLU differ in a very meaningful way. While both advocate for citizens' Constitutional rights, the NRA also acts as a very powerful lobbyist for the for-profit firearms industry.
In its early days, the National Rifle Association was a grassroots social club that prided itself on independence from corporate influence.
While that is still part of the organization's core function, today less than half of the NRA's revenues come from program fees and membership dues.
The bulk of the group's money now comes in the form of contributions, grants, royalty income, and advertising, much of it originating from gun industry sources.
Since 2005, the gun industry and its corporate allies have given between $20 million and $52.6 million to it through the NRA Ring of Freedom sponsor program. Donors include firearm companies like Midway USA, Springfield Armory Inc, Pierce Bullet Seal Target Systems, and Beretta USA Corporation. Other supporters from the gun industry include Cabala's, Sturm Rugar & Co, and Smith & Wesson.
http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1
Would the NRA advocate for wildlife conservation if funding for those programs wasn't linked to the sale of guns and ammo? I don't know for sure but I am guessing probably not.
In any case, if you are concerned about wildlife, there is no end of organizations that do not support far right extremism to which you may donate.
Klinker said:
Would the NRA advocate for wildlife conservation if funding for those programs wasn't linked to the sale of guns and ammo? I don't know for sure but I am guessing probably not.
I'm sure they would since a large contingent of their members like to hunt.
dave23 said:
Klinker said:
Would the NRA advocate for wildlife conservation if funding for those programs wasn't linked to the sale of guns and ammo? I don't know for sure but I am guessing probably not.
I'm sure they would since a large contingent of their members like to hunt.
Judging by bumper stickers, a large contingent of their members drive gas guzzling pickups but they don't spend much of their time (directly) fighting fuel economy regulations. To my mind, the NRA is strictly pay to play.
Does anyone know if the NRA actually lobbies Congress for conservation efforts? I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they don't.
drummerboy said:
Does anyone know if the NRA actually lobbies Congress for conservation efforts? I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they don't.
They do. But the vast majority of bills they lobby for/against are gun control/law enforcement oriented.
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientbills.php?id=D000000082&year=2016
maybe I should have watched the video sooner. All that outrage over a Wile E. Coyote clown gun.
Tom_R said:
hoops said:
this is two entirely different things. I feel like the ACLU did exactly the right thing, defending the first amendment, defending our rights to demonstrate, even if we are a group of disgusting pigs.
The ACLU is great. Period. What they do is necessary and the fact that they exist means there is a need for them....
Just curious. Do you feel the same of the NRA?
TomR
No. Why would one have to do with the other? Because the NRA follows the money to protect gun sellers under guise of the second amendment? No similarity at all.
hoops,
What one has to do with the other, is that both organizations are committed to preserving our Civil Liberties. One has a broad focus; the other, a narrow focus.
Perhaps, just perhaps, the organization with the narrow focus is necessary because the organization with the broad focus, pays only lip service to our Second Amendment Civil Liberties.
I'm not sure I understand the remainder of your reply, but if you were implying that the NRA receives beaucoup bucks from manufacturers, and that the manufacturers benefit financially from the NRA's advocacy efforts; I won't disagree.
TomR
For Sale
Garage Sales
-
Multi Family Garage Sale Sale Date: Apr 20, 2024
More info
Free Items
Employment Wanted
Latest Jobs
Employment Wanted
-
Apr 19, 2024 at 9:42am
-
Amazing Housecleaning available call! (201) 889-5521
Apr 18, 2024 at 12:40pm
-
Apr 18, 2024 at 11:17am
-
Apr 17, 2024 at 6:35pm
-
Administrative Assistant/REMOTE-Part Time
Apr 17, 2024 at 1:19pm
Help Wanted
-
NPF509 FT Nanny/Family Assistant for Twins (ASAP Flex)
Apr 19, 2024 at 12:38pm
-
CF582 FT Nanny/Family Assistant for 2 (Late May Start)
Apr 19, 2024 at 12:18pm
-
SF5001 FT Nanny for 2 (ASAP Start)
Apr 19, 2024 at 12:02pm
-
Full-Time / Part Time Nanny Needed
Apr 19, 2024 at 11:51am
-
MF519 PT Nanny for 1 (ASAP Start)
Apr 18, 2024 at 5:23pm
Lessons/Instruction
Advertisement
I didn't say I'm a pacifist. Yes, if someone's life or physical safety were being threatened, I might resort to violence if I thought that would help the situation. I don't really think that negates my statement that I'm anti-violence. YOU said "absolutist," not me or Marylago (who may or may not be an absolutist, I don't know).