• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which Political Party has more Violent Rallies?

Which Party has more violent Ralliers?

  • The Left

    Votes: 7 36.8%

  • The Right

    Votes: 2 10.5%

  • Unsure/Neither

    Votes: 10 52.6%
  • Total voters
    19
Wake said:
Does the right or the left roughly have more violent demonstrators?

To me the left typically has more, and naturally leftists believe conservatives have more.

Do you think there's a way to roughly estimate which groups within either side are more violent?
Click to expand...
Uh...really? Because I don't think that and since I know the thread you've pulled this question from, I don't recall any of the liberals in there claiming that either.

However, I voted "unsure" because I am. On the one hand, I could say the left mostly because I think of the Civil Rights era where violence was pretty widespread. But then I could say the right because I start thinking about anti-illegal immigration, pro-life and anti-SSM activists who get a little rowdy. So, I don't know.

For every violent act at a rally shown on television, I could list about 10 more liberal and conservative that weren't violent at all. To be honest, I think, in general, violence is perpetuated by such a small amount of the population that it isn't really worth attributing a lean to it.
 
Neither PARTY's rallies tend to have significant amounts of violence to really warrant a discussion of any sorts.

If you're asking which ideology, its likely a bit of a wash with the extremes on both ends having hteir issues.
 
wow...all these votes and none for The Right. That is beyond interesting. Violence usually stems from an inability to communicate or understand a situation. Education is the counter-measure for that.
 
Zyphlin said:
Neither PARTY's rallies tend to have significant amounts of violence to really warrant a discussion of any sorts.

If you're asking which ideology, its likely a bit of a wash with the extremes on both ends having hteir issues.
Click to expand...

It's just that I see the many violent groups coming from socialist/Union/illegal immigration groups.

My earlier premise was that the Tea Party was not violent compared to those left-leaning groups. However, a user whose nam I can't remember proved me wrong and I acknowledge that. Now, I modify my argument in that the TP is less violent than left-leaning groups.

Then I was curious and wanted to know roughly which groups from the right/left were more violent, on average. I suspect the left, but I don't really know.
 
Wake said:
It's just that I see the many violent groups coming from socialist/Union/illegal immigration groups.
Click to expand...
This could easily be replaced with anti-illegal immigration/pro-life/anti-SSM groups.
 
Wake said:
It's just that I see the many violent groups coming from socialist/Union/illegal immigration groups.
Click to expand...


Well of course, because you are a massively right leaning person who continually and routinely looks and keeps an ear out and focuses on media that is going to highlight violence in those groups while downplaying it anywhere else.

Also, how many "Socialist" rallies have been occuring recently? Actual "socialist" rallies not this idiotic notion of "OMG WE'RE GOING TO CALL DEM SOCIALISSTSS!!". You complain about the lack of people caring about "facts" in the past...what violent union rallies have been going on?

Are there violence at left leaning rallies? Sure. There's violence at anti-immigration rallies at times, tea party rallies at times, pro-life rallies, etc.

Talking about "groups" is significantly different than "rallies". If you're just getting violence of "groups" then you can expand it on both sides too, such as the "religious right" style pastor who recently urged his congregation to attack homosexuals.

My earlier premise was that the Tea Party was not violent compared to those left-leaning groups. However, a user whose nam I can't remember proved me wrong and I acknowledge that. Now, I modify my argument in that the TP is less violent than left-leaning groups.
Click to expand...

As long as you understand you're arguing an opinion, not fact. Unless you can find a way to quantify it; both defining what KIND of violence specifically you're speaking of and somehow actually measuring it. Something inherently different to do. I don't hear a ton of violence coming out of Tea Party rallies. At the same time, I've not heard of a single "Socialist" rally in my entire life and don't recall much more violence occuring at "union" rallies either.

You suspect the left because you're conditioned to think negatively about the left on everything, are more apt to believe any negative story dealing with the left while being questioning of htose dealing with the right, and subscribe to sources that are going to be focusing on the left.

As I said, my personal opinion is that its a relatively small fraction of occurences on the mainstream of either side and the numbers of occurences at the extreme ends are so low that actual discussing it is like trying to argue if the man with $.98 cents is rich compared to the guy with $1.00. Its a pointless pissing match to try and make or show one side as bieng somehow worse for something that only appears that way when one is so focused due to partisan blinders that they can't step back and see the actual context of it and realize how ridiculous the notion is all together.
 
Thunder said:
anti-abortion protests are also violent, as they often seek to block women from abortion & other clinics.
Click to expand...

So wait...strikes with a picket line are violent then to you because they seek to block people from entering their jobs?

You've got a GIANT net that you use to capture "violence" in. Which partially highlights my point. Violence to one person may be punching someone, violence to another person may be vandalism, and violence ot another like Thunder could be someone giving you the stink eye.
 
Zyphlin said:
...You suspect the left because you're conditioned to think negatively about the left on everything, are more apt to believe any negative story dealing with the left while being questioning of those dealing with the right, and subscribe to sources that are going to be focusing on the left....
Click to expand...

this indeed appears to be the case.
 
Party? None.

Side? Depending on when, but the Left is frequently interested in "revolution" (usually vaguely stated, sometimes completely pacifistic), and has a pretension of the goodness of being arrested for the sake of standing up to one's political and moral causes. The Right may use intimidating rhetoric or devices (weapons) as well (this is not really different from the Black Panthers). In the end, the Left could view the violence as a reflex of the Right, which may be more closely tied to the State or the established power structures in a society.

Both sides are capable of doing so, but the energy right now, per se, is more on the American Left to have situations deteriorate into violence or disorder.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
So wait...strikes with a picket line are violent then to you because they seek to block people from entering their jobs?...
Click to expand...

yes, if Union protestors try to physically prevent people from going to work or into a store, they are being violent.
 
Zyphlin said:
Well of course, because you are a massively right leaning person who continually and routinely looks and keeps an ear out and focuses on media that is going to highlight violence in those groups while downplaying it anywhere else.

Also, how many "Socialist" rallies have been occuring recently? Actual "socialist" rallies not this idiotic notion of "OMG WE'RE GOING TO CALL DEM SOCIALISSTSS!!". You complain about the lack of people caring about "facts" in the past...what violent union rallies have been going on?

Are there violence at left leaning rallies? Sure. There's violence at anti-immigration rallies at times, tea party rallies at times, pro-life rallies, etc.

Talking about "groups" is significantly different than "rallies". If you're just getting violence of "groups" then you can expand it on both sides too, such as the "religious right" style pastor who recently urged his congregation to attack homosexuals.



As long as you understand you're arguing an opinion, not fact. Unless you can find a way to quantify it; both defining what KIND of violence specifically you're speaking of and somehow actually measuring it. Something inherently different to do. I don't hear a ton of violence coming out of Tea Party rallies. At the same time, I've not heard of a single "Socialist" rally in my entire life and don't recall much more violence occuring at "union" rallies either.

You suspect the left because you're conditioned to think negatively about the left on everything, are more apt to believe any negative story dealing with the left while being questioning of htose dealing with the right, and subscribe to sources that are going to be focusing on the left.

As I said, my personal opinion is that its a relatively small fraction of occurences on the mainstream of either side and the numbers of occurences at the extreme ends are so low that actual discussing it is like trying to argue if the man with $.98 cents is rich compared to the guy with $1.00. Its a pointless pissing match to try and make or show one side as bieng somehow worse for something that only appears that way when one is so focused due to partisan blinders that they can't step back and see the actual context of it and realize how ridiculous the notion is all together.
Click to expand...

...interesting. Perhaps I should go back to the philosophical stance that all opinions/beliefs are pointless because they are not absolutely proven. It's impossible for one to be objective, yet also have any political belief.

 
Violence, to me, is actual punching/kicking/torching cars/etc.

...not carrying registered firearms.
 
Thunder said:
how about trying to intimidate people by carrying firearms? you cool with that?
Click to expand...

...you assume they mean to intimidate.
 
Wake said:
...interesting. Perhaps I should go back to the philosophical stance that all opinions/beliefs are pointless because they are not absolutely proven. It's impossible for one to be objective, yet also have any political belief.
Click to expand...

Opinions and beliefs aren't pointless unless they are able to be proven. However, thinking that people should or are going to think that you're opinions and beliefs have a point IS pointless.

Your opinions and beliefs only have a point to one person without fail and that's yourself. For them to matter, be worth while, have weight, or have a point to anyone else requires that person to actually feel a reason to give such credance to your opinions/beliefs. That can happen in a variety of ways. It could happen simply because the person already thinks very similar to you. It could happen because you provide evidence enough to convince someone. It could happen because your past record has shown you to be an objective person that has good beliefs/opinions and thus are given a level of trustworthyness. Etc.

Your opinions matters and are important to you and only you by default. For everyone else, there needs to be a reason. The only thing "pointless" with regards to opinions is expecting that people are going to give a damn about them without you giving THEM a reason. Mind you, giving THEM a reason...not giving a reason that YOU feel is good enough but doesn't mean dick to them. That's the other problem people tend to make, they throw a reason out why their opinion should matter that suits THEIR standard...but that doesn't really matter becuase you're not trying to convince yourself.

You're not going to convince a millionaire to do what you want because you offer him $1,000 dollars because in your mind that should be good enough, because he's not movitated by that. You have to figure out what it is that would motivate him if you really care about getting him to do what you want.

As far as being objective and having a political belief...again, I think you're incorrect. Its entirely posisble to be objective and have a political belief, however its more difficult to do the more engrossed you become in that belief and the more you wrap the belief into the very fabric of who you are. I know a number of objective liberals and conservatives, many right here on this board. Sometimes even just acknolwedging your difficulty in being objective due to your vantage point in and of itself helps lend to objectivity. Being objective and having a strong belief, in whatever be it politics or something else, is possible...its just not easy.
 
Thunder said:
how about trying to intimidate people by carrying firearms? you cool with that?
Click to expand...

You are extracting your own emotions regarding your opinions when viewing a situation and ignorantly assuming that it is correct to extract those emotions and place them on the other person as if that was their intention.

This would be similar to someone saying how wonderful playing with their dog this weekend was, feeling sad because your dog died a few weeks back, and thus deciding that they must've been trying to make you sad because that's how their action felt.

People could be wearing a firearm to a tea party rally because the Tea Parties large focus is in regards to "returning" to a constitutional govenrment and they feel that wearing a firearm is a visable display of them enacting their rights. They could be wearing it because they always do as a means of protection. They could be wearing it because they felt it would fit in better with the crowd. They could be wearing it because they felt like it'd be a place they could actually go in public wearing it without being looked at strangely and liked the idea. None of which is wearing it in an attempt to "threaten" you, but because you feel threatened due to your own personal issues and biases you decide to place intent upon their actions and claim it violence.
 
bringing a gun to an angry rally, full of accusations of treason & tyranny, is a sign of love & peace???

come on now.
 
Thunder said:
bringing a gun to an angry rally, full of accusations of treason & tyranny, is a sign of love & peace???

come on now.
Click to expand...

Go read my comments on opinions thunder and you'll likely have a good guess of how I likely view yours.

I'll "come on" when your idiotic and ignorant hyper partisan hyperbole is checked at the door.
 
Well, this only shows that I've got a lot more to learn...
 
Wake said:
Well, this only shows that I've got a lot more to learn...
Click to expand...

Here's the bigger question Wake.

Do you think that either ideologies rallies consistant of a significant amount of violence?

If not, why even bother with the question? Why bother with the argument? If the amount of violence in total for either ideology is not significant then why the pissing match over whose is "more" insignificantly violent OTHER than simply an attempt to find a way to demonize, attack, and deride another side even over something that is insignificant?

And if it IS significant in your mind, then it would suggest that there should be enough evidence to at least provide something more than simply opinion in regards to the amount of violence taking place and by who.
 
Zyphlin said:
Here's the bigger question Wake.

Do you think that either ideologies rallies consistant of a significant amount of violence?

If not, why even bother with the question? Why bother with the argument?...
Click to expand...

it stems from another thread that he decided to turn into its own thread.
 
Zyphlin said:
Here's the bigger question Wake.

Do you think that either ideologies rallies consistant of a significant amount of violence?

If not, why even bother with the question? Why bother with the argument? If the amount of violence in total for either ideology is not significant then why the pissing match over whose is "more" insignificantly violent OTHER than simply an attempt to find a way to demonize, attack, and deride another side even over something that is insignificant?

And if it IS significant in your mind, then it would suggest that there should be enough evidence to at least provide something more than simply opinion in regards to the amount of violence taking place and by who.
Click to expand...
That's a point I brought up earlier. I don't know which said has statistically more violence, but I can name 10 peaceful con or lib rallies for every violent one on the news. It just doesn't seem like enough violence to even matter. Moreover, the violence of a few has no impact on the legitimacy of the entire group's arguments.
 
Thunder said:
hyper-partisan hyperbole?

now I think you're merely projecting.
Click to expand...

You're funny.

Normally I'd laugh at such a ridiculous accusation and suggest the person go read a number of my posts and threads over the years. However, this one is even easier. Just go read this ****ing thread and you'll see what kind of an ignorant statement that was.

Where did I ever mention "love and peace"? I didn't, but you of course had to launch into a strawman and grab onto hyper partisan hyperbole equating tea party protests as being "Full" of treason and and tyranny which suggests that's a significant portion of it (unless somehow something that is "full" of something only has a tiny bit of it). I suggested the reason could be due to a political demonstration of constitutional rights (oh, I'm sorry, Thunder reads this as "peace and love" apparently), it could be because they always wear it as a form of protection (opps, again, somehow that came out as "peace and love" on his screen"), or because its an experience (wearing a firearm openly) that they don't normally feel comfortable doing but would enjoy and had a safe environment in which to do it without ridicule (wow, that was a LOT of words to say "peace and love").
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom