• 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!

Is violence an acceptable political tactic?

Is violence an acceptable political tactic?

  • Total voters
    26
  • Poll closed .
Chappy said:
One doctor. What about all the other doctors who are providing abortion services; are you talking about them, too?
Click to expand...

There could be more, the just haven't been caught yet. We know there have been violations of the law where babies survived abortions and were born alive. Legally they must receive medical attention, but many places isolate them in a room and wait for them to die. You want to paint the pro-life movement as being violent because of one man who murdered an abortion performer. I could equally say that the pro-choice movement is violent. Not only violent, but morally depraved. The "doctor" is being charged with murdering 7 babies. He delivered them alive, and while living severed their spinal cords with scissors. This is mentally depraved and horrific. However, you can't label the pro-choice crowd as violent based on the murders of this one man. Likewise, you can't call the pro-life movement violent because of one man who murdered an abortion performer. I don't approve of it, and I condemn it and feel that the man who killed Mr. Tiller was wrong and deserves his sentence.
 
Chappy said:
Actually I was thinking of fairly mainstream anti-abortion groups who are publishing so called “Wanted” posters to intimidate, threaten and otherwise terrorize abortion providers in this country. But, feel free to offer your own instances.
Click to expand...
Okay.

Many union officials have ordered or approved of violent, coercive, and harassing conduct aimed at making an example of employees who don't toe the union line. The National Institute for Labor Relations Research has compiled a list of incidents of union violence that average nearly 300 per year for the last 30 years. The following cases are just a few examples.
Click to expand...

Union Violence, Harassment, and Intimidation of Workers
 
digsbe said:
… I don't approve of it, and I condemn it …
Click to expand...

So violence is not acceptable to you even for what you consider a good cause. We're in agreement.

When I see anti-abortion groups publishing their faux “Wanted” posters I consider it a violent act, an incitement to violence. It is well and good to speak out against things you think are wrong, as I do against capital punishment, but, to attempt to intimidate, threaten or terrorize your political opponents is wrong and is an attack on the foundations of our political system.
 
Last edited:
Chappy said:
So violence is not acceptable to you even for what you consider a good cause. We're in agreement.

When I see anti-abortion groups publishing their faux “Wanted” posters I consider it a violent act, an incitement to violence. It is well and good to speak out against things you think are wrong, as I do against capital punishment, but, to attempt to intimidate, threaten or terrorize your political opponents is wrong and is an attack on the foundations of our political system.
Click to expand...

You'd be wrong.
 
Chappy said:
Violence against your fellow Americans? Okay.
Click to expand...

Only if they stood in the way of removing the tyrannical government.

Would you ever seek to terrorize your neighbors?
Click to expand...

Only if they stood with the tyrannical government.


Publish lists of political enemies to be targeted?
Click to expand...

Only if those attacks can be carried out in a timely manner. Because publishing a list would mean extra security for those who are on that list which means it makes it that much harder to take them out.

Is all this acceptable? Are there any limits to the tactics you would be willing to commit against your political opponents?
Click to expand...

Other than killing them if they tried to use lethal force against me?
 
Yes...but with the caveat that all other options must be exhausted.
 
StillBallin75 said:
lol, I don't agree with my boy X on a lot of things, but someone got nailed here.
Click to expand...
LOL, thanks, SB. It'll be interesting to see if that someone is equally as indignant over these activities.
 
Last edited:
Chappy said:
So violence is not acceptable to you even for what you consider a good cause. We're in agreement.

When I see anti-abortion groups publishing their faux “Wanted” posters I consider it a violent act, an incitement to violence. It is well and good to speak out against things you think are wrong, as I do against capital punishment, but, to attempt to intimidate, threaten or terrorize your political opponents is wrong and is an attack on the foundations of our political system.
Click to expand...

Uhh, I find that to be a pretty big stretch. This ain't the Wild West.
 
Chappy said:
So violence is not acceptable to you even for what you consider a good cause. We're in agreement.

When I see anti-abortion groups publishing their faux “Wanted” posters I consider it a violent act, an incitement to violence. It is well and good to speak out against things you think are wrong, as I do against capital punishment, but, to attempt to intimidate, threaten or terrorize your political opponents is wrong and is an attack on the foundations of our political system.
Click to expand...

Having "wanted" posters isn't violent. Again, you can't label whole groups of individuals based on the actions of a very minute few.
 
StillBallin75 said:
lol, I don't agree with my boy X on a lot of things, but someone got nailed here.
Click to expand...

Help us to understand what you mean. Do you think unions are very violent politically? Do they promote violence in American politics frequently?

I found the Tea Party's language to filled with threats of inappropriate political violence.

I find what appear to be mainstream anti-abortionist groups to be promoting violence against their political opponents.

Is any of this acceptable?
 
It is if there's no other recourse, and the other side uses violence too.
 
Chappy said:
Help us to understand what you mean. Do you think unions are very violent politically? Do they promote violence in American politics frequently?

I found the Tea Party's language to filled with threats of inappropriate political violence.

I find what appear to be mainstream anti-abortionist groups to be promoting violence against their political opponents.

Is any of this acceptable?
Click to expand...

Do you see the difference between language and actions?
 
spud_meister said:
Do you see the difference between language and actions?
Click to expand...

I think language is action. We are tolerant of most political speech but when a speaker incites others to commit violence they've crossed a line.
 
Chappy said:
Help us here, how would you narrow the question? Is violence in America today, acceptable? Question Mark. Asked another way: who if anyone, in your opinion, deserves to be attacked because of their politics?
Click to expand...

In response to the way you originally framed the question, I answered "yes." The way you've framed it above causes me to change my response to "no." I think we have plenty of outlets in this country that can serve to redress grievances: the press, the courts, public protest, boycotts. There's no real justification for resorting to violence. Certainly not a moral one.
 
Help us to understand what you mean. Do you think unions are very violent politically? Do they promote violence in American politics frequently?
Click to expand...

It can't be denied that unions have engaged in unsavory tactics in order to force their members to toe the company line. Now I support the idea of labor unions in principle, but it can't be denied that they do engaged in various questionable practices. If you clicked on X Factor's link you'd find some examples of people getting hurt or killed.

I found the Tea Party's language to filled with threats of inappropriate political violence.
Click to expand...
Some segments of the Tea Party, yes. Then again, only the most hate-filled ignorant mother****ers are interesting enough for the media to report on, so I wouldn't say that most of their members or supporters are violent. I dislike the Tea Party, but to characterize the whole movement as violent is unfair.

I find what appear to be mainstream anti-abortionist groups to be promoting violence against their political opponents.
Click to expand...

IMO "Wanted" posters are not an incitement to violence, any more than are signs saying "Bush is a War Criminal." (I do believe he is a war criminal but just because I put up a sign saying so doesn't mean I'm calling for someone to assassinate him).
 
Last edited:
Chappy said:
Help us to understand what you mean. Do you think unions are very violent politically? Do they promote violence in American politics frequently?

I found the Tea Party's language to filled with threats of inappropriate political violence.

I find what appear to be mainstream anti-abortionist groups to be promoting violence against their political opponents.

Is any of this acceptable?
Click to expand...

The bolded is the most important part of your post, you find it in those places, because you want to find them.
 
I think so. I mean what if our gov turns on us one day and tries to enslave us all? I think fighting them would be just and right thing to do.
 
Interesting. These are not incitements to do violence. Got it.

[all are clickable]





 
Chappy said:
I think language is action. We are tolerant of most political speech but when a speaker incites others to commit violence they've crossed a line.
Click to expand...

So if I yell "have sex with a goat" in the middle of a crowd, and someone then goes and has sex with a goat, I'm responsible for their bestiality? Unless someone offers some sort of incentive to violence, then they're not responsible for another's actions, regardless of what the say.
 
Chappy said:
Interesting. These are not incitements to do violence. Got it.

[all are clickable]





Click to expand...

"We are asking you to help us expose both Dr. [blank] and Dr. [blank] to the powerful Gospel of Christ, to His love and His mercy, so they can use their wonderful gifts and talents to bring life rather than death."

Yes, so very violent.
 
Chappy said:
Interesting. These are not incitements to do violence. Got it.

[all are clickable]





Click to expand...

Is it only conservative speech that offends you? You didn't have much to say regarding the Union violence.
 
I thought the animal rights faux “Wanted” poster just as offensive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom