• 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!

Are "Parkland Survivors" Unquestionable and Irreproachable?

Gondwanaland said:
Not a kid. An adult, iirc. One who has felt free to call me and others murderers simply because we support the Second Amendment and our rights that come from it.
Click to expand...

Could you post a link or video where he calls you a murderer?
 
CriticalThought said:
Could you post a link or video where he calls you a murderer?
Click to expand...

“They’re pathetic ****ers that want to keep killing our children,” said Hogg, referring to the NRA. “They could have blood from children splattered all over their faces and they wouldn’t take action, because they all still see those dollar signs.”

Hog has been quoted many, many times saying this. I think that qualifies as calling millions of law-abiding Americans, "murderers". I don't want to speak for Gondwanaland, but that quote is grossly untrue. As are many things he says.
 
Acadia said:
“They’re pathetic ****ers that want to keep killing our children,” said Hogg, referring to the NRA. “They could have blood from children splattered all over their faces and they wouldn’t take action, because they all still see those dollar signs.”

Hog has been quoted many, many times saying this. I think that qualifies as calling millions of law-abiding Americans, "murderers". I don't want to speak for Gondwanaland, but that quote is grossly untrue. As are many things he says.
Click to expand...

I don't think saying people have blood on their hands for allowing atrocities to occur is quite the same as calling them murderers. Regardless, he is wrong to resort to name calling. Doesn't make the response justified either.
 
CriticalThought said:
I don't think saying people have blood on their hands for allowing atrocities to occur is quite the same as calling them murderers. Regardless, he is wrong to resort to name calling. Doesn't make the response justified either.
Click to expand...

I was referring more to the "keep killing our children" part, which is more than unfortunate. It's untrue.
 
MovingPictures said:
I agree that being a victim of a crime does not make one's policy solutions any more credibility than the next guy, it's a logically fallacious line of reasoning.

But you also fell into the kind of fallacious reasoning yourself, by resorting to an ad hominem attack regarding their youth, which has zero to do with their arguments. Age has a little relation to wisdom -- just look at this forum.
Click to expand...

While age may have little relation to wisdom, youth is the antithesis of wisdom in most cases.

After all -- if the young are so wise -- why are implementing age-related gun-buying laws?
 
If it's someone on the right misbehaving --> oh, that's just politics, all's fair.

If it's someone on the left misbehaving ---> The left is hateful, liberals are destroying the country, rabble rabble rabble.
 
Are "Parkland Survivors" Unquestionable and Irreproachable?

no, but they have been through hell and that is to be respected and a modicum of sympathy and understanding would go miles ...people keep forgetting that part

so they keep talking and people keep listening

and the fear grows because so does their power

expect change...it's coming
 
MovingPictures said:
If you want to criticize his arguments, then so be it. That's what debate is all about.

However, if you're going to do the Dinesh D'Souza, Ted Nugent, Laura Ingraham thing, and throw out ad hominem attacks that have nothing do with gun ownership, then you should expect for people to hit back ... hard.
Click to expand...

Would you say the same thing Conservatives you disagree with?
 
_Sal said:
Are "Parkland Survivors" Unquestionable and Irreproachable?

no, but they have been through hell and that is to be respected and a modicum of sympathy and understanding would go miles ...people keep forgetting that part

so they keep talking and people keep listening

and the fear grows because so does their power

expect change...it's coming
Click to expand...

Respect is earned, not given. And any sympathy one might have for such a person tends to evaporate quite quickly when that person calls you a 'child muderer' and 'pathetic f***er' for disagreeing with them on gun rights.
 
Gondwanaland said:
Respect is earned, not given. And any sympathy one might have for such a person tends to evaporate quite quickly when that person calls you a 'child muderer' and 'pathetic f***er' for disagreeing with them on gun rights.
Click to expand...

Respect comes in many forms but people who have gone through trauma respond in different ways...I respect that

and it does not evaporate regardless of what they call me
 
Gondwanaland said:
One can see the tussle between Laura Ingraham and David Hogg...who pushed a boycott because she apparently personally dissed him, according to some.

But other things to observe...

Brian Stelter of CNN admitted he's allowed Hogg to say things he knew to be false on his program without correcting him...

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/n...-admits-he-let-david-hogg-get-away-lies-about

A recent New Yorker piece compared Emma Gonzalez with Joan of Arc... ummm......because, reasons.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-passion-of-emma-gonzalez

Really among the "leaders" Hogg has to compete the most against Gonzalez since she's actually the preferred image the media likes. One wonders if he tends to be so over the top to just keep himself relevant to the eyes of the press since Gonzalez doesn't have to do the same really.

it's pretty clear the majority of the press is in the tank for these people, and defend them. The endgame is either a continuing cult of personality (honestly it currently reminds me of how Trumpsters react when someone even slightly looks like they might be criticizing the Orange Stain) or they get discarded like Cindy Sheehan when the next shiny object appears.

Anyways...there were 2000 people at the school. The way "survivor" is being used all of them are "survivors". "Survivor" doesn't as defined right now bey mean someone who was injured or in a direct line of danger from the assailant, it seems. (that new definition includes the activist leaders such as Hogg, Gonzalez)

Are they are all unquestionable and irreproachable? Perhaps only the kids from the school who disagree with Hogg's and Gonzalez's faction can be (as we've seen) questioned/criticized.

I'd also point out that while "Parkland survivors" are presented as children...Gonzalez for instance is 18. So she is in fact, an adult. As is Hogg, I believe.
Click to expand...

When David Hogg knowingly and willfully stepped into the public sphere as a spokesperson for the anti-gun movement he opened himself to criticism. Furthermore, he put himself in that position with a stated desire to profit from his notoriety. Whether he chose to profit via cash or social media recognition is immaterial. Had he been thrust into the spotlight through no actions of his own I'd have a lot more sympathy for him but this was entirely his choice and if he doesn't like the consequences then he needs to step back.
 
Lutherf said:
When David Hogg knowingly and willfully stepped into the public sphere as a spokesperson for the anti-gun movement he opened himself to criticism. Furthermore, he put himself in that position with a stated desire to profit from his notoriety. Whether he chose to profit via cash or social media recognition is immaterial. Had he been thrust into the spotlight through no actions of his own I'd have a lot more sympathy for him but this was entirely his choice and if he doesn't like the consequences then he needs to step back.
Click to expand...

I'm starting to think that maybe we should make a list of all the people on the right who defend every attack on the Parkland students by citing the fact that he "stepped into the public sphere". (I dropped the willfully because none of those kids chose to be shot at. You'd never have learned his name but for another mass shooting in the good 'ole UGA).



Accused of being a crisis actor who is lying about seeing his friends murdered ---> OK, they said something in public.

Accused of ripping up the constitution based on photoshopped material ---> OK, they said something in public.

Mocked for not getting into college ---> OK, they said something in public.





If someone speaks in public and their political opinions makes you mad, then no holds barred. That's your basis position. It's also a position I know I'll never see the various people making your type of remarks take if the tables are turned sometime in the future, and left-wing pundits say petty and/or vile things about a sympathetic right-wing target.
 
Mr Person said:
I'm starting to think that maybe we should make a list of all the people on the right who defend every attack on the Parkland students by citing the fact that he "stepped into the public sphere". (I dropped the willfully because none of those kids chose to be shot at. You'd never have learned his name but for another mass shooting in the good 'ole UGA).



Accused of being a crisis actor who is lying about seeing his friends murdered ---> OK, they said something in public.

Accused of ripping up the constitution based on photoshopped material ---> OK, they said something in public.

Mocked for not getting into college ---> OK, they said something in public.





If someone speaks in public and their political opinions makes you mad, then no holds barred. That's your basis position. It's also a position I know I'll never see the various people making your type of remarks take if the tables are turned sometime in the future, and left-wing pundits say petty and/or vile things about a sympathetic right-wing target.
Click to expand...

Hogg and Gonzalez volunteered to be the poster kids for anti-gun movement. No one made them do it against their will.
 
apdst said:
Hogg and Gonzalez volunteered to be the poster kids for anti-gun movement. No one made them do it against their will.
Click to expand...

Are they back in school yet?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom