Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Liberals: In which situations do you support the use of violence? It seems you are against war, against the use of drones, you're for zero tolerance fighting policies at schools including punishing the person acting in self-defense, and in fact, you think in most cases for self-defense, violence is wrong and the person should just walk away.
But, as was evidenced in the grandma/PP thread, it's okay to resort to violence if you perceive someone is doing something you don't like, whether they are actually doing that thing or not. (And yes, I realize there were plenty of people on both sides saying it's not okay for the woman to have attacked the grandma, but there was just as many saying it's a-okay.)
Liberals: In which situations do you support the use of violence? It seems you are against war,
I'm against an unjust and pointless war, like Iraq.
I wasn't against us going into Afghanistan, but we botched it for the sake of going after Iraq.
Quote:
against the use of drones,
Per above, I'm fine with the use of drones against our enemies when proper and just protocol are followed.
Moving the goalposts of protocol so that any male over 14 or so, give or take, who's seen walking around an area where there has been insurgent activity is to be assumed to be an insurgent himself, even if there's no indication of weapons or anything else, is absolutely wrong.
Quote:
you're for zero tolerance fighting policies at schools including punishing the person acting in self-defense,
I'm not for that at all. Punish the aggressor, not the victim.
Quote:
and in fact, you think in most cases for self-defense, violence is wrong and the person should just walk away.
No, not at all. I've defended myself many times against people who tried to get physically challenging towards myself or someone else after de-escalation and walking away were clear to not work.
Quote:
But, as was evidenced in the grandma/PP thread, it's okay to resort to violence if you perceive someone is doing something you don't like, whether they are actually doing that thing or not. (And yes, I realize there were plenty of people on both sides saying it's not okay for the woman to have attacked the grandma, but there was just as many saying it's a-okay.)
So, liberals, where do you draw the line?
I don't think it was necessary. Calling her a dumb, old hag who needs to mind her own damn business would have been sufficient.
Liberals: In which situations do you support the use of violence? It seems you are against war, against the use of drones, you're for zero tolerance fighting policies at schools including punishing the person acting in self-defense, and in fact, you think in most cases for self-defense, violence is wrong and the person should just walk away.
But, as was evidenced in the grandma/PP thread, it's okay to resort to violence if you perceive someone is doing something you don't like, whether they are actually doing that thing or not. (And yes, I realize there were plenty of people on both sides saying it's not okay for the woman to have attacked the grandma, but there was just as many saying it's a-okay.)
So, liberals, where do you draw the line?
The majority of liberals on the protester/PP thread said it wasn't okay to resort to violence. While some posters said they would resort to violence to defend a loved one in that situation, that can hardly be characterized as just "someone is doing something you don't like".
Perhaps you should ask the question about what sort of boundaries that conservatives respect. Because when you are forcefully made aware that someone doesn't want their picture taken, when they pull a blanket over their head to prevent you from taking their picture, when emergency personnel ask you to please stop, it seems that some conservatives still don't think a boundary is being crossed.
The majority of liberals on the protester/PP thread said it wasn't okay to resort to violence. While some posters said they would resort to violence to defend a loved one in that situation, that can hardly be characterized as just "someone is doing something you don't like".
Perhaps you should ask the question about what sort of boundaries that conservatives respect. Because when you are forcefully made aware that someone doesn't want their picture taken, when they pull a blanket over their head to prevent you from taking their picture, when emergency personnel ask you to please stop, it seems that some conservatives still don't think a boundary is being crossed.
If you would like an answer to that question, feel free to start your own thread. This one is about what level of violence liberals are okay with.
No, this thread is a baldly liberal-baiting thread.
Liberals aren't okay with any level of violence that conservatives aren't okay with.
But extremists, by definition, don't observe boundaries.
Whatever you want to think about it doesn't matter to me. I'm asking, based on the things I have seen on this board over the years, where liberals draw the line. We just had this week people saying it's okay to hit someone videoing on a public sidewalk but saying that zero tolerance policies for bullying work, which would include punishing someone who defends himself, and that kids should be talk to just walk away. So, there's obviously a disconnect. If you think it's some kind of trolling or baiting, feel free to report it or stop reading this thread.
Personally, as a conservative, I don't think violence of any kind is okay unless in self-defense, and that would include going to war. It would have to be justified as defending (or even proactively defending) the US.
Whatever you want to think about it doesn't matter to me. I'm asking, based on the things I have seen on this board over the years, where liberals draw the line. We just had this week people saying it's okay to hit someone videoing on a public sidewalk but saying that zero tolerance policies for bullying work, which would include punishing someone who defends himself, and that kids should be talk to just walk away. So, there's obviously a disconnect. If you think it's some kind of trolling or baiting, feel free to report it or stop reading this thread.
Personally, as a conservative, I don't think violence of any kind is okay unless in self-defense, and that would include going to war. It would have to be justified as defending (or even proactively defending) the US.
Yes, I support knocking the video camera out of the hands of someone videotaping a woman on a stretcher being loaded into an ambulance outside of a Planned Parenthood clinic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
