The debate on gun control is over

You say you didn't compare "them to animals". I don't know whether this means you believe the current rioters and thugs beating people in the streets as animals or whether they are not, or you're saying you didn't compare the Boston Tea Party (Sons of Liberty) to the current protesters.

You are in fact trying to compare the Tea Party actions to those of today's rioters by asking this over and over. But I don't mind your line of questioning, because my values don't change depending on who asks them or current events. I am steadfast in my principles.

So. Was it OK, in my opinion, that the Tea Party broke the law and stormed American owned ships to protest the signing of the bill? I am not sure. I am an ardent supporter in using violence ONLY as a means to protect my family and what is mine. War should be the answer once all other alternatives are exhausted. I cannot say, having not lived in that time and only having the knowledge that historians have bestowed upon me, whether all other options were exhausted or not.

Not sure if you ever saw the movie The Patriot. But there is an interesting similarity here when Benjamin Martin (played by Mel Gibson) is speaking in Charleston at the gathering of whether Virginia will "vote the levy" and cast its intent to secede with other states. He is concerned about his family and what war will do to the innocent (having been through it already in the French and Indian war a few decades earlier) and he says "I will not fight. And because I will not fight I will not cast a vote that will send others to fight in my stead." He clearly is for what the vote supports, but believes at the time that violence is not the solution. When asked about his principles, he says "I am a parent, sir. I haven't the luxury of principles."

Later in the movie, of course, when presented with no alternative, he eventually gets into the fight when his son is murdered. I like to believe my philosophy is similar. But it is hard for me to make the call as to whether the decisions by the Sons of Liberty were indeed correct from the perspective of my armchair and computer 250 years later.

To be clear, however, the current riots and thuggery let loose on the country right now is nothing like the Tea Party and the Sons of Liberty. The only similarity is that violence was used. That isn't nearly enough to bring equivalency.

You said that the protests are ok as long as they don't break the law.

I asked you if the Tea Party protest was ok, even though they broke the law.

You fail to answer.

The question has nothing to do with killing, violence, or anything else specific necessarily.

A simple question, begging for a simple answer. But I doubt you'll give a straight answer to this simple question.
 
You said that the protests are ok as long as they don't break the law.

I asked you if the Tea Party protest was ok, even though they broke the law.

You fail to answer.

The question has nothing to do with killing, violence, or anything else specific necessarily.

A simple question, begging for a simple answer. But I doubt you'll give a straight answer to this simple question.

I didn't fail to answer. I gave you a very thoughtful and detailed answer. You're all pissy because you're not getting the answer you want and your attempt to trap me (because that is all you are trying to do) is using a false equivalency. Don't like it? Piss the fuck off. I've tried to be civil to you.

You want to ask questions to others and then hide and get all ambiguous when asked questions back.

Edit: Jews broke the law of the land during Nazi Germany to hide their fellows so they wouldn't be shipped off to camps. This is obviously acceptable. Does this mean I support breaking the laws now and burning stores and beating people? What an asshole question.
 
I didn't fail to answer. I gave you a very thoughtful and detailed answer. You're all pissy because you're not getting the answer you want and your attempt to trap me (because that is all you are trying to do) is using a false equivalency. Don't like it? Piss the fuck off. I've tried to be civil to you.

You want to ask questions to others and then hide and get all ambiguous when asked questions back.

Edit: Jews broke the law of the land during Nazi Germany to hide their fellows so they wouldn't be shipped off to camps. This is obviously acceptable. Does this mean I support breaking the laws now and burning stores and beating people? What an asshole question.

I'm not pissy, don't really give af. But I do want to make it clear that you made a statement about these protests: as long as they don't break the law.

Yet, won't apply that same logic to another protest: The Tea Party, where they broke the law.

Either you are saying all protests should be lawful.

Or you are saying only some protests should be lawful.

There is no way around this.

Again, my point is to show how you assert all sorts of directives, that you can't logically justify.

Again, I don't expect you to answer the actual question.
 
I'm not pissy, don't really give af. But I do want to make it clear that you made a statement about these protests: as long as they don't break the law.

Yet, won't apply that same logic to another protest: The Tea Party, where they broke the law.


Either you are saying all protests should be lawful.


Or you are saying only some protests should be lawful.

There is no way around this.

Again, my point is to show how you assert all sorts of directives, that you can't logically justify.

Again, I don't expect you to answer the actual question.

This is a load of complete horseshit. There are no absolutes. You can't apply principles to every known scenario, and peaceful protest is allowed by law and protected in the Constitution of the United States.

To say that all laws must be obeyed at all times (which is absolutely not what I said) is foolish. And your attempt to paint me as a hypocrite is disingenuous at best, and trolling at worst.

There are always situations where laws should not be followed. Hell, many military organizations worldwide state they will not follow an unjust law.

You have no point in this thread other than to troll. I was unsure as to whether you offered any commentary of value or whether you'd be a good person to debate and discuss with. This is apparently not the case. So again, piss off.
 
This is a load of complete horseshit. There are no absolutes. You can't apply principles to every known scenario, and peaceful protest is allowed by law and protected in the Constitution of the United States.

To say that all laws must be obeyed at all times (which is absolutely not what I said) is foolish. And your attempt to paint me as a hypocrite is disingenuous at best, and trolling at worst.

There are always situations where laws should not be followed. Hell, many military organizations worldwide state they will not follow an unjust law.

You have no point in this thread other than to troll. I was unsure as to whether you offered any commentary of value or whether you'd be a good person to debate and discuss with. This is apparently not the case. So again, piss off.

Simmer down sunshine. You don't have to answer the question.
 
Simmer down sunshine. You don't have to answer the question.

I did answer the question, Sally. You don't have to like it.

But don't worry, I won't make the mistake of thinking you're here for any type of worthwhile dialog again.
 
Back
Top