South Africa's Nelson Mandela Dies

[hornadylnl]

So are you saying it's OK to set people suspected of being Democrats on fire?

No, I'm drawing the parallel to those who think violent revolution is the answer should our rights be trampled. Should those who voted for the politicians that trampled those rights be killed in that revolution, everyone here would call those voters innocent civilians, right?

If we are allowed the use of violence to defend the constitution against tyrannical dictators, why should Mandela not be allowed the use of violence to attain his freedom? King denounced violence yet he is routinely trashed as well. So again what suitable methods are allowed for blacks all over the world to gain their freedom?

 

[Rob377]

No, I'm drawing the parallel to those who think violent revolution is the answer should our rights be trampled. Should those who voted for the politicians that trampled those rights be killed in that revolution, everyone here would call those voters innocent civilians, right?

If we are allowed the use of violence to defend the constitution against tyrannical dictators, why should Mandela not be allowed the use of violence to attain his freedom? King denounced violence yet he is routinely trashed as well. So again what suitable methods are allowed for blacks all over the world to gain their freedom?

Where has anyone advocated violence against civilian voters here? Or denounced King? I thought "that guy" got banned a long time ago


Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Kutnupe14]

Red herring - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trying to collect the whole set?

It's apparent that you are avoiding, or are having dufficulty answering questions, so I'll make them more plain.

-Were the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki justifed?
-Is it likely that some of the people killed, in those bombings, were innocents?

Yes or no will suffice, but I can allow you to go in-depth if the question is simple enough to understand.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Where has anyone advocated violence against civilian voters here? Or denounced King? I thought "that guy" got banned a long time ago


Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are you new here?

 

[Rob377]

It's apparent that you are avoiding, or are having dufficulty answering questions, so I'll make them more plain.

-Were the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki justifed?
-Is it likely that some of the people killed, in those bombings, were innocents?

Yes or no will suffice, but I can allow you to go in-depth if the question is simple enough to understand.

Right after you 'splain why Nelson Mandela is to be deified despite his endorsement of violence against civilians.

 

[hornadylnl]

Where has anyone advocated violence against civilian voters here? Or denounced King? I thought "that guy" got banned a long time ago


Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's just one thread on MLK and you can be sure the same comments will be posted next MLK day. I'm confident that if INGO existed in the days of Harriet Tubman, there would be those here who would use any of her character flaws to discredit her legacy.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...-discussion/189983-martin-luther-king-jr.html

You've not seen any of the intense hatred here for liberal voters?

 

[Rob377]

Here's just one thread on MLK and you can be sure the same comments will be posted next MLK day. I'm confident that if INGO existed in the days of Harriet Tubman, there would be those here who would use any of her character flaws to discredit her legacy.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...-discussion/189983-martin-luther-king-jr.html

You've not seen any of the intense hatred here for liberal voters?

Hating isn't quite the same as wrapping them in a gasoline soaked tire and burning them to death. So, yeah - check out the straw man fallacy again.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Right after you 'splain why Nelson Mandela is to be deified despite his endorsement of violence against civilians.

Sure, Mandela certainly endorsed violence; I won't argue that. However, that was in the 60s. Many people believed that SA would never end apartheid without some sort of violent confrontation. Mandela went to jail, and after 28 years, rather than being bitter about his incarceration and still promoting violence, he changed his stance and believed in peaceful means to achieve his goal. When he was elected president, rather than enacting a campaign of genocide against SA whites (as is common in say Rhodesia/Zimbabwe or even more tragic Haiti), he brought about reconciliation.
History is littered with instances where after a ruling group is diposed, they are systematically persecuted. This didn't happen in SA.

 

[Rob377]

Sure, Mandela certainly endorsed violence; I won't argue that. However, that was in the 60s. Many people believed that SA would never end apartheid without some sort of violent confrontation. Mandela went to jail, and after 28 years, rather than being bitter about his incarceration and still promoting violence, he changed his stance and believed in peaceful means to achieve his goal. When he was elected president, rather than enacting a campaign of genocide against SA whites (as is common in say Rhodesia/Zimbabwe or even more tragic Haiti), he brought about reconciliation.
History is littered with instances where after a ruling group is diposed, they are systematically persecuted. This didn't happen in SA.

That's a lot more persuasive defense of him than trying to change the subject to Japan.

But I won't be shedding any tears for an ostensibly reformed violent communist, though.

 

[cobber]

How many civilians were in the "wrong place" when Tibbets dropped hellfire on their heads?

I'm sorry but the fallacy is where? Are you denying the fact that many of the residents of Hiroshima were innocent non-combatants?

Are you saying that it's ok to vaporize people suspected of being Imperial Japanese sympathizers?

Sure, Mandela certainly endorsed violence; I won't argue that. However, that was in the 60s. Many people believed that SA would never end apartheid without some sort of violent confrontation. Mandela went to jail, and after 28 years, rather than being bitter about his incarceration and still promoting violence, he changed his stance and believed in peaceful means to achieve his goal. When he was elected president, rather than enacting a campaign of genocide against SA whites (as is common in say Rhodesia/Zimbabwe or even more tragic Haiti), he brought about reconciliation.
History is littered with instances where after a ruling group is diposed, they are systematically persecuted. This didn't happen in SA.

So actually the US is more despicable than Mandela and his followers?


Odd sentiment to voice on Dec. 8, but to each his own.

 

[Kutnupe14]

So actually the US is more despicable than Mandela and his followers?


Odd sentiment to voice on Dec. 8, but to each his own.

Who said I disagreed with the bombings of Hiroshima/Nagasaki? Hell, I thought it was 100% justified. However, that does not change the fact that many innocents were "vaporized" in achieving the goal of defeating Imperial Japan.

 

[Kutnupe14]

That's a lot more persuasive defense of him than trying to change the subject to Japan.

But I won't be shedding any tears for an ostensibly reformed violent communist, though.

I believe you have some questions to answer, no?

 

[Rob377]

I believe you have some questions to answer, no?

You're not going to respond to the linked article from 1990 indicating that Mandela hadn't actually changed his stance regarding violence when he was released?

Your explanation is somewhat lacking factually, so lets clear that up before thread-jacking to a discussion of jus in bello during WWII.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You're not going to respond to the linked article from 1990 indicating that Mandela hadn't actually changed his stance regarding violence when he was released?

Your explanation is somewhat lacking factually, so lets clear that up before thread-jacking to a discussion of jus in bello during WWII.

So I answer your question, and because it's not to your liking, you decline to answer the questions I posed originally (before you conditions)? It doesn't work that way dude.

 

[Rob377]

So I answer your question, and because it's not to your liking, you decline to answer the questions I posed originally (before you conditions)? It doesn't work that way dude.

So you'd still rather change the subject from Mandela to Japan? It's still a red herring. I'll happily indulge it once you address the factual inaccuracies in your answer. The NYT in 1990 says Mandela hadn't renounced violence, contrary to your explanation. So, what's up with that?

 

[cobber]

So I answer your question, and because it's not to your liking, you decline to answer the questions I posed originally (before you conditions)? It doesn't work that way dude.

Actually you employed a series of rhetorical subterfuges, changed the subject, and then posed a different question altogether.

And he has answered your question, which wasn't that hard anyway.

At what point are we going to begin allowing every criminal action to be viewed as a legitimate political act provided the perp supplies some philosophical justification? Should there be a new section in the IC for criminal defenses, including reasonable belief of political goal? Shouldn't a person engaged in political action be free to take whatever steps necessary to further that goal. Including murder? It was okay in SA, right?

And no, I didn't jack the thread. Did I?

 

[Kutnupe14]

So you'd still rather change the subject from Mandela to Japan? It's still a red herring. I'll happily indulge it once you address the factual inaccuracies in your answer. The NYT in 1990 says Mandela hadn't renounced violence, contrary to your explanation. So, what's up with that?

You'll learn that I use words very carefully. I never said Mandela "renounced" violence. I said he didn't "promote" it (after his release).

Here's a real life example that I'm confident applies to you or any other member here. You do not "promote" violence, however for the protection of you and your loved ones, I doubt you have "renounced" it either.

 

[hornadylnl]

So we gun owners renounce the use of violence to restore our gun rights should all guns be banned.

ETA: Evidently the "from my cold dead hands" mantra is just a delusional fantasy.

 

[cobber]

You'll learn that I use words very carefully. I never said Mandela "renounced" violence. I said he didn't "promote" it (after his release).

Here's a real life example that I'm confident applies to you or any other member here. You do not "promote" violence, however for the protection of you and your loved ones, I doubt you have "renounced" it either.

So we gun owners renounce the use of violence to restore our gun rights should all guns be banned.

ETA: Evidently the "from my cold dead hands" mantra is just a delusional fantasy.

I'm struck that some view self-defense as the same as terroristic acts? So necklacing someone is the same as defending your home from a gang breaking down the door? Or a woman defending herself from an assault?

Good to know it's all the same thing in some folks' minds.

Unless we're talking about 'gun violence' like Michael Bloomberg and the Zionsville Moms do.

But now we're comparing apples and kumquats. Jacking continues...

 

[Rob377]

You'll learn that I use words very carefully. I never said Mandela "renounced" violence. I said he didn't "promote" it (after his release).

Here's a real life example that I'm confident applies to you or any other member here. You do not "promote" violence, however for the protection of you and your loved ones, I doubt you have "renounced" it either.

Sure, but I don't have a history of promoting it to make up for.

"he changed his stance and believed in peaceful means to achieve his goal."

Kinda moving the goalposts, here, eh?