Is there ever justification for violence?

[Votto]

Looking through the pages of history, who here agrees that the Founding Fathers should have fought a bloody revolution with the king of England?

Offenses include

1. Taxation without representation
2. Colonists treated lower than citizens of England
3. And when England came after the ammo, all hell broke loose.

Was it justifiable, or should they have all hung as insurrectionists?

 

[Circe]

This is kind of yesterday's topic.

Could you fast-forward to 2021?

 

[Oddball]

Yes.

In response to the violence of aggressors.

 

[Votto]

This is kind of yesterday's topic.

Could you fast-forward to 2021?

Not really. It's a general question about when it is justifiable to revolt against a government. Is taxation a reason that is done by a government that you feel no longer represents you and does not conduct fair elections?

This quote by Ben Franklin still cracks me up

“It would be thought a hard government that should tax its people one tenth part.”
BTW, the courts had an obligation to hear the fraud case accusations brought forth by the President of the United States.

Instead, they cancelled his Twitter account and the media refused to let him speak to the public.

All the courts had to do was get it all out in the open and let the public decide, but they failed.

 

[justinacolmena]

3. And when England came after the ammo, all hell broke loose.

When the government comes after our guns, it serves them right.

 

[Scottish_Brexiteer_UK]

On a personal level (and out with certain occupations like Army, riot police etc) then the only justification is for violence (in my opinion) is if you're being attacked or threatened.

Rightly or wrongly (and no doubt wrongly in the eyes of some folk on here) one of the only good things my Mother taught me when I was a kid was that never raise your hands to anyone first or to pick fights/cause trouble BUT if ANYONE hits you first, you hit them straight back - and harder - doesn't matter if they're older, younger (obviously within reason) or even a girl.

Promoting violence in the name of some political cause or something you don't agree with is wrong and moronic and it doesn't matter if it's a Democrat, Republican, right or left winger. Maniacs on either side can GTF as far as I'm concerned. It does their cause no good (or shouldn't at least).

 

[Oddball]

Looking through the pages of history, who here agrees that the Founding Fathers should have fought a bloody revolution with the king of England?

Offenses include

1. Taxation without representation
2. Colonists treated lower than citizens of England
3. And when England came after the ammo, all hell broke loose.

Was it justifiable, or should they have all hung as insurrectionists?

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

 

[Votto]

3. And when England came after the ammo, all hell broke loose.

When the government comes after our guns, it serves them right.

The king came after the ammo, not the guns.

Then again, guns are not worth much without ammo.

 

[AFrench2]

No

 

[progressive hunter]

On a personal level (and out with certain occupations like Army, riot police etc) then the only justification is for violence (in my opinion) is if you're being attacked or threatened.

Rightly or wrongly (and no doubt wrongly in the eyes of some folk on here) one of the only good things my Mother taught me when I was a kid was that never raise your hands to anyone first or to pick fights/cause trouble BUT if ANYONE hits you first, you hit them straight back - and harder - doesn't matter if they're older, younger (obviously within reason) or even a girl.

Promoting violence in the name of some political cause or something you don't agree with is wrong and moronic and it doesn't matter if it's a Democrat, Republican, right or left winger. Maniacs on either side can GTF as far as I'm concerned. It does their cause no good (or shouldn't at least).

when that political cause is intent on oppressing and controlling you that is more than enough justification

 

[martybegan]

Looking through the pages of history, who here agrees that the Founding Fathers should have fought a bloody revolution with the king of England?

Offenses include

1. Taxation without representation
2. Colonists treated lower than citizens of England
3. And when England came after the ammo, all hell broke loose.

Was it justifiable, or should they have all hung as insurrectionists?

The thing is about crossing the violence line is that you better make sure you win.

Winners are founders and inspirations, losers are traitors and corpses.

 

[justinacolmena]

Yes.

In response to the violence of aggressors.

“Violence” is by definition force: the type of force promoted and compelled at whorehouses. Rape and wholesale prostitution.

Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 6:11-13 - King James Version

The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence...

www.biblegateway.com

 

[Votto]

No

So the Founding Fathers should have all hung as insurrectionists?

Is that what you are saying?

If so, when would you revolt? Nazi Germany? Or would you just stay in your basement and hide?

 

[Decus]

Anytime "King George" is mentioned violence is warranted.

.

 

[Votto]

Yes.

In response to the violence of aggressors.

“Violence” is by definition force: the type of force promoted and compelled at whorehouses. Rape and wholesale prostitution.

Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 6:11-13 - King James Version

The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence...

www.biblegateway.com

Well the Bible paints a dark picture of the Canaanites. They were sacrificing their babies to the gods for such things as better crops, victory at war, fertility, etc. Then again, today most women have abortions because of money related issues as well, so is their a big difference here?

 

[Votto]

Anytime "King George" is mentioned violence is warranted.

.

Ok, ok, so long as there is a king named George it is Ok to use violence to revolt.

Understood.

 

[Decus]

Anytime "King George" is mentioned violence is warranted.

.

Ok, ok, so long as there is a king named George it is Ok to use violence to revolt.

Understood.

But they don't have to say it out loud, they could be thinking it.

.

 

[Votto]

Looking through the pages of history, who here agrees that the Founding Fathers should have fought a bloody revolution with the king of England?

Offenses include

1. Taxation without representation
2. Colonists treated lower than citizens of England
3. And when England came after the ammo, all hell broke loose.

Was it justifiable, or should they have all hung as insurrectionists?

The thing is about crossing the violence line is that you better make sure you win.

Winners are founders and inspirations, losers are traitors and corpses.

By all accounts they should have lost. They whole affair really was a miracle to succeed.

Think of it, they were going up against the most powerful nation on earth. The only thing that saved them was:

1. A large ocean separating the two lands
2. A primitive army with primitive weapons
3. France entered the war to help
4. The mounting debt in England and public anger over the continuous war
5. A rich and educated and elite group to help it succeed and have something meaningful to come out of it afterwards. After all, most revolutions end in despotism.

And at the end of the day, they still lost pretty much every battle and still should have lost.

 

[martybegan]

Looking through the pages of history, who here agrees that the Founding Fathers should have fought a bloody revolution with the king of England?

Offenses include

1. Taxation without representation
2. Colonists treated lower than citizens of England
3. And when England came after the ammo, all hell broke loose.

Was it justifiable, or should they have all hung as insurrectionists?

The thing is about crossing the violence line is that you better make sure you win.

Winners are founders and inspirations, losers are traitors and corpses.

By all accounts they should have lost. They whole affair really was a miracle to succeed.

Think of it, they were going up against the most powerful nation on earth. The only thing that saved them was:

1. A large ocean separating the two lands
2. A primitive army with primitive weapons
3. France entered the war to help
4. The mounting debt in England and public anger over the continuous war

And at the end of the day, they still lost pretty much every battle.

The British army and Navy were primarily designed for war against European enemies, and shorter distances. They had far more expeditionary power than the other European powers except maybe for Spain, but the majority of their expertise and power was not designed for colonial fighting against European colonists.

I would add 5, that they could only use a fraction of their power for the fight, as they had to reserve the bulk of their forces in case Europe went hot.

 

[Scottish_Brexiteer_UK]

On a personal level (and out with certain occupations like Army, riot police etc) then the only justification is for violence (in my opinion) is if you're being attacked or threatened.

Rightly or wrongly (and no doubt wrongly in the eyes of some folk on here) one of the only good things my Mother taught me when I was a kid was that never raise your hands to anyone first or to pick fights/cause trouble BUT if ANYONE hits you first, you hit them straight back - and harder - doesn't matter if they're older, younger (obviously within reason) or even a girl.

Promoting violence in the name of some political cause or something you don't agree with is wrong and moronic and it doesn't matter if it's a Democrat, Republican, right or left winger. Maniacs on either side can GTF as far as I'm concerned. It does their cause no good (or shouldn't at least).

when that political cause is intent on oppressing and controlling you that is more than enough justification

Nah not for me sorry.

It's too emotive and subjective. You need discipline for it to work best.

Channel it and rally and hurt these scumbags at the ballotbox.

What I've seen for ages from the likes of BLM and ANTIFA has just sickened me beyond words. It's no way to gain support and sympathy to your cause.

Just because the left and the Democrats think it's good and noble - doesn't make it right.