Who's evil: The gunman or politician?

@Krumple,

David wrote:

Even zealots (those who can reason)
will find a non-sequitur.
The Jews in the nazi camps were not free,
but thay were still alive until thay were murdered (or simply died).

Krumple wrote:

Not to discredit your reply but why is it that just about every political discussion
devolves into some comment about WWII Nazi Germany and the persecution of Jews?

Originally, I was gonna go with the commies, but I switched
because I thawt that this way was shorter; less typing.

Krumple wrote:

How come no one brings up the fact that it was religiously motivated to begin with.

Because that 's not what happened

Krumple wrote:

Had the bible not portrayed the Jews as being worthy of punishment
then perhaps this elected politician wouldn't have found it fit to exterminate them.

BALONEY!
He used them as scapegoats for loss of the First World War.

Krumple wrote:

Hitler didn't kill the Jews,

He got a lot of them.

Krumple wrote:

the bible did, Hitler was just the person carrying out
what he thought the bible wanted him to do.

Nonsense; u don't know much about Hitler's history.
No one alleges that Hitler was a Biblical scholar,
nor that he was loyal to the precepts of the Bible.

Krumple wrote:

Besides that every politician needs an escape goat when there is economic turmoil and the Jews were just a convenience for him to use to gain support. Sure a lot of people were tortured and starved to death, but does it always have to be used as a tear jerker rebuttal tactic?

See my first answer.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Had the bible not portrayed the Jews as being worthy of punishment
then perhaps this elected politician wouldn't have found it fit to exterminate them.

BALONEY!
He used them as scapegoats for loss of the First World War.

I guess you have never read Mein Kampf then I take it? There are many little notations in his writing about the jews and how they are protrayed in the bible and even his own dislike of them for being the "chosen race" as he put it often. On top of that he even sights specifically that they are destined to be punished by god in ways that will not always be clear until they are historical references. That might not mean anything to you other than someone just stating their own dislike for another people but since he ties it into the bible it actually proves that his the bible is actually fueling his dislike that he already had for them. Since he was a catholic and many Catholics had and sometimes still do have a dislike of Jews, calling them evil and wicked or dark. It is no wonder that growing up in such an environment that one wouldn't be indoctrinated into such a hatred. It happens far too often and is capable of a lot of suffering released into the world.

That might not be all religion's fault but it still plays a catalyst for pinning people against each other even to this day it does yet no one is brave enough to actually point it out that it is the leading cause of every heated deadly turmoil the world has witnessed.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Thank you, David.

0 Replies

@Fido,

So answer me this. In Fido's world John Wilkes Booth is a hero, he was justified? You believe Lincoln was suppressing his freedom, his rights, his liberties...correct?

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

DrDick wrote:
Like I said, you are arguing what it means to be "living". Applied to this thread you are trying to justify the gunman's actions by stating he was not free, therefore not living. That is a ridiculous claim that only zealots will support.

Even zealots (those who can reason)
will find a non-sequitur.
The Jews in the nazi camps were not free,
but thay were still alive until thay were murdered (or simply died).

It is easy to say they were living, but not having the essentials of rights they could not live.... Go to some hospital and see some fossil on life support paying high dollar for an existences they are hardly conscious of, and you can say they are alive, because in a sense, they have rights which are exercised on their behalf... But would you trade your life for theirs if it were possible??? Would you envy them their lives??? How many white men want to be a woman, or a black, or god forbid, and black woman??? It is because they have no rights that they are despised, and so their lives are thought of as no lives at all by many...

0 Replies

@DrDick,

DrDick wrote:

So answer me this. In Fido's world John Wilkes Booth is a hero, he was justified? You believe Lincoln was suppressing his freedom, his rights, his liberties...correct?

Just the other way around... Booth was of that class of people willing to deny rights, and in pursuit of that object, to deny life itself... There is a story about Lincoln's understanding of life, even as a child... He chastized some school mates for heaping coals on the backs of terripin to free them from their shells, and he said to them, that an Ant's life is as dear to him as yours is to you...
We would not be slaves because we see that slaves are denied their rights, and that once denied rights, no legal protections based upon rights can deny even the aims of those who would murder the slave... Slaves were worked to death, and people are killed on the job today... What is the difference... Blood money is paid according to the value of the one killed is the only difference... Murder is legal in the work place, and risk is thought essential to profit... People shrug their shoulders and ask what are they to do... Because they cannot see the problem through its form, no solution presents itself...

1 Reply

@Fido,

So what you are saying is a gunman is justified to kill politicians and be anti-government if you agree with the gunmans views, but not justified to be anti-government if you don't agree with his views? Put another way, you are stating it would have been justified for a gunman to kill any southern politician during the Civil War, but not any northern politician?

1 Reply

@DrDick,

DrDick wrote:

So what you are saying is a gunman is justified to kill politicians and be anti-government if you agree with the gunmans views, but not justified to be anti-government if you don't agree with his views? Put another way, you are stating it would have been justified for a gunman to kill any southern politician during the Civil War, but not any northern politician?

Don't be retarded, please! I never justify injustice and there is no greater injustice than making ones own self judge, jury and executioner... We cannot meet injustice with injustice, and the injustice of one does not justify the injustice of another.... Those who suffer injustice, and this includes those who witness injustice are required as human beings to resist injustice and seek justice.... We think we are individuals and in regards to injustice we should show it, and be prepared to act as individuals; but justice is a moral form of relationship, and we should be prepared to give it as well as receive it, and it is best if justice is a result of social activity, what, and all that we do together...

I am not recommending an easy path nor a simple solution... It is extremely difficult to be just in an unjust society... Still, as in Nazi Germany and in the South of the U. S.; it is possible to resist, and many did resist the general injustice... The most difficult thing sometimes is to be a witness to injustice and to look for that moment when resistence might bear fruit... There is no perfect moment for resistence... What one does in their mind may some day occur in reality, but only those with freedom of thought will ever enjoy freedom of action, so that is your first objective, to maintain your own freedom...And that requires resistence on some level..

1 Reply

@Fido,

Fido

You know the funny thing about your comment. I bet that she voted for the US to go to war in Iraq. Now I am not certain but it is a fairly safe bet that she did. Now why is it she can support the US playing, judge, jury and executioner to the world yet you advocate that it is unjustified that she was shot? Aren't those two cases exactly the same thing? Why is it okay to go to war and shoot people you disagree with yet for someone who disagrees with her and shooting her is some how wrong?

Absurdity at it's finest.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

Fido

You know the funny thing about your comment. I bet that she voted for the US to go to war in Iraq. Now I am not certain but it is a fairly safe bet that she did. Now why is it she can support the US playing, judge, jury and executioner to the world yet you advocate that it is unjustified that she was shot? Aren't those two cases exactly the same thing? Why is it okay to go to war and shoot people you disagree with yet for someone who disagrees with her and shooting her is some how wrong?

Absurdity at it's finest.

What a person does out of self defense is justified... All other violence commited by individuals is unjustified... I agree that going to war with a people when we do not like the leaders who oppress them is an injustice. All the democrats who voted to give G. W. Bush the power to go to war with Iraq for the sake of their own political power and place are beneath contempt... In giving a president the power to war, they were giving him a chip to bargain with, but you cannot give an idiot that kind of power or he will destroy something with it... They used to say that if you put a begger in the saddle he would ride the horse to death... Well; he helped to kill us; wasted our army and resources and lots of good will, and tons of money and we are not done yet... The congress should be a check on such idiots, but since they all come from divided districts they can do no more than defend against the lies of the other party before they can be told... The democratic party voted to cover its ass rather than governing the country in the best interests of the people... That is a moral failure, and a failure of party politics; but what am I going to do??? Am I going to kill them knowing another just like them or worse will replace them??? I want to change the whole system, but I refuse to go it alone... We must act together and democratically, and then I do not care how many swing, as long as it is the will of the people using their best judgement...

1 Reply

@Warlock13,

Quote:

This is America. Your problems are not my problems.

Yes it is America Warlock and we even allow ignorant idiots like you to live here and be free.

What you don't seem to understand is that with freedom comes responsibility. You don't want that responsibility though it seems. You prefer to be a 2 yr old that wants everything your way or you throw a tantrum.

0 Replies

@Warlock13,

Quote:

I'm sure there's an island in the pacific.Smile I don't mind the USA. I love it actually. My only complaint is that we have become a nation dependent on collective problem solving.

In case you missed it in history class at the school you were forced to go to this country began with collective problem solving. You might want to read up a little about the continental congress.

0 Replies

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

Krumple wrote:

Fido

You know the funny thing about your comment. I bet that she voted for the US to go to war in Iraq. Now I am not certain but it is a fairly safe bet that she did. Now why is it she can support the US playing, judge, jury and executioner to the world yet you advocate that it is unjustified that she was shot? Aren't those two cases exactly the same thing? Why is it okay to go to war and shoot people you disagree with yet for someone who disagrees with her and shooting her is some how wrong?

Absurdity at it's finest.

What a person does out of self defense is justified... All other violence commited by individuals is unjustified... I agree that going to war with a people when we do not like the leaders who oppress them is an injustice. All the democrats who voted to give G. W. Bush the power to go to war with Iraq for the sake of their own political power and place are beneath contempt... In giving a president the power to war, they were giving him a chip to bargain with, but you cannot give an idiot that kind of power or he will destroy something with it... They used to say that if you put a begger in the saddle he would ride the horse to death... Well; he helped to kill us; wasted our army and resources and lots of good will, and tons of money and we are not done yet... The congress should be a check on such idiots, but since they all come from divided districts they can do no more than defend against the lies of the other party before they can be told... The democratic party voted to cover its ass rather than governing the country in the best interests of the people... That is a moral failure, and a failure of party politics; but what am I going to do??? Am I going to kill them knowing another just like them or worse will replace them??? I want to change the whole system, but I refuse to go it alone... We must act together and democratically, and then I do not care how many swing, as long as it is the will of the people using their best judgement...

Right, but when democracy fails all you have left is the force of your convictions and how much you are willing to lose. The founders of the US knew this concept well and there are many quotes about what is required of those who want to maintain their liberty. I agree with you, I would rather go about it in a more civilized fashion and I doubt that I would ever take up guns against a political person or for anyone for that matter. But when the system is polluted with corruption and the system no longer checks itself but gives the illusion that it is working for the people when in reality it is doing everything but for the people. Then by all means violence is necessary to wake these people up, as sad as that is to say, it is necessary.

When law makers no longer fear their subjects, they will enslave their subjects with their law making. However when law makers fear their subjects they will take into consideration what is best for them to not piss off their subjects.

US politicians no longer have the peoples interest in mind. They claim that they do, but their actions do not reveal that they do. They lie and tell the public one thing and turn around and do something completely different. It is only a matter of time, with the stress they put "good" people under that even the most sane of people will take up arms against their oppressors. No amount of banning, laws will prevent that from happening. We already have a law against killing someone, so do you think that any additional laws are going to make things safer? No it will only make things worse.

Good post by the way Fido.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

To Fido, Krumple wrote:

You know the funny thing about your comment. I bet that she voted for the US to go to war in Iraq. Now I am not certain but it is a fairly safe bet that she did.

Really, what odds would you give him on that? I wasn't aware the Arizona state legislature could vote to send us to war. Giffords was first elected to the U.S. Congress in 2006.

Quote:

Now why is it [someone] can support the US playing, judge, jury and executioner to the world yet you advocate that it is unjustified that she was shot? Aren't those two cases exactly the same thing? Why is it okay to go to war and shoot people you disagree with yet for someone who disagrees with her and shooting her is some how wrong?

I'm not going to try to justify the war in Iraq. International law prohibits unprovoked attacks on other countries, just like our law prohibits assassinations. Many people outside the U.S. view our foreign policy as a series of unprovoked, aggressive attacks on the rest of the world.

However, in practical terms, there's a huge difference between one country declaring war on another and a private paramilitary group "going to war" against the government. In the former case, the economy can still function, and you are still talking about a democratic form of government. In the latter case, your country degenerates into civil war and anarchy. Huge difference.

1 Reply

@Oylok,

Oylok wrote:

Really, what odds would you give him on that? I wasn't aware the Arizona state legislature could vote to send us to war. Giffords was first elected to the U.S. Congress in 2006.

Every year congress needs to vote weather or not they will be continuing to fund the wars. She voted then which is the same as starting. Voting to continue the war is the same as voting to go to war. If she was not in agreement with violent resolutions then by all means what happened to her is just as fair as the US going to kill some Iraqis or Afghans.

Oylok wrote:

However, in practical terms, there's a huge difference between one country declaring war on another and a private paramilitary group "going to war" against the government. In the former case, the economy can still function, and you are still talking about a democratic form of government. In the latter case, your country degenerates into civil war and anarchy. Huge difference.

So it is only bad when the country degenerates into civil war? If it doesn't then murder is perfectly fine? Well as far as I can tell, we haven't fallen into civil war yet over this, so shouldn't those murders be justified? Or are you going to extend your definition to anything that "might" lead to civil war? If you really want to extend it to that then you have already concluded that invading Iraq is murder.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

Fido wrote:

Krumple wrote:

Fido

You know the funny thing about your comment. I bet that she voted for the US to go to war in Iraq. Now I am not certain but it is a fairly safe bet that she did. Now why is it she can support the US playing, judge, jury and executioner to the world yet you advocate that it is unjustified that she was shot? Aren't those two cases exactly the same thing? Why is it okay to go to war and shoot people you disagree with yet for someone who disagrees with her and shooting her is some how wrong?

Absurdity at it's finest.

What a person does out of self defense is justified... All other violence commited by individuals is unjustified... I agree that going to war with a people when we do not like the leaders who oppress them is an injustice. All the democrats who voted to give G. W. Bush the power to go to war with Iraq for the sake of their own political power and place are beneath contempt... In giving a president the power to war, they were giving him a chip to bargain with, but you cannot give an idiot that kind of power or he will destroy something with it... They used to say that if you put a begger in the saddle he would ride the horse to death... Well; he helped to kill us; wasted our army and resources and lots of good will, and tons of money and we are not done yet... The congress should be a check on such idiots, but since they all come from divided districts they can do no more than defend against the lies of the other party before they can be told... The democratic party voted to cover its ass rather than governing the country in the best interests of the people... That is a moral failure, and a failure of party politics; but what am I going to do??? Am I going to kill them knowing another just like them or worse will replace them??? I want to change the whole system, but I refuse to go it alone... We must act together and democratically, and then I do not care how many swing, as long as it is the will of the people using their best judgement...

Right, but when democracy fails all you have left is the force of your convictions and how much you are willing to lose. The founders of the US knew this concept well and there are many quotes about what is required of those who want to maintain their liberty. I agree with you, I would rather go about it in a more civilized fashion and I doubt that I would ever take up guns against a political person or for anyone for that matter. But when the system is polluted with corruption and the system no longer checks itself but gives the illusion that it is working for the people when in reality it is doing everything but for the people. Then by all means violence is necessary to wake these people up, as sad as that is to say, it is necessary.

When law makers no longer fear their subjects, they will enslave their subjects with their law making. However when law makers fear their subjects they will take into consideration what is best for them to not piss off their subjects.

US politicians no longer have the peoples interest in mind. They claim that they do, but their actions do not reveal that they do. They lie and tell the public one thing and turn around and do something completely different. It is only a matter of time, with the stress they put "good" people under that even the most sane of people will take up arms against their oppressors. No amount of banning, laws will prevent that from happening. We already have a law against killing someone, so do you think that any additional laws are going to make things safer? No it will only make things worse.

Good post by the way Fido.

We still have to live with each other, and sometimes, if the ship is going down and no one is manning the pumps, then good people go down with the bad... Perspective, opinion, convictions, and principals held by individuals are inevitably flawed... Even when you are right as a individual you are wrong to act against the will of the majority.... And While I think the ship of state is sinking, we are not on an actual ship, and can head for the hills... IN fact, the fastest way to end the downward spiral of this crash and burn society is to bail on it, disenthrall yourself, and form new relationships based upon trust rather than money...

To fight it only makes it more oppressive, and it feels good to attack, but we are looking for a positive effect, and not simply anodine for the most acute of our anxieties... The thing does not work... The most common remedy we have, the direct approach to fighting insolated tyranny is ineffective... Resist, but do not attack... Turn away, and give it no more of your life...

Freedom comes first in the mind... When you can think freely, all freedom may follow... Think of how every leader can be effective: Examine the situation; Get it right, go your own way, avoid the mistakes others have already made... You do not need followers to be a leader... Lead yourself away from this failure of a society...People destroy themselves trying to destroy an evil, and often they kill many innocents as well... Just avoid becoming a part of the evil you see, and you have the triumph of a life time...

Let me correct you on one point... We are not subjects of the government, but the government is subject to us... And they do fear us, but fear is too easily turned to contempt and to hate... They have arrainged the situation so the people are at loggerheads, frustrated and stalemated by others of the opposing party... Because of primaries they must fear those more radical, and fear the people in sufficient numbers will switch sides... But they are no contented with feeling fear, and in this they are not alone... If we have reached the point of fear of our government boarding on hate, the revolution only waits on numbers and sufficient cause... Why rush a good thing that history shows has so often turned out in a bloody mess??? Keep your own head, and there is a chance others may trust you with theirs...

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

Quote:
Had the bible not portrayed the Jews as being worthy of punishment
then perhaps this elected politician wouldn't have found it fit to exterminate them.

BALONEY!
He used them as scapegoats for loss of the First World War.

I guess you have never read Mein Kampf then I take it? There are many little notations in his writing about the jews and how they are protrayed in the bible and even his own dislike of them for being the "chosen race" as he put it often. On top of that he even sights specifically that they are destined to be punished by god in ways that will not always be clear until they are historical references. That might not mean anything to you other than someone just stating their own dislike for another people but since he ties it into the bible it actually proves that his the bible is actually fueling his dislike that he already had for them. Since he was a catholic and many Catholics had and sometimes still do have a dislike of Jews, calling them evil and wicked or dark. It is no wonder that growing up in such an environment that one wouldn't be indoctrinated into such a hatred. It happens far too often and is capable of a lot of suffering released into the world.

That might not be all religion's fault but it still plays a catalyst for pinning people against each other even to this day it does yet no one is brave enough to actually point it out that it is the leading cause of every heated deadly turmoil the world has witnessed.

I just finished a good history of the Weimar Republic, and the united states and the allied powers did so much to sabotage the democracy of Germany that it is remarkable it lasted as long as it did... They forced the civilian government to surrender when it should have been the Military that admitted defeat, and they forced the civilian government to take responsibility in the name of the whole population for the war when it and they had next to nothing to do with starting it, and the whole of Europe was equally guilty... It was the Allies who invited the next war and the rise of Hitler... The Weimar Republic did Hitler great service by destroying the power of all their potential enemies on the left when they might have bent them to their service and had their support... The emergancy powers invoked by hitler had already been invoked many times by the Weimar government just to keep itself in power...How could they then deny those powers to hitler when he used them against many of Weimar's old enemies???

0 Replies

Who's evil: The gunman or politician?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know