Good luck with your non-violent protests in WW2 Normandy then I guess. Non-violence is a fine ideal, but breaks badly when the other person doesn’t share your ideals.
You have an interesting way of getting the world completely wrong.
I’m completely amazed that people can be this oblivious to how the world works. Perhaps you’re very young and haven’t read any history, or perhaps I just read you wrong?
I do not believe you. You cannot have a history degree and be so ignorant of the countless of times violence has been used to stop violence. And since you didn’t elaborate if your simplistic ad hominem had some context and nuance behind it, I have to assume that you meant your comment as it sounds.
Violence has perpetuated violence about 1000x more than it has led to the end of violence. Violence was a way of life for us way back. We’ve been moving away from that steadily. Trade > war. That’s the story of history. And anyway you have a problem of scope: trying to apply the allied resistance to the Nazis to the scope of personal firearm ownership in 2023. As if that’s not a giant cherry pick and leap across domains.
Your intellectual standing here is nil, chum. Your case is not made, your rhetorical approach is full of giant holes. All leading to the inexorable conclusion: yeah, an informed person disagrees with your perspective.
Shocking, I know. But hey, when reality disagrees with your narrative, discard reality, right? Back to your internet echo chamber, wherever that is…
You seem to be implying that violence doesn’t serve a purpose. But it certainly does, for instance in stopping violence.
Yes, but gun regulation has historically been proven more effective than gun against gun protection. For example, Australia’s NFA in 1996.
Violence stopping violence. You have an interesting way of getting the world completely wrong.
Good luck with your non-violent protests in WW2 Normandy then I guess. Non-violence is a fine ideal, but breaks badly when the other person doesn’t share your ideals.
I’m completely amazed that people can be this oblivious to how the world works. Perhaps you’re very young and haven’t read any history, or perhaps I just read you wrong?
I actually have a history degree, internet guy. It does not teach us that Prometheus gave us violence so we could raise ourselves out of the muck.
I do not believe you. You cannot have a history degree and be so ignorant of the countless of times violence has been used to stop violence. And since you didn’t elaborate if your simplistic ad hominem had some context and nuance behind it, I have to assume that you meant your comment as it sounds.
Violence has perpetuated violence about 1000x more than it has led to the end of violence. Violence was a way of life for us way back. We’ve been moving away from that steadily. Trade > war. That’s the story of history. And anyway you have a problem of scope: trying to apply the allied resistance to the Nazis to the scope of personal firearm ownership in 2023. As if that’s not a giant cherry pick and leap across domains.
Your intellectual standing here is nil, chum. Your case is not made, your rhetorical approach is full of giant holes. All leading to the inexorable conclusion: yeah, an informed person disagrees with your perspective.
Shocking, I know. But hey, when reality disagrees with your narrative, discard reality, right? Back to your internet echo chamber, wherever that is…