You just claimed all violence is wrong, in reply to why people are choosing “nonviolence” which is a liberal propagandized view because the entire system is predicated on very active violence, just not in front of the consumers.
Also odd to call all animals wrong for “choosing” violence, I’m not certain how you define it, but colloquially violence is either inherently part of how nature works or a choice that is within some human defined morality that cannot be blanket applied to other animals.
For fucks sake. It’s not propaganda to think violence isn’t the answer to political problems. Have you never heard the saying “two wrongs don’t make a right?” If not, learn it, if so, them tire being willfully obtuse.
And you know damn well I didn’t mean “animals” to imply actual animals. It’s a term. How about you replace “animals” with “losers,” or “assholes” instead.
Lastly, I tend to avoid arguing with smug and arrogant people that try and rub pseudo-intellectual bullshit all over everything. So…
It’s propaganda to think that violence isnt a last resort. I hope you never in a position to need self-defense because you seem to not believe in it.
Why would I assume otherwise? I would never call another group of people “animals,” that’s dehumanizing. Why would I assume someone who is nonviolence is okay with equating other people to animals, is kindness and respect not a core belief of nonviolence?
Quick to call others smug and arrogant because you can’t have a dialogue.
I hope you break out of your cognitive dissonance chamber one day.
If one thinks violence is the only way to solve your problems. They are no more than an animal. This is my belief. I won’t apologize because you disagree. Evolution has allowed us to solve our problems without the need to kill people.
Oh and…
This isn’t cognitive dissonance. I know it’s a nice sounding big word that makes you sound smart, but it doesn’t apply here. My actions and my belief are perfectly aligned, so… Maybe learn what it means before you toss that one around, mmmkay?
Did you miss the last resort part of my comment? No one is saying it’s the only way, you’re saying it’s not a way whatsoever and I’m saying it’s a way and one that should be avoided.
People are already being exposed to violence in the system. It’s already happening. Why are you for that?
I’m saying it’s not even a last resort. Because there are many ways to fix problems without violence.
And please don’t edit my statement to mean anything other than what I said. I’m not ”for” anything here. I’ve said nothing that even remotely lends to it. So maybe your reading comprehension issue stems from the idea that you try and make things equate to what you want them to instead of what reality shows they do.
Don’t kid yourself, you’re pro-violence if you’re okay with how the system is now.
Where in what I said did you interpret that I was okay with how the system is?
You just claimed all violence is wrong, in reply to why people are choosing “nonviolence” which is a liberal propagandized view because the entire system is predicated on very active violence, just not in front of the consumers.
Also odd to call all animals wrong for “choosing” violence, I’m not certain how you define it, but colloquially violence is either inherently part of how nature works or a choice that is within some human defined morality that cannot be blanket applied to other animals.
“LiBruL pROpAgAnDa!”
For fucks sake. It’s not propaganda to think violence isn’t the answer to political problems. Have you never heard the saying “two wrongs don’t make a right?” If not, learn it, if so, them tire being willfully obtuse.
And you know damn well I didn’t mean “animals” to imply actual animals. It’s a term. How about you replace “animals” with “losers,” or “assholes” instead.
Lastly, I tend to avoid arguing with smug and arrogant people that try and rub pseudo-intellectual bullshit all over everything. So…
Have a day.
It’s propaganda to think that violence isnt a last resort. I hope you never in a position to need self-defense because you seem to not believe in it.
Why would I assume otherwise? I would never call another group of people “animals,” that’s dehumanizing. Why would I assume someone who is nonviolence is okay with equating other people to animals, is kindness and respect not a core belief of nonviolence?
Quick to call others smug and arrogant because you can’t have a dialogue.
I hope you break out of your cognitive dissonance chamber one day.
If one thinks violence is the only way to solve your problems. They are no more than an animal. This is my belief. I won’t apologize because you disagree. Evolution has allowed us to solve our problems without the need to kill people.
Oh and…
This isn’t cognitive dissonance. I know it’s a nice sounding big word that makes you sound smart, but it doesn’t apply here. My actions and my belief are perfectly aligned, so… Maybe learn what it means before you toss that one around, mmmkay?
Did you miss the last resort part of my comment? No one is saying it’s the only way, you’re saying it’s not a way whatsoever and I’m saying it’s a way and one that should be avoided.
People are already being exposed to violence in the system. It’s already happening. Why are you for that?
I’m saying it’s not even a last resort. Because there are many ways to fix problems without violence.
And please don’t edit my statement to mean anything other than what I said. I’m not ”for” anything here. I’ve said nothing that even remotely lends to it. So maybe your reading comprehension issue stems from the idea that you try and make things equate to what you want them to instead of what reality shows they do.
Then give me a few we haven’t tried because I’ve been searching