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.
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.