You admit that The Civil Rights Movement was an example of non-violence and compromise successfully defeating a culture of violence. You admit that non-violence has the power to diffuse situations that violence only makes worse. You also admitted that thousands of years of turmoil have created a situation in the Middle East that has historically been made worse when people try to use violence to solve things. And yet... you're still arguing? About what? I can't even tell anymore. By agreeing with me, you have just debunked your initial point of "The only way to solve things is to get revenge on the terrorists". It's over. Now can we finally go get some waffles? (I didn't forget about your diet: I'll order a side of bacon for ya')
Your argument:
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth
i'm arguing against compromise in the face of violence.
|
The part when you gave up on that argument:
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth
it is an example of non-violent tactics (i.e. expression) being used to coax compromise out of violent thugs. that is great.
the racists compromised and stopped being violent.
|