I can't emphasis this enough...
Your argument (compromise doesn't work in the face of violence):
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth
i'm arguing against compromise in the face of violence.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth
it's pure insanity to me that you guys are willing to accept this level of discourse. honestly you should be deported to iraq for wanting to appease these bearded thugs.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth
itt muslims can't be expected to act like civilized human beings so nobody better offend them or else you have it coming when they go jihad on your ass
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth
if you fire shots at me i will fire back out of instinct.
what i'm saying specifically is that "it could be handled better" is wrong. i don't know how much clearer i can make that. "handling it better" to me means appeasing terrorists. i don't think that is the right approach.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth
we should use violence where necessary... for example to apprehend the thugs in question.
|
The part when you gave up on that argument (admitting that compromise does work in the face of violence):
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.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth
edit - the ghandi / civil rights example is funny cause you can use it as an analogy here. what tactic did they use? passive defiance in the face of thuggery. when they were attacked with violence, they continued to use civil disobedience to get their point across.
|
Please stop posting in this thread, You have been debunked on every level.