What Would it Take for YOU?

[Purple Knight]

What would it take for you to use violence and/or force to rebel against the legitimate result of the political process? And is there anything whatsoever about your personal threshold that's objective?

[oldbadger]

What would it take for you to use violence and/or force to rebel against the legitimate result of the political process? And is there anything whatsoever about your personal threshold that's objective?

If a power was elected that intended to murder any section of the people, then I would be prepared to join a resistance movement.
Otherwise .........I don't think I would.

[marke]

What would it take for you to use violence and/or force to rebel against the legitimate result of the political process? And is there anything whatsoever about your personal threshold that's objective?

The American Revolution was just because the fight was undertaken by oppressed people seeking to overthrow the oppression, just like Americans took their grievances against wicked voting fraud to the US Capitol on Jan 6, 2021.

[Purple Knight]

What would it take for you to use violence and/or force to rebel against the legitimate result of the political process? And is there anything whatsoever about your personal threshold that's objective?

The American Revolution was just because the fight was undertaken by oppressed people seeking to overthrow the oppression, just like Americans took their grievances against wicked voting fraud to the US Capitol on Jan 6, 2021.

It's a good point because it comes down to whether you think there's fraud or not.

It also comes down to whether you think the system is fair. If you don't, then you have no obligation to participate in it.

Take Luigi Mangione. He used violence against people for killing people legally through denying claims and livesaving treatment, which is not considered violence. I think it illustrates well what we're saying when we say "violence is never the answer" which you should really read as "only violence is ever wrong."

[marke]

What would it take for you to use violence and/or force to rebel against the legitimate result of the political process? And is there anything whatsoever about your personal threshold that's objective?

The American Revolution was just because the fight was undertaken by oppressed people seeking to overthrow the oppression, just like Americans took their grievances against wicked voting fraud to the US Capitol on Jan 6, 2021.

It's a good point because it comes down to whether you think there's fraud or not.

It also comes down to whether you think the system is fair. If you don't, then you have no obligation to participate in it.

Take Luigi Mangione. He used violence against people for killing people legally through denying claims and livesaving treatment, which is not considered violence. I think it illustrates well what we're saying when we say "violence is never the answer" which you should really read as "only violence is ever wrong."

I oppose abortion but do not believe it is right to murder abortionists. I oppose voter fraud but do not believe it is right to do violence to stop it. I oppose government tyranny and do believe some civil disobedience may be justified to fight it.

[Purple Knight]

I oppose abortion but do not believe it is right to murder abortionists.

This is actually the issue that got me thinking about it. I don't think a fetus is a person. I don't even think very young babies are people (but our society gives them legal rights and this is not only fine, it's conducive to society continuing).

But the people who blow up Planned Parenthood do think fetuses are people, with all the natural unalienable human rights that comes with. So I have to say, they are using violence to defend against murder, so they are righteous, even though I vehemently disagree with them about fetuses. They think they're defending the lives of people. They think that, not me. I can't say it matters what I think or see when I look at what they do: It matters what they think about it, and what they see.

They see a person and they're defending it.

If I see a person I get to defend it too, even if somebody else sees something different.

[marke]

I oppose abortion but do not believe it is right to murder abortionists.

This is actually the issue that got me thinking about it. I don't think a fetus is a person. I don't even think very young babies are people (but our society gives them legal rights and this is not only fine, it's conducive to society continuing).

But the people who blow up Planned Parenthood do think fetuses are people, with all the natural unalienable human rights that comes with. So I have to say, they are using violence to defend against murder, so they are righteous, even though I vehemently disagree with them about fetuses. They think they're defending the lives of people. They think that, not me. I can't say it matters what I think or see when I look at what they do: It matters what they think about it, and what they see.

They see a person and they're defending it.

If I see a person I get to defend it too, even if somebody else sees something different.

Far more Christian crisis pregnancy centers are bombd than are abortion clinics but I do not favor bombing clinics on either side.