The fallacy

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by JimRau, Jul 17, 2013.

  1. JimRau

    JimRau Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,044
    95
    48
    The fallacy MANY good people have been lead to believe by the progressives is all violence in bad thus wrong. But the error in reasoning here is 'bad and wrong' are NOT synonymous not more than 'good and right' are.
    True, all violence is BAD, the real test is whether it is right or wrong. If a person takes a knife and cuts another person this is bad!!! But is it right or wrong????? If the knife is in the hand of a surgeon who is removing your infected appendix it is 'right', still bad in that you are in this situation which requires this action. If the knife is in the hands of a person who is attacking you with criminal intent it is 'bad' and also wrong. Change the 'tool' to a firearm and the same applies. If the firearm is used to inflict injury to another person this is a 'bad' situation, but the motive and circumstances will determine if it is right or wrong, right?? Not so in the progressive mind. They consider anything labeled as 'bad' as also 'wrong', which could not be further from the truth or reality!!! :(
    This is never more obvious than the 'zero tolerance' to violence we see in our schools today. The progressives don't care if you are defending yourself or others, only that you used violence which is 'bad' therefore 'wrong'!!! :mad:
    They see 'guns' as violent objects so they are 'bad' and 'wrong' in their twisted unrealistic minds facts and reality do not matter!!!!:confused:
     
  2. MisterMcCool

    MisterMcCool Well-Known Member Supporter

    12,992
    443
    83
    Jack Sparrow?
    "Me? I'm dishonest, and a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest. Honestly. It's the honest ones you want to watch out for..."
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2013

  3. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    2
    0
    a firearm is an inanimate object, no different than a hammer, a spoon or a lightbulb. it's use is defined by the person using it. a firearm is neither good or bad, nor does it have feelings, emotions or thoughts. it cannot think, or make decisions. it will feel neither pity or mercy. if used to kill a person, it will not feel sad that it was a good person killed, nor will it rejoice if the person killed had an evil heart. the person using that firearm, will make all this bear out and define the guns use and whether the outcome is good or bad. now substitute any other inanimate object here and the same is true.

    Charleton Heston's take on this.

    http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/charleton-hestons-take-bad-good-guns-68897/
     
  4. c3shooter

    c3shooter Administrator Staff Member

    21,457
    602
    113
    From Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers- a discussion between a student in Govt class, and the instructor, a former combat soldier and officer-

    My mother said violence never solves anything." "So?" Mr. Dubois looked at her bleakly. "I'm sure the city fathers of Carthage would be glad to know that." Source: Lt. Col. Jean V. Dubois (Ret.), Page 25
    Exchange between him and a student

    "Anyone who clings to the historically untrue — and thoroughly immoral — doctrine that "violence never solves anything" I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms."
     
  5. JimRau

    JimRau Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,044
    95
    48
    Thank you. As 'bad' as violence is there is and always will be a place for it on the 'right' side of the law and reality!!!;)
    One of the things my Grandma use to say is
    "No matter how good something is something bad will come from it and no matter how bad something is something good will come from it"!!! ;)
     
  6. txpossum

    txpossum New Member

    1,638
    0
    0

    Even today, after many readings, I enjoy going back to that book every two or three years.
     
  7. Rocky7

    Rocky7 New Member

    1,409
    0
    0
    This is the part of progressive dogma about guns and civilians that infuriates me most - their willingness to turn their back on the weak. We don't have any CCW permissions in Canada, for instance. None. You have a wave of progressives right now trying to whip up gun phobia and erode the notion that civilians can/should be responsible for their own safety rather than surrendering their safety to the State....as they do every time there is a useful headline. Same here. He11, they still use a 25-yr. old headline up here to whip up fear and bigotry about guns and gun owners.

    I don't know how those liberal bottom feeders who insist that firearms, esp. handguns, are evil can sleep at night, knowing that unarmed old people and unarmed women have no chance at the hands of someone stronger. There's more to the issue than that, I know, but those are the ones that really bug me. I can handle myself, even at my age. Not as well as I used to, maybe, but I'm not helpless. Senior citizens whose home is invaded, women who are stalked or hunted by larger men and young children who are victimized - all of these have no chance unarmed. None. I know kids don't and shouldn't carry a gun but they can't be protected by unarmed guardians either, can they? All of those are the defenceless prey of the hyenas among us. If the hyenas find them, they are toast. I just don't understand how these @!%!**#~@# politicians and media talking heads cannot hear their screams.

    It seems to me that the secular progressives you talk about must believe in human sacrifice, Jim. They must be OK with some human sacrifice for the greater good. Maybe their methods are not as gory as ripping the heart out of a Mayan volunteer and maybe it's no longer about encouraging good crops, but it's still the same appeal to sacrifice the few for the "greater good". I do think the body count at the Progressive Altar has been higher.....and will be a lot higher if they have their way.
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2013
  8. JimRau

    JimRau Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,044
    95
    48
    Amen. Progressives are elitists who do not care about US or anything other than implementing their agenda of control over everything and everyone!!! They can not accomplish this if those 'inferior beings' (us in their eyes) are allowed to be armed, history shows this beyond all doubt!!!:( They MUST disarm and make those 'inferior beings' dependent on them, and in this country they are succeeding to accomplish this agenda.:confused:
    The use of the Martin-Zimmerman incident is a perfect example of how they misrepresent an incident where a violent criminal (Martin) was justifiably killed by the person who he was victimizing (Zimmerman) to push for more restrictions on our 'right of self defense' and to try and fan the flames of racism to cause more instability in this nation so they can justify the implications of more controls on us.:mad:
    The problem here is that VERY few of us are capable of seeing what is really going on and why, and those of us who do see this and point it out will be branded as racists and our credibility attacked unmercifully.
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2013
  9. nitestalker

    nitestalker New Member

    6,489
    0
    0
    JimR so correct. The American Left Wing Socialist are molding an anti-capitalist dependent Euro Society. The Europeans can no longer conceive the right of self defense. Obama is rushing America to this controlled Euro system. :(
     
  10. Donn

    Donn Active Member

    1,246
    14
    38
    Jim R, you're poking Chainfire with a stick, aren't cha.
     
  11. JimRau

    JimRau Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,044
    95
    48
    What is 'Chainfire'???:confused:
     
  12. MisterMcCool

    MisterMcCool Well-Known Member Supporter

    12,992
    443
    83
    Chainfire isn't really a what. He's more of a who. And he's a who who doesn't like conservatives.
     
  13. JimRau

    JimRau Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,044
    95
    48
    Well then he and I should get along. I am a traditionalist, not a progressive. There are both liberal and conservative progressives.
    I believe in individual rights and the Constitution come before the 'good' of the collective.
    I believe in individual responsibility, not excuses. I believe in fiscal responsibility on ALL levels. I believe in limited government as proposed by our founders, not the BIG MESS we have now.
    I do not belong to any political party, I am unaffiliated (not a member or the Independent, Green, Libertarian, Democrat, or Republican parties).;)
     
  14. MisterMcCool

    MisterMcCool Well-Known Member Supporter

    12,992
    443
    83
    Welcome, fellow conservative constitutionalist. :)
     
  15. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    2
    0
    Chainfire is a liberal, and he openly admits that he voted for Obama, and fully believes that Obama is doing a superb job at running out country and thinks that we who didn't and who believe otherwise are un-American in our opinions of Obama. he also happens to be a member on this forum as well.
     
  16. JimRau

    JimRau Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,044
    95
    48
    Then he, Chainfire, is a 'progressive' liberal who has been indoctrinate to be one of their 'useful idiots' (their description not mine)!;)
    My views cut across most all the liberal/conservative/libertarian doctrine.
    I am a realist! If it don't pass the reality test it fails. Unfortunately very few of the current government rules/regulations/policies/laws can pass this test!!! :mad:
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2013
  17. Warrior1256

    Warrior1256 New Member

    614
    0
    0
    Not surprising. Once I saw a woman on a news program state that even if someone is trying to murder you it is not a justifiable excuse to shoot them. Try argueing logic with someone that has that kind of outlook.
     
  18. alsaqr

    alsaqr Well-Known Member Supporter

    6,213
    277
    83
    IMO: The term "liberal" is much better. The liberals talk in terms of "reducing the violence" and "increasing the violence". This goal of "reducing the violence" has manifested itself in numerous ways. School kids who are getting the crap beat out of themselves are prohibited from defending themselves because it "increases the violence". The liberals don't want rape victims to shoot their attackers because that too; "increases the violence".

    You need to look no further than the fact that convicted felons vote in over 40 states and the fact that those felons vote for those who make excuses for their actions. Convicted felons make up one wing of the coalition that is the Democrat party.
     
  19. Mason609

    Mason609 Active Member

    1,850
    0
    36
    It has been long established that you can't use logic or reasoning with liberals. These are two very alien concepts to them (yet, they are supposed to be very intelligent.. :confused: )
     
  20. Mason609

    Mason609 Active Member

    1,850
    0
    36
    Basically it comes down to ethics.

    Most liberals (especially progressives) are unethical by nature, and many of them don't realize it.