View Thread

Atheists Today » Easy Reading » The Lounge
Who is here? 1 guest(s)
 Print Thread
Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords shot.
seeker
JohnH wrote:
I would point to the Black Panther party displaying their weapons on the steps of the california state capitol. Political violence is violence no matter who it comes from and no matter what the justification is.

More importantly from my far left viewpoint it allows the government to justify its own violence toward the people.


Couldn't agree more, John. This isn't about the ideology, its about public officials using violent rhetoric to incite violent reactions. I also agree that every time violent acts are committed for political reasons it results in violence by the government and a curtailing of the freedom of every individual.

One distinction I might make is that the Black Panthers weren't government officials. They weren't congressmen and senators preaching violence and hatred.

A more direct parallel might be politicians like George Wallace who tried to use his office to fight desegregation. Even then Wallace was acting alone, he wasn't acting for his party as modern Republicans are doing in their hate speech.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
 
JohnH
Seeker, odd that you mention George Wallace the victim of an assassination attempt. George Wallace was a vile human being. He did not deserve to spend 26 years in a wheel chair, he deserved to spend life in prison.

I accept that there is a difference between violence advocated by individuals and violence advocated by political figures. I am by my own political convictions forced to stress that violence from the left has occurred. Maybe not recently but in the past. I will never accept that political violence is acceptable. I will also not throw blame in one direction.

Yes, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Bill O'Reilly should all be in jail. Unfortunately I would be there with them, for much different reasons.
 
seeker
John - I think one of the problems that is occurring now is that there are a lot of false equivalencies being painted. I agree that violence in general is problematic but the kind of institutionalized violence the Republicans are using is something beyond anything the left has ever tried to pull off.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
 
catman
It is almost as though the Republicans categorize those who don't agree with them as subhuman, a threat to humanity, and thus fair game.
"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas." - General Sheridan
 
seeker
I thought some of you might find this breakdown of right vs left wing violence informative.

Note:

The Council on Foreign Relations is the best single link, and they note that leftwing violence in the US during the last 25 years has been against property; right wing violence is against human beings.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
 
Bob of QF
Indeed:

To the Right-Wingers? Property is >>everything<< that is important.

What is Capitalism, but an un-equal exchange of property after all?

But to the Left? They see >>people<< as paramount.

So it stands to reason, that the Left would target property, whereas the Right would target people.

They each preserve what they think is the more important aspect...
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
Kowboy
There is a direct positive correlation between increased ice cream sales and increased drownings in Michigan in the summer. Obviously, eating ice cream does not cause one to drown. Correlation is not causation. I know this is incredibly difficult for the left to understand, but it is fact and logic at its most basic.

There is no causation between remarks by politicians and the violent actions of a nutball (registered Independent and worked for Gabby's campaign in 2007 long before anyone heard of Sarah Palin).
 
JohnH
Seeker, an interesting compilation of data. Long enough that I did not read carefully through all of it. But, I must say that a lot of the violence reported could be construed as more racially motivated. Very many were attacks by whites on hispanics. If all the attacks on whites by minorities when they were in the wrong place at the wrong time were construed to be political in nature the numbers may not have been so skewed.

I can guarantee there are still bars in Gallup that if you are white or the member of the wrong tribe you may have trouble getting out before you are in a fight. What should that be considered.

I looked through the comments below the statistics. In them was a reference to a bunch of hateful things said about conservatives by liberals. This was compiled by Michelle Malkin, which makes it suspect but it was very extensive. Throw out even 75% of it and it is still upsetting.

The major difference is the people making the comments tended not to have the same level of potential influence as some of the hateful comments that come from the right.

kowboy, you have used that exact analogy before to make a similar point. I would point out that I am quite comfortable that great majority of people, if not all on this board understand the difference between correlation and causation. And your simply saying there is no causal relation is a very weak argument. Yes it is not possible to directly prove a causal relationship particularly when there has been no evidence of significant contact by the shooter with anyone and he had an apparent history of violence.

None of the above should be construed as saying that violent political rhetoric should be considered acceptable and people who may have significant potential for influence should be chastised if they engage in it.
 
seeker
JohnH wrote:
Seeker, an interesting compilation of data. Long enough that I did not read carefully through all of it. But, I must say that a lot of the violence reported could be construed as more racially motivated. Very many were attacks by whites on hispanics. If all the attacks on whites by minorities when they were in the wrong place at the wrong time were construed to be political in nature the numbers may not have been so skewed.

I can guarantee there are still bars in Gallup that if you are white or the member of the wrong tribe you may have trouble getting out before you are in a fight. What should that be considered.

I looked through the comments below the statistics. In them was a reference to a bunch of hateful things said about conservatives by liberals. This was compiled by Michelle Malkin, which makes it suspect but it was very extensive. Throw out even 75% of it and it is still upsetting.

The major difference is the people making the comments tended not to have the same level of potential influence as some of the hateful comments that come from the right.

kowboy, you have used that exact analogy before to make a similar point. I would point out that I am quite comfortable that great majority of people, if not all on this board understand the difference between correlation and causation. And your simply saying there is no causal relation is a very weak argument. Yes it is not possible to directly prove a causal relationship particularly when there has been no evidence of significant contact by the shooter with anyone and he had an apparent history of violence.

None of the above should be construed as saying that violent political rhetoric should be considered acceptable and people who may have significant potential for influence should be chastised if they engage in it.


I have similar reservations but the kinds of violence are really what I found most upsetting. That difference between violence to property and violence to people is really the key issue IMO. While I'd reject violence in general the notion of violence to other people is the most abhorrent.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
 
seeker
Kowboy wrote:
There is a direct positive correlation between increased ice cream sales and increased drownings in Michigan in the summer. Obviously, eating ice cream does not cause one to drown. Correlation is not causation. I know this is incredibly difficult for the left to understand, but it is fact and logic at its most basic.

There is no causation between remarks by politicians and the violent actions of a nutball (registered Independent and worked for Gabby's campaign in 2007 long before anyone heard of Sarah Palin).


LOL, grasping at straws today kowboy?

I personally don't care if you want to hide your head in the sand when it comes to backing the right wingnuts who you favor but that doesn't mean we should buy into your fantasy. This isn't about ice cream sales versus drownings.

Republicans have steadily been calling for violence and now are acting surprised that violence has occurred. Your absurd apologetics fail to address that.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
 
Skeeve
I'll just put this here:

 
comfortable
I'm gonna weigh in on defining 'violence'.
Violence against property is an oxymoron in my book.
Violence or the threat of violence against people is only excusable when those people are threatening violence to me and mine.

There's the rub. When the rhetoric convinces people that they are being threatened, and they believe it, and thereby justify a violent response.

It's dangerous IMHO to conflate the 'threat' of a political opponent who would raise my taxes - with the threat of someone actually pointing a gun at my child's head. They are NOT equivalent. Yet the rhetoric would have us believe they are.
.
The fewer the facts, the stronger the opinion.
.
Men are sheep in credulity, but wolves for conformity.
 
catman
comfortable: If I see someone bashing the windows out of my car, am I supposed to just do nothing? That's close enough to "violence against property" to suit me (and it has happened twice). When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas." - General Sheridan
 
JohnH
I kind of thought my previous post would piss some people off, apparently not much.

I would again refer to the Michelle Malkin web site and its list of hate speech by liberals. Nearly all of which have no where near the influence of the congressperson from Minnesota, Glen Beck or the former governor and vice president candidate from alaska show in the video that Skeeve put up.

I do think that some important distinctions should be made. A considerable numbers of the threats of violence from the right have been made by influential members of the republican party or the right media. These have not been repudiated by their peers. I personally cannot think of any threats of violence from the left that have been made by influential members of the democratic party or the left media. Most of the left media I read never makes even allusions to violence and condemns it when it occurs.

It is difficult to separate the influence of people closer to individuals who act violently from that of even influential people. My family and friends and my childrens friends have not been violent people. I have made suggestions of violence among these people but they understand it for what it is, my voicing great anger at something. Not that I would carry out an act of violence, it is not in my true nature. Many people have grown up in very different circumstances. They may have been personally the victims of violence. They may have grown up surrounded by people constantly advocating violence or fallen under the influence of people who advocate violence. Separating the influence of the home and others closer to perpetrators of violence from public figures is not easy. Particularly when it is evident that the Arizona shooter was a violent nut job.

There is no question that the advocating of violence by a public figure should be condemned particularly by their peers. There is also no question that this has been engaged in to a much greater extent by the republican party. This use of violent imagery should be condemned by all particularly fellow party members. Violent imagery at a minimum coarsens political debate. At a maximum it can enable already unstable people.

A good example are the attacks on abortion clinics and doctors. There is no doubt in my mind and I believe substantial evidence that violent rhetoric by pro lifers was very instrumental in these attacks.

Another good example is the Oklahoma City bombing. Timothy McVeigh was clearly influenced by violent political rhetoric.

kowboy is correct that it is often difficult to prove a causal relationship in these kind of events. In some cases it is not and I am curious to see all the facts come in.

Proving an exact causal relationship is not really necessary. Violent political rhetoric has no place in a civil society.
 
comfortable
catman wrote:
comfortable: If I see someone bashing the windows out of my car, am I supposed to just do nothing? That's close enough to "violence against property" to suit me (and it has happened twice). When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

It's easy to be misunderstood, Catman.
I never advocated 'doing nothing'. I'm pointing out that 'violence' against property is an entirely different phenomenon.

People who lash out and smash windshields, or punch holes in walls, are not threatening bodily harm; waving a gun in my face IS. I think it takes a different sort of personality to do the latter; although, I suppose, someone who would threaten bodily harm may also destroy property - I don't think that just because someone smashes a window that they are capable of stabbing a person (or shooting them). Do you see where I'm coming from?

If I was the judge, and someone smashed out my car windows - I'd sentence them to 2 years plus restitution. If they realistically threatened to kill someone (e.g. held a knife or gun to the person), I'd sentence them to life in prison with some possibility of parole if they changed their attitude.

Anyhoo - this guy was clearly off his rocker to begin with. It was only a matter of when, not if.
.
The fewer the facts, the stronger the opinion.
.
Men are sheep in credulity, but wolves for conformity.
 
comfortable
JohnH wrote:
I kind of thought my previous post would piss some people off, apparently not much.

....

I'm more or less on the same page with you JohnH.

I find it ironic that some of the very same 'conservatives' who are upset about abortions and consider it murder, have no qualms about dropping bombs on a wedding party in Iraq or Afghanistan, and killing mothers, sisters, and kids along with the 'bad guy'. Actual living breathing loving people are expendable, as long as it suits their purpose - but foetuses are sacred.

Interesting.
.
.
The fewer the facts, the stronger the opinion.
.
Men are sheep in credulity, but wolves for conformity.
 
Kowboy
JohnH wrote:

kowboy, you have used that exact analogy before to make a similar point. I would point out that I am quite comfortable that great majority of people, if not all on this board understand the difference between correlation and causation.


JohnH:

I will continue to use that analogy until the libs here understand it. Unfortunately, they cannot be familiar with correlation and causation, logic and reason or they wouldn't be making the logically flawed argument that violent political speech causes violent political action.

And your simply saying there is no causal relation is a very weak argument.


Not only is is not weak, it is overwhelming. John, is the earth spherical in shape? The evidence for that is overwhelming too. Furthermore, since the libs are making the argument that violent political speech causes violent political action, the burdern is on THEM to make their case, not me.

Yes it is not possible to directly prove a causal relationship particularly when there has been no evidence of significant contact by the shooter with anyone and he had an apparent history of violence. None of the above should be construed as saying that violent political rhetoric should be considered acceptable and people who may have significant potential for influence should be chastised if they engage in it.


We agree, on the left or right.
Edited by Kowboy on 01/12/2011 19:12
 
Kowboy
seeker wrote:
Kowboy wrote:
There is a direct positive correlation between increased ice cream sales and increased drownings in Michigan in the summer. Obviously, eating ice cream does not cause one to drown. Correlation is not causation. I know this is incredibly difficult for the left to understand, but it is fact and logic at its most basic.

There is no causation between remarks by politicians and the violent actions of a nutball (registered Independent and worked for Gabby's campaign in 2007 long before anyone heard of Sarah Palin).


LOL, grasping at straws today kowboy?

I personally don't care if you want to hide your head in the sand when it comes to backing the right wingnuts who you favor but that doesn't mean we should buy into your fantasy. This isn't about ice cream sales versus drownings.

Republicans have steadily been calling for violence and now are acting surprised that violence has occurred. Your absurd apologetics fail to address that.


seeker:

If there is any grasping going on, it's from you and your kind trying to make the illogical seem reasonable. This is exactly about ice cream sales vs. drownings. That's your problem, you fail to see your logical failure.

I can provide tit-for-tat leftwingnut violent spouting but it still won't make a causation between violent speech and violent action.

seeker, man up and concede; I'll respect you for it. There is no causal relationship between violent speech and violent actions as applied to the subject at hand and you can't make your case under any circumstance.
 
Kowboy
Apparently Barak Obama, Democratic president of the United States, in his speech today, agrees with me:

"The loss of these wonderful people should make every one of us strive to be better in our private lives - to be better friends and neighbors, co-workers and parents. And if, as has been discussed in recent days, their deaths help usher in more civility in our public discourse, let's remember that it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy, but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation, in a way that would make them proud."
 
Kowboy
i136.photobucket.com/albums/q186/Trebruchet/RAMclr-011211-murdereribd-f_jpg.jpg
 
Jump to Forum:

Similar Threads

Thread Forum Replies Last Post
Anti-Immigration Arizona Law Backfires U.S. Politics 4 05/23/2010 16:23
Arizona Immigration Bill U.S. Politics 14 05/12/2010 14:39
Arizona Sweat Lodge Deaths Other religions, sects and cults 6 10/24/2009 15:31