Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
bcsapper

On the use of violence against those peacefully expressing views with which one disagrees.

Recommended Posts

There's always someone willing to counter protest against anything.  Abortion, pipelines, immigration, political affiliation, pretty much everything someone supports pisses someone else off.

Protest and counter protest is always fine, as long as no-one actually hurts anyone on the other side.

In other words, there is no virtue in using violence against someone who is not, just because their views are abhorrent to you.

Edited by bcsapper
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Protests are just more virtue signalling, protests by the bourgeoisie are meaningless fluff, because the governments are not afraid of them.

Even the protests in Hong Kong are futile, without a nuclear deterrent upon them, nothing will stop Beijing, Hong Kong will be crushed, in the fullness of time.

In terms of violence, each man must decide for himself what the threshold of casus belli is, none the less there is virtue in killing and dying for your principles, hence why we honor the fallen who fought for ours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Protests are just more virtue signalling, protests by the bourgeoisie are meaningless fluff, because the governments are not afraid of them.

Even the protests in Hong Kong are futile, without a nuclear deterrent upon them, nothing will stop Beijing, Hong Kong will be crushed, in the fullness of time.

In terms of violence, each man must decide for himself what the threshold of casus belli is, none the less there is virtue in killing and dying for your principles, hence why we honor the fallen who fought for ours.

No, there is no virtue in killing someone who just happens to believe something different from you.  It shows a remarkable lack of communication skills.

Men often decide for themselves what the threshold is.  That doesn't stop them being twats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bcsapper said:

No, there is no virtue in killing someone who just happens to believe something different from you.  It shows a remarkable lack of communication skills.

Men often decide for themselves what the threshold is.  That doesn't stop them being twats.

I would kill and die to defend your right to be a pacifist, but no pacifist am I.

I honor the men who killed and died for me, at the going down of the sun and in the morning, I will remember them.

RIP Cpl Ainsworth Dyer

RIP Sergeant Vaughn Ingram

RIP Warrant Officer Frank Mellish

Just to name a few.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dougie93 said:

I would kill and die to defend your right to be a pacifist, but no pacifist am I.

I honor the men who killed and died for me, at the going down of the sun and in the morning, I will remember them.

RIP Cpl Ainsworth Dyer

RIP Sergeant Vaughn Ingram

RIP Warrant Officer Frank Mellish

Just to name a few.

I'm not a pacifist either.  Lots of time for war.  I think it's the most natural human activity after breathing, eating and evacuation.  I just think anyone who uses physical violence against someone who is expressing themselves without the use of such, is a moron as far as debate is concerned, a criminal as far as the law is concerned, and a twat as far as as I am concerned.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I'm not a pacifist either.  Lots of time for war.  I think it's the most natural human activity after breathing, eating and evacuation.  I just think anyone who uses physical violence against someone who is expressing themselves without the use of such, is a moron as far as debate is concerned, a criminal as far as the law is concerned, and a twat as far as as I am concerned.

There comes a point where there is an impasse.   No middle ground.  No more terms for parley.  Gauntlets thrown down.  The Rubicon is crossed.

That's when I aspire to be a man like Frank Mellish, the greatest soldier I ever met.

Leaned into the storm, to save Rick Nolan's remains from the enemy, he's my fuckin' hero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

There comes a point where there is an impasse.   No middle ground.  No more terms for parley.  Gauntlets thrown down.  The Rubicon is crossed.

That's when I aspire to be a man like Frank Mellish, the greatest soldier I ever met.

Leaned into the storm, to save Rick Nolan's remains from the enemy, he's my fuckin' hero.

He doesn't sound like someone who would have attacked someone else for their views alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

He doesn't sound like someone who would have attacked someone else for their views alone.

Oh sure he did, Frank did not suffer fools gladly, he was like Clint Eastwood, if you wanted to shoot your mouth off like a shitbird, go ahead, make his day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Oh sure he did, Frank did not suffer fools gladly, he was like Clint Eastwood, if you wanted to shoot your mouth off like a shitbird, go ahead, make his day.

They were only fools in his view, of course.  Clint Eastwood is an actor.  Dirty Harry and The Man with No Name are characters.  I know that.  I always assumed everyone did.

Edited by bcsapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

They were only fools in his view, of course.  Clint Eastwood is an actor.  Dirty Harry and The Man with No Name are characters.  I know that.  I always assumed everyone did.

Frank was like the real deal, cool like Dirty Harry, fair like Josey Wales, but hard like Tom Highway if you ever crossed him.

Frank Mellish was like a movie character come to life, he lived what those actors played.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again; he went forward on foot, into a hail of enemy gunfire, to recover his best friends dead body, so the Taliban could not mutilate it, and he was cut down by a rocket propelled grenade.

VRI - Pro Patria.

mellish960full.jpg

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

There's always someone willing to counter protest against anything.  Abortion, pipelines, immigration, political affiliation, pretty much everything someone supports pisses someone else off.

Protest and counter protest is always fine, as long as no-one actually hurts anyone on the other side.

In other words, there is no virtue in using violence against someone who is not, just because their views are abhorrent to you.

You’re quite right.  In a civil society, violence has no place in or against protest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's silly to say we are not going to attack people for speech, I mean get real, it all depends on what they speak, if what they speak is the Communist Manifesto or Mein Kampf, they should expect some resistance, free speech does not mean speech without consequences, if you want to be a rabble rouser, said rabble could be roused, "blah, blah, blah civil society" be damned.

 

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Shady said:

You’re quite right.  In a civil society, violence has no place in or against protest.

Nonsense.  You have no right to protest in Canada, your free expression in the Charter comes with the caveat "reasonable", which is arbitrary, so when the riot act is read, and you are ordered to cease your protest, force will of course be brought to bear against you the moment you fail to obey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's like in the Canadian Army we trained for Aid to the Civil Power.

That's just a euphemism for using military force against Canadians

First you'll face the cops, if they can't quell you, next comes the infantry with bayonets fixed, next comes the Leopard 2 Main Battle Tanks.
 

Most Canadians are totally naive as to the nature of the state they are living in.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

It's silly to say we are not going to attack people for speech, I mean get real, it all depends on what they speak, if what they speak is the Communist Manifesto or Mein Kampf, they should expect some resistance, free speech does not mean speech without consequences, if you want to be a rabble rouser, said rabble could be roused, "blah, blah, blah civil society" be damned.

 

That's the nonsense.  No-one said there should not be counter protests.  You can go ahead and try and beat someone up for their views if you want.  I established what that makes you earlier in the thread.

Edited by bcsapper
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dougie93 said:

It's like in the Canadian Army we trained for Aid to the Civil Power.

That's just a euphemism for using military force against Canadians

First you'll face the Cops, if they can't quell you, next comes the infantry with bayonets fixed, next come the Leopard 2 Main Battle Tanks.
 

Most Canadians are totally naive as to the nature of the state they are living in.

Well, some are, anyway...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bcsapper said:

That's the nonsense.  No-one said there should not be counter protests.  You can go ahead and try and beat someone up for their views if you want.  I established what that makes you earlier in the thread.

You have no right to that in Canada, the Queen's Peace stands astride the path to protest wars in the streets, you have no right to protest in Canada, just telling you how it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dougie93 said:

You have no right to that in Canada, the Queen's Peace stands astride the path to protest wars in the streets, you have no right to protest in Canada, just telling you how it is.

No, you're telling me how you think it is.  I'm not interested in your fantasies though.  As I said in my OP, peaceful protestors of any stripe should go unmolested.  If you would have them molested based on your view of their views, that just means you disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

No, you're telling me how you think it is.  I'm not interested in your fantasies though.  As I said in my OP, peaceful protestors of any stripe should go unmolested.  If you would have them molested based on your view of their views, that just means you disagree.

Shoulda woulda coulda, the Crown of Canada extends you no right to protest of any kind, peaceful or otherwise.

Case in point, there's some old lady who keeps protesting outside abortion clinics, completely peaceful, it's an old lady, so no threat, none the less, the Crown has thrown her into jail over and over again, because she has no right to protest and she failed to heed the order to cease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Shoulda woulda coulda, the Crown of Canada extends you no right to protest of any kind, peaceful or otherwise.

Case in point, there's some old lady who keeps protesting outside abortion clinics, completely peaceful, it's an old lady, so no threat, none the less, the Crown has thrown her into jail over and over again, because she has no right to protest and she failed to heed the order to cease.

Yeah, disgusting isn't it?  Canada does seem to have more than its fair share of cowards in charge.

Edited by bcsapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Yeah, disgusting isn't it?  Canada does seem to have more than its fair share of cowards in charge.

She violated the Queen's Peace, Canada is a monarchy, it's not America, you have no First Amendment, no Posse Comitatus neither.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dougie93 said:

She violated the Queen's Peace, Canada is a monarchy, it's not America, you have no First Amendment, no Posse Comitatus neither.

No she didn't.  She upset a few SJWs.  The cowards in charge were too chicken to support her right to freedom of expression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

No she didn't.  She upset a few SJWs.  The cowards in charge were too chicken to support her right to freedom of expression.

The courts were sympathetic, but ultimately the judges ruled that an order is an order, and you won't take it, off to the Queen's dungeon with you.

It's just the way Canadian law is written, it's mostly archaic, left over from the British Empire of the 19th century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...