.. What do you think would happen if a politician proposed such legislation and got attacked? Do you think that would
-
-
.. solve the problem? It'd probably just turn public opinion against the "activists". CF: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex-murder-and-the-meaning-life/201404/violent-versus-nonviolent-revolutions-which-way-wins …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Banned_Ali @HPluckrose
I can sit here in my comfy house and enjoy my good health and agree with you, again, in principle.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I mean we can argue that threats, violence and terrorism are wrong, but not necessarily that they are ineffective.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gdeichen @HPluckrose
Did you take a look at the PT article? Apparently violent revolutions are statistically twice as likely to fail.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Banned_Ali
Sure.It's morally and practically better to avoid violence in most instances.Doesn't mean it doesn't have its place.
@HPluckrose1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gdeichen @HPluckrose
Consider this: Pro-lifers generally consider abortion to be murder. Accepting that proposition, that means...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
.. attacking abortion clinics is justified because it's protecting the lives of countless innocent babies.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Banned_Ali
Yup. The problem is that the premise is wrong. If baby murder really was happening, violence would be reasonable,no?
@HPluckrose2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gdeichen @Banned_Ali
And people tend to have wrong premises. Often a majority do. Atheists are particularly vulnerable.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Which is why we need to uphold the consensus that we don't hit people who say things we find appalling.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.