09-03-2020, 03:01 AM
(09-02-2020, 03:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: He just does it more than any of the Dems. Got it.
If they're not OK with it why do they continue to allow it to continue? Why did it take people having to die before they started to condemn the riots in large numbers?
People can believe whatever they want, it doesn't make them correct. Even if they were 100% in the right the routines violence is not acceptable, should never be acceptable, should be condemned in every instance and every legal recourse should be used to prevent further violence.
Also, the number of people who believe something is irrelevant to its truthfulness or morality. By this logic the millions of people who fought against ending segregation were in the right because there were millions of them.
You forgot to add that one of them mitigated or outright ignored much of the violence until very recently. Was that the correct tactic?
We aren't doing exactly that in this, and other, threads?
1. Who "allows it to continue"? Biden and Harris are not in power. They can't order police into the streets. The mayors in the afflicted cities are not "allowing" it to continue, even if efforts to prevent it are not always effective. The mayors and governors in question are not using the tactics you want, and certainly not the ones Trump wants. That doesn't mean rioters have their permission.
2. My description of a division in the US over the causes of the protests and riots neither states nor implies that numbers make beliefs "correct" or "truthful" or "moral." You are refuting a "logic" which isn't there. Numbers are not "irrelevant" to elections and policies, though.
3. No one has "mitigated" the violence, unless you are refering to Trump's exception for his supporters. And it is not a "correct tactic" to focus on effects in place of causes.
4. Not sure, with the amount of thread space devoted to who "condemns violence" or not, and assumptions the violence is "allowed."