Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Russia: Constitutional Court Upholds ‘Foreign Agents’ Law [View all]cprise
(8,445 posts)65. So violence=violence, regardless of what kind.
What dumbed-down newspeak swaddled in a bed of word salad.
By denouncing a violent response to violent suppression of dissent by police, and maintaining that a violent response to violent suppression of dissent by police is wrong, you are endorsing and supporting police brutality against demonstrators, and setting it up as right and proper action. You may not like this being pointed out, but that is no one's problem but your own: it is what you have done.
You have not even attempted engaging the near universal consensus that people have a right to defend themselves against violence done to their person, and do so in such a manner as will ensure the attack ends. Nor have you engaged that it is only a moral position against all violence, by anyone, which is ever resorted to in claiming use of violence to defend oneself against violent attack is never justified or moral. It is evidently not a standard you could meet, from your commentary on the topic. It is clear yours is, really, a garden variety 'I approve of violence against my enemies and disapprove of violence against my friends' standard.
You have not even attempted engaging the near universal consensus that people have a right to defend themselves against violence done to their person, and do so in such a manner as will ensure the attack ends. Nor have you engaged that it is only a moral position against all violence, by anyone, which is ever resorted to in claiming use of violence to defend oneself against violent attack is never justified or moral. It is evidently not a standard you could meet, from your commentary on the topic. It is clear yours is, really, a garden variety 'I approve of violence against my enemies and disapprove of violence against my friends' standard.
Search: violence, violent
Replace: QUACK
By denouncing a QUACK response to QUACK suppression of dissent by police, and maintaining that a QUACK response to QUACK suppression of dissent by police is wrong, you are endorsing and supporting police brutality against demonstrators, and setting it up as right and proper action. You may not like this being pointed out, but that is no one's problem but your own: it is what you have done.
You have not even attempted engaging the near universal consensus that people have a right to defend themselves against QUACK done to their person, and do so in such a manner as will ensure the attack ends. Nor have you engaged that it is only a moral position against all QUACK, by anyone, which is ever resorted to in claiming use of QUACK to defend oneself against QUACK attack is never justified or moral. It is evidently not a standard you could meet, from your commentary on the topic. It is clear yours is, really, a garden variety 'I approve of QUACK against my enemies and disapprove of QUACK against my friends' standard.
You have not even attempted engaging the near universal consensus that people have a right to defend themselves against QUACK done to their person, and do so in such a manner as will ensure the attack ends. Nor have you engaged that it is only a moral position against all QUACK, by anyone, which is ever resorted to in claiming use of QUACK to defend oneself against QUACK attack is never justified or moral. It is evidently not a standard you could meet, from your commentary on the topic. It is clear yours is, really, a garden variety 'I approve of QUACK against my enemies and disapprove of QUACK against my friends' standard.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
66 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Yes, Sir, You Mis-Spoke, To A Degree Which Calls Into Question If You Understand The Basics Here
The Magistrate
Apr 2014
#10
Your draconian take on the finance law fell apart, then changed the subject. n/t
cprise
Apr 2014
#57
Look at this thread: You started out with a bogus defense of legalized persecution
ProSense
Apr 2014
#58
So condemning lethal force in response to beatings is 'support of police brutality'.
cprise
Apr 2014
#63