Anyone watching PresidentTrump Rally in Tulsa Oklahoma Live

  • Thread starter Thread starter gam197
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I asked if that poster is Catholic so I didn’t make the mistake of assuming he knew Catholic teaching. It was quite a charitable question.

The issue at play here — becoming vigilantes in response to violence — is wholly different from the discussion had about the president’s lack of politeness.
 
gracepoole said:
becoming vigilantes in response to violence
Click to expand...
Please explain to me how protecting my neighbor is becoming a vigilante? Please. I’m waiting.

Nevermind, I’ll help you.

Merriam-Webster’s definition of vigilante: a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate)

Thusly, it implies that said person is part of an organized group dedicated to seeking above-the-law justice de-post facto. Stopping a crime (such that being that a justified law is being broken, and by the nature of the word crime, that is indeed what is happening) in progress is not being a vigilante, or taking the law into one’s own hands.
 
Last edited:
Defending your neighbor who is in immediate violence is not becoming a vigilante. Claiming that we need to take matters into our own hands as a matter of course because we can’t rely on the police to arrive in time is becoming vigilantes.
 
Sigh, please. You’re incorrigible. Again, I hope for your sake if you are ever being attacked, the police get there on time.
 
Last edited:
Which is why many people were against the rioting, looting - ergo - assaults, theft, arson and murder that transpired after the murder of George Floyd … - lawlessness which was largely allowed and supported by Mayors and Governors - both explicitly and implicitly.

Police take time to respond - when allowed to respond. They’re primary function is not to prevent a specific crime event from happening but in response to a crime in progress or after the crime has been committed.

Which is not to say that the presence of law enforcement is not a deterrent because most crimes are opportunistic in nature and the existence and visibility of law enforcement helps to eliminate that opportunity - for some not all - as no police force can be at all times every where.

And - as we all know - that presence has a downside. When police presence is focused in high crime areas - the inhabitants of those areas have more encounters with police. If that location is the inner city and predominantly a minority community … the results in arrests and convictions can cause a sense of unfairness - real and/or imagined.
 
Last edited:
I certainly agree that there is a catch-22 of sorts. But having a reasoned discussion of when and where we should expect police to be present and how we want them to respond is different than suggesting that we should become violent because we anticipate the absence of the police.
 
JoeFreedom said:
Sigh, please. You’re incorrigible. Again, I hope for your sake if you are ever being attacked, the police get there on time.
Click to expand...
It would be great if you want to respond to anything specific I’ve said and/or meaningfully refute it.
 
gracepoole said:
No, that would not be charitable. We have law enforcement for this reason, though. Abandoning the rule of law and taking things into our own hands is not the way to handle others’ violence.
Click to expand...
What if there is no law enforcement around? No police officers? What does one do, then? Common sense has to prevail at some point.
 
Self defense is the positive action, killing someone is the negative action. Killing is never okay. Self defense is, even if it leads to killing. Clear difference.

No clue why you are bringing up Biden once again, banging on a drum that literally doesn’t exist.
 
VonDerTann said:
Completely false reasoning, and shocking in how easy it is to refute:

Find a bunch of wicked evil men; find a quality Trump has in common with them; and say they’re all equal. It’s tantamount to saying “Trump and Hitler both had brown eyes so they’re both bad.”

I see strength as something Trump shared with Lincoln (both resolute in times of national crisis and haters) or Teddy Roosevelt. Neither of those had much in common with wimps like Romney or Paul Ryan.
Click to expand...
OK, this is nothing like.comparing the colour of peoples eyes. Eye colour is a morally neutral quality. Needlessly insulting either classes of people or individual people is not.

Remember calumny, slander and detraction are sins. Trump cast slurs on Ted Cruz’s father - whose history has nothing to do with Cruz’s character even if true. He commented on a TV presenter supposedly having had plastic surgery. Both textbook.cases of detraction.

And if either Lincoln or TR can be shown to have engaged in those sort of remarks - on the public record - to the extent Trump.has then.it will certainly substantially lessen my opinion of.them.

There is.nothing strong about calumny or slander. On the contrary, it betrays a deep-seated insecurity around the idea that other people may legitimately disagree with you, coupled with a desire to discredit them by illegitimate and at times immoral means (what we call “ad hominem” attacks).
 
Last edited:
JanR said:
40.png
gracepoole:
No, that would not be charitable. We have law enforcement for this reason, though. Abandoning the rule of law and taking things into our own hands is not the way to handle others’ violence.
Click to expand...
What if there is no law enforcement around? No police officers? What does one do, then? Common sense has to prevail at some point.
Click to expand...
Of course. But people on this thread seem to be suggesting that we’re all regularly in situations where law enforcement isn’t available and we must take matters into our own hands. If that were accurate, why have police at all?

I, like many, take issue with the president’s tweet and his inclusion of “protestors.” This stands in stark contrast to the majority of protestors, who have been peaceful. I think we’ve headed down another red herring road here in moving to how much violence we’re permitted to engage in to defend ourselves and our neighbors.
 
Cmon, that post was extremely dismissive, degrading, and was a personal attack. At no point did that post relate to the main thread topic, it was just a personal attack. @gracepoole deserves better than being treated like a lunatic because she raises a valid and important point that other disagree with.

Second someone calls out Trump it’s always “this liberal loves CNN and Hillary and Biden.”

Give me a break.
 
The only slander I see going on around here is Trump and his supporters slandered/mocked/called names at virtually every post. A few posts up he was compared to Hitler and Stalin - and you’re defending that and calling him a slanderer.
 
Can we for once drop the “he said she said”.

People are entitled to not like Trump just as much as people are entitled to like Trump. The second someone says anything remotely negative about Trump people crucify them for being “liberal”.

When were conservatives on CAF who criticized Obama during his presidency crucified by these “liberals”. You can’t have it both ways.

So stop already. Stop judging and casting the first stone about every single person who dislikes Trump.
 
Awww, c’mon, man!

(Sounds like Joe Biden to me). It’s usually code for “I’m going to punch you but c’mon, man, don’t punch me back!”). Joe does in fact do that often.

Nope, it’s Trump and his supporters who are the ones who get attacked without mercy around here.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top