Charlottesville: Who reported on it correctly?

[Wirey]

Never said that. I suspect you know I didn't say that. I'm going to walk away from this little strawman festival you're cooking up. see ya.

What strawman? Nazis are evil incarnate. Comparing anyone to them is a false comparison. So, there is no media bias, or as you put it, call to deplore the alt-right. There's just truth. The alt-right are terrorists and no civilized society should harbor them. Anyone who stands against them should be lauded for the effort.

 

[idav]

Vice News did a rather excellent job at reporting on this.

The video is 22 min long. They had a reporter embedded with the neo-Nazi's. She did a remarkable job of remaining even-keeled throughout the whole thing, letting the Nazi's do the talking. You don't need someone else telling you these people were the bad guys, when it's easy to see it with your own eyes.

I only have watched a little so far, I see now, its Christian terrorism, racism and anti-semitism, they sound a lot like ISIS scumbags. There's supposedly some "good people" in there.

 

[icehorse]

Anyone who stands against them should be lauded for the effort.

Even if the means by which the "standing against" occurs, breaks the law?

 

[Wirey]

Even if the means by which the "standing against" occurs, breaks the law?

Yes. People who opposed the Holocaust in Germany were breaking the law. they were still right. Civil rights marchers who got rid of Jim Crow laws were breaking the law. They were right. People standing up to a group dedicated to murdering women and children may break the law, but they're right. Anyone who says these murderous poison scumballs should be protected really ought to be questioning why they feel turning babies into soot is an acceptable outcome as long as no one throws a punch.

 

[icehorse]

Yes. People who opposed the Holocaust in Germany were breaking the law. they were still right. Civil rights marchers who got rid of Jim Crow laws were breaking the law. They were right. People standing up to a group dedicated to murdering women and children may break the law, but they're right. Anyone who says these murderous poison scumballs should be protected really ought to be questioning why they feel turning babies into soot is an acceptable outcome as long as no one throws a punch.

First - and it galls me to have to use crayons to talk to you - I am vehemently opposed to Neo-Nazis, and white supremacists and their ilk. Got that much?

As for "being right", there comes a time and place to advocate for anarchy and lawlessness. I don't think that the threat of Neo-Nazis in the U.S. is anywhere near that threshold.

 

[Wirey]

First - and it galls me to have to use crayons to talk to you - I am vehemently opposed to Neo-Nazis, and white supremacists and their ilk. Got that much?

As for "being right", there comes a time and place to advocate for anarchy and lawlessness. I don't think that the threat of Neo-Nazis in the U.S. is anywhere near that threshold.

I doubt BLM and Antifa share your comfort level, and standing up to a Nazi who isn't an immediate threat is still the right thing to do. Allowing them any leeway is wrong, and if you don't believe me, Google "Neville Chamberlain"

 

[icehorse]

I doubt BLM and Antifa share your comfort level, and standing up to a Nazi who isn't an immediate threat is still the right thing to do. Allowing them any leeway is wrong, and if you don't believe me, Google "Neville Chamberlain"

What's your comfort level? Do think that the asshats in question require an illegal response at this point in time?

We can and should marginalize, ridicule, "out", embarrass, ostracize, decry, and torment them by every legal means.

 

[Wirey]

What's your comfort level? Do think that the asshats in question require an illegal response at this point in time?

We can and should marginalize, ridicule, "out", embarrass, ostracize, decry, and torment them by every legal means.

Agreed. Plus, when they form groups, we should make it as obvious as possible they are unwelcome. You know, so they understand they've failed. And if a little civil disobedience occurs from someone who's existence they have literally threatened in writing, I'm okay with that too. If you want to threaten to kill someone's family and they give you a nice smack in the chops I figure you had it coming.

 

[UpperLimits]

Vice News did a rather excellent job at reporting on this.

The video is 22 min long. They had a reporter embedded with the neo-Nazi's. She did a remarkable job of remaining even-keeled throughout the whole thing, letting the Nazi's do the talking. You don't need someone else telling you these people were the bad guys, when it's easy to see it with your own eyes.

Well, I don't think anybody with an even remote modicum of decency would ever claim these fellows were "stellar citizens."

Nevertheless, they do have the right to maintain an incorrect, and somewhat despicable view, of life. Unfortunately, tolerating a few freaks is just part of the high price one needs to pay in order to maintain and protect their own freedoms. The biggest danger in censorship is that it really respects no boundaries once it's set loose. Education is really the key to protecting the masses - NOT shielding them from reality.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What's your comfort level? Do think that the asshats in question require an illegal response at this point in time?

Realistically, things like "decency" and "playing nice" and being "honorable" do not get you far. Case in point, a minority of voters muscling through into the White House a man whose campaign was built upon acting vulgar and obscene, and making authoritarian threats against his election opponent.

 

[Sleeppy]

Special rules and privileges for you, huh? LOL. (This is how cults are formed.) Sorry, but as much as you might think so, you don't have any special privilege to just take what you want. Now; asking and then God supplies - that's a different matter.


No, Peter was quite explicit. There's simply no way around the text. They were NOT compelled to sell the property. Their sin was deceit. Frankly, I'll believe Peter's word over your interpretation, thanks.


I'm not disputing it was a practice at the time. However, there was no such command as you claim.


That's non-sequitur - not logic.

Yes, we are all tenants. However, God did command each individual to work and be productive. Furthermore, He respects the boundaries of their work. That's why the Apostles lived by the idiom "If one doesn't work, then let him starve." Notwithstanding, you are obliged to help those who genuinely need it. But remember you're a steward. Not a government beaurocrat. Not even Jesus gave everybody everything they wanted, or demanded.

Furthermore, God would have us be giving out of love - not by compulsion. Giving out of compulsion isn't generous at all; it's socialist. And that's just a shabby fake!

Special rules and privileges for you, huh? LOL. (This is how cults are formed.) Sorry, but as much as you might think so, you don't have any special privilege to just take what you want. Now; asking and then God supplies - that's a different matter.
No, Peter was quite explicit. There's simply no way around the text. They were NOT compelled to sell the property. Their sin was deceit. Frankly, I'll believe Peter's word over your interpretation, thanks.
I'm not disputing it was a practice at the time. However, there was no such command as you claim.
That's non-sequitur - not logic.
Yes, we are all tenants. However, God did command each individual to work and be productive. Furthermore, He respects the boundaries of their work. That's why the Apostles lived by the idiom "If one doesn't work, then let him starve." Notwithstanding, you are obliged to help those who genuinely need it. But remember you're a steward. Not a government beaurocrat. Not even Jesus gave everybody everything they wanted, or demanded.
Furthermore, God would have us be giving out of love - not by compulsion. Giving out of compulsion isn't generous at all; it's socialist. And that's just a shabby fake!

1) You haven't been sufficiently observing reality. Nor have you understood:

Matthew 11:12
From the days of John the Baptist till now, the reign of the heavens doth suffer violence, and violent men do take it by force.
--
You are of the same mind as these "violent men." You admit that all things belong to God, but also think to "take it by force."


2) You aren't agreeing with Peter (who was mocking your entire premise), you're agreeing with Ananias.
If Ananias had ownership, how is it that everything he owned, including life, was made forfeit? You're attributing theft to God.


3) It is commanded, even in the OT.

Matthew 5:46-48
For, if you may love those loving you, what reward have you? Do not also the tax-gatherers the same? And if you may salute your brethren only, what do you abundant? Do not also the tax-gatherers so? You shall therefore be perfect, as your Father who in the heavens is perfect.

--
Leviticus 23:22
And in your reaping the harvest of your land you do not complete the corner of your field in your reaping, and the gleaning of your harvest you do not gather, to the poor and to the sojourner you dost leave them; I YHVH am your God.

--
You are of the same mind as the "tax-gatherer." You haven't traced the source of your own entire debt to God, but are willing to collect from, and neglect the poor. Neither Matthew, nor Leviticus, say that you can do whatever you want with your property, as you interpret Peter. They both say that God decides.

4) You're right. God did give socialist commands. Peter mocked the adverse idea, and fortunately Jesus did the same. I'll leave you with that:

--

Matthew 12:14-17
'Teacher, we have known that you are true, and you are not caring for any one, for you do not look to the face of men, but in truth the way of God do teach. Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not? May we give, or may we not give?' And he, knowing their hypocrisy, said to them, 'Why me do ye tempt? bring me a denary, that I may see;' and they brought, and he said to them, `Whose this image, and the inscription?' and they said to him, 'Caesar's;' and Jesus answering said to them, 'Give back the things of Caesar to Caesar, and the things of God to God;' and they did wonder at him.

5) Back to Charlottesville.

 

[Falvlun]

Well, I don't think anybody with an even remote modicum of decency would ever claim these fellows were "stellar citizens."

Nevertheless, they do have the right to maintain an incorrect, and somewhat despicable view, of life. Unfortunately, tolerating a few freaks is just part of the high price one needs to pay in order to maintain and protect their own freedoms. The biggest danger in censorship is that it really respects no boundaries once it's set loose. Education is really the key to protecting the masses - NOT shielding them from reality.

I think education is precisely what the counter protestors were doing. They were making it clear that the worldview represented by these people was not welcome and that it should be condemned, loudly.

I do not see the value of letting these views go unchallenged.

 

[UpperLimits]

I think education is precisely what the counter protestors were doing. They were making it clear that the worldview represented by these people was not welcome and that it should be condemned, loudly.

I do not see the value of letting these views go unchallenged.

And I suppose that "education" includes, macing people, threatening them with sticks and bats, throwing bricks and stones through windows, blocking city streets with an unauthorized (little short of a riot) protest march for which they did not even have a permit. Yes, stellar citizens those...wonderful examples...Just the way we want all citizens to react to something they don't like.

Did you even watch the news reels? Or just the sanitized versions put out by the MSM? One can condemn a view and not be violent. In fact, one of the best ways to protest something like that is to simply refuse to give it a platform. Ignore it. It's simply not worthy of that much time.

The white supremacists march was a "national event." A mere handful of reporters showed up. Still far too many, IMO, but had the left not gone completely off their rocker reacting to the whole thing, it is very likely that none of the events that followed would have ever happened. The white supremacists would have marched and that would likely have been the end of it. And if we ever did hear anything about the event in the news, it would have likely been limited to a couple of 15 second blurbs.

Does any of this excuse the right? Not a chance. Rather, I think it calls for the highest penalties. Regardless of that, however,. Donald was right; BOTH sides were equally responsible. Dead people is what you get when you poke sticks at snakes. It is the left who simply refuses to accept their responsibility for their provocation of the situation. And that irresponsibility is just as bad as the supremacists.

 

[Falvlun]

And I suppose that "education" includes, macing people, threatening them with sticks and bats, throwing bricks and stones through windows, blocking city streets with an unauthorized (little short of a riot) protest march for which they did not even have a permit. Yes, stellar citizens those...wonderful examples...Just the way we want all citizens to react to something they don't like.

Did you even watch the news reels? Or just the sanitized versions put out by the MSM? One can condemn a view and not be violent. In fact, one of the best ways to protest something like that is to simply refuse to give it a platform. Ignore it. It's simply not worthy of that much time.

The white supremacists march was a "national event." A mere handful of reporters showed up. Still far too many, IMO, but had the left not gone completely off their rocker reacting to the whole thing, it is very likely that none of the events that followed would have ever happened. The white supremacists would have marched and that would likely have been the end of it. And if we ever did hear anything about the event in the news, it would have likely been limited to a couple of 15 second blurbs.

Does any of this excuse the right? Not a chance. Rather, I think it calls for the highest penalties. Regardless of that, however,. Donald was right; BOTH sides were equally responsible. Dead people is what you get when you poke sticks at snakes. It is the left who simply refuses to accept their responsibility for their provocation of the situation. And that irresponsibility is just as bad as the supremacists.

I was not justifying violence. I was addressing your argument that counter protests or condemning the speech of white supremecists amounts to censorship.

I reject your argument that we ought to meekly stand by and just let neo-Nazi's have center stage. Yes, the situation is volatile and that means violence may occur. But we shouldn't let horrible worldviews go unchallenged just because we are afraid to poke some snakes.

 

[UpperLimits]

1) You haven't been sufficiently observing reality. Nor have you understood:

Matthew 11:12
From the days of John the Baptist till now, the reign of the heavens doth suffer violence, and violent men do take it by force.
--
You are of the same mind as these "violent men." You admit that all things belong to God, but also think to "take it by force."

So, I'm of the "same mind as these "violent men.""?? That's a little presumptuous, isn't it? You really don't have a clue. Comrade, is it?

2) You aren't agreeing with Peter (who was mocking your entire premise), you're agreeing with Ananias.
If Ananias had ownership, how is it that everything he owned, including life, was made forfeit? You're attributing theft to God.

Because that's the penalty for lying to God. As I said, Peter was quite explicit in his explanation. Even a child can "get it." Socialists? Well, that remains to be seen.

I find it quite revealing that my understanding was that of Christianity for over 1900 years while your view was only recently "discovered" just a few decades ago. Hmmmm. My understanding of this exchange is even the view given in the writings of the early church fathers. And they were still living somewhat communally.

3) It is commanded, even in the OT.

Matthew 5:46-48
For, if you may love those loving you, what reward have you? Do not also the tax-gatherers the same? And if you may salute your brethren only, what do you abundant? Do not also the tax-gatherers so? You shall therefore be perfect, as your Father who in the heavens is perfect.

I'm curious; How does one conflate loving others, with a supposed command to give everything you have to them? BTW, I'm still waiting for a script-torture reference to support your premise.

Leviticus 23:22
And in your reaping the harvest of your land you do not complete the corner of your field in your reaping, and the gleaning of your harvest you do not gather, to the poor and to the sojourner you dost leave them; I YHVH am your God.

Yes. The law of gleanings to provide for the poor. No work = No eat. Just what I was saying before. Note that the farmer was not under compulsion to give all of his crop. Just the corners. He was allowed to keep the profits of his labour. More generous farmers would leave a little wider swath.

You are of the same mind as the "tax-gatherer." You haven't traced the source of your own entire debt to God, but are willing to collect from, and neglect the poor. Neither Matthew, nor Leviticus, say that you can do whatever you want with your property, as you interpret Peter. They both say that God decides.

4) You're right. God did give socialist commands. Peter mocked the adverse idea, and fortunately Jesus did the same. I'll leave you with that:

Once again you are being presumptuous. I've neither said anything of which you accuse, nor are you really in a position to make a determination of that type. Let's continue....

Matthew 12:14-17
'Teacher, we have known that you are true, and you are not caring for any one, for you do not look to the face of men, but in truth the way of God do teach. Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not? May we give, or may we not give?' And he, knowing their hypocrisy, said to them, 'Why me do ye tempt? bring me a denary, that I may see;' and they brought, and he said to them, `Whose this image, and the inscription?' and they said to him, 'Caesar's;' and Jesus answering said to them, 'Give back the things of Caesar to Caesar, and the things of God to God;' and they did wonder at him.

(scratching head...) So, paying your taxes has "what" to do with your argument?

5) Back to Charlottesville.

Good plan!

 

[UpperLimits]

I was not justifying violence. I was addressing your argument that counter protests or condemning the speech of white supremecists amounts to censorship.

I reject your argument that we ought to meekly stand by and just let neo-Nazi's have center stage. Yes, the situation is volatile and that means violence may occur. But we shouldn't let horrible worldviews go unchallenged just because we are afraid to poke some snakes.

Well, if you want to poke at snakes, then go ahead. But don't whine about it when you get bit.

 

[Sleeppy]

I'm curious; How does one conflate loving others, with a supposed command to give everything you have to them? BTW, I'm still waiting for a script-torture reference to support your premise.

Good commentary. Where are the arguments?

You subconsciously ignored the first "script-torture" reference. Here it says Jesus commanded perfection. The previous reference, in conjunction with those most recently provided, detail the need for a person to give all, in response to the poor.

If you study the OT prophets, you'll see the same thing: God does not intend for the poor to exist perpetually. He commands those who produce, to alleviate that system. He offers no such choice, as you believe Peter described. He also doesn't qualify the command, with some expectation that the poor must work for these farmers/producers.

There's really no Christian way around it.

 

[Sleeppy]

And I suppose that "education" includes, macing people, threatening them with sticks and bats, throwing bricks and stones through windows, blocking city streets with an unauthorized (little short of a riot) protest march for which they did not even have a permit. Yes, stellar citizens those...wonderful examples...Just the way we want all citizens to react to something they don't like.

FACT CHECK: Counter-Demonstrators Didn't Have Permits in Charlottesville?

1) To lessen some of the misinformation going around.

 

[UpperLimits]

FACT CHECK: Counter-Demonstrators Didn't Have Permits in Charlottesville?

1) To lessen some of the misinformation going around.

Boy, oh boy!! Left operated Snopes didn't waste any time getting THAT one out, did they??!! Fair enough then....I'll concede the point.

As I was saying...
And I suppose that "education" includes, macing people, threatening them with sticks and bats, throwing bricks and stones through windows, blocking city streets with an unauthorized (little short of a riot) protest march. Yes, stellar citizens those...wonderful examples...Just the way we want all citizens to react to something they don't like.

(And BTW, a judicial order IS a permit..... Command, actually....)

 

[UpperLimits]

Good commentary. Where are the arguments?

You subconsciously ignored the first "script-torture" reference. Here it says Jesus commanded perfection.

And obviously, you believe you have achieved this "perfection." Right?

Have a nice day.