• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Poll: Liberals Can be Provoked to Violence

Can liberals be provoked to violence

  • No everyone know liberals are akin to the Mother Theresa's of the world

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes liberals are like other humans and anger about things, may even become violent

    Votes: 27 87.1%
  • Of course liberals are violent thats why most of them are incarcerated

    Votes: 2 6.5%
  • Liberals killed my dog

    Votes: 5 16.1%
  • No liberals believe in equality therefore adhere to the golden rule thus are non-violent

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Liberals are alright, its the progressives that are the problem

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    31

idav

Being
Premium Member
Does anyone believe that liberals can never be angered or provoked to act violently?

Here is a definition of liberal from the dictionary.

Liberal: Open to new behaviors or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.

Here is the definition of political liberalism.
Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.

Do any of those definitions imply anything about non-violence being a central. What about allowing superiortiy, that one little part would go directly against the notion of equality.

Is there any set tenet on how liberalism is supposed to achieve equality?

Is it a silly question? Sometimes I wonder.
 

Mister Silver

Faith's Nightmare
Liberals can be provoked to violence just as anyone can.

When someone pushes and pushes and pushes his hateful ideology, it is perfectly natural to break one's calm in order to confront the perpetrator. Personally, before violence ensued, I would go the route of a verbal confrontation. If the one spewing the hateful ideology physically attacks me first, of course I am going to defend myself by physically attacking him.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Yet it's so rare to get full consensus over something. The day is young.
I think because this isn't necessarily partisan. I expect you'd get a similar result from asking the same of conservatives.
If you asked which is more violent, however...that is an adversarial question which will most likely provoke a more adversarial response.
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Does anyone believe that liberals can never be angered or provoked to act violently?

Here is a definition of liberal from the dictionary.

Liberal: Open to new behaviors or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.

Here is the definition of political liberalism.
Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.

Do any of those definitions imply anything about non-violence being a central. What about allowing superiortiy, that one little part would go directly against the notion of equality.

Is there any set tenet on how liberalism is supposed to achieve equality?

Is it a silly question? Sometimes I wonder.

Voted "Liberals killed my dog" (yes, basically)

There are limits to Liberal tolerance and if you exceed that tolerance, Liberals will become violent in order to defend the ideas of liberty and equality. its known as the Paradox of Tolerance because if you tolerate the intolerant, it means the overall amount of tolerance will decrease as society is populated by more intolerance people. At some point, Liberals have to assert Liberty and Equality are superior values to ones opposed to it such as those found in totalitarian ideologies. At a minimum Liberalism believes in equality before the law and the debate over equality is the extent to which social equality is achievable without mandating it by destroying or undermining individual rights.

Historically, sections of society have fallen outside of the definition of "individual rights" and be subject to abuse. The struggling for Universal suffrage and the struggle for civil rights based on race, gender and sexual orientation shows how liberalism evolved to cover more and more people over the course of the past two centuries. Whilst we have reached a degree of universalism in including more groups of people, the limits are still there. Non-violence is a central tenant of behaviour between people who accept the principles of Liberty and Equality as a basis for recognising each others rights, but begins to fall apart when you are dealing with someone who does not share those beliefs and demands the law and the state treat people differently as unequal. That's when liberals get violent.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
When someone pushes and pushes and pushes his hateful ideology, it is perfectly natural to break one's calm in order to confront the perpetrator.
You mean like that gay, Communist, racemixing, welfare state that the liberals are trying to force on decent folk?
:)
Tom
 

Mister Silver

Faith's Nightmare
You mean like that gay, Communist, racemixing, welfare state that the liberals are trying to force on decent folk?
:)
Tom

Sometimes I have trouble discerning if someone online is being funny or serious.

I am going to err on the side of optimism, which I rarely do, and assume you are being satirical.

However, also to address what you stated, I imagine a liberal society that recognizes the equality of all is preferable to most people than the conservative society of segregation, gross inequality, and possibly something resembling a theocracy.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
You asked about human nature and got a human nature response. A better question is about the minority of left and right who want a fight and start one.
 

Mister Silver

Faith's Nightmare
Liberals can be "provoked" or enticed to use violence. By their record of imperialism, I don't see how one could say otherwise.

I view imperialism as a conservative trait. Wouldn't it be?

im·pe·ri·al·ism
imˈpirēəˌlizəm/
noun

  1. a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force.
    "the struggle against imperialism"
    • historical
      rule by an emperor.
After all, liberals tend to be against military force and emperor-type ruling.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I voted for the 2nd one.
A whole bunch'o people agree with me.
What does that say about you!?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Does anyone believe that liberals can never be angered or provoked to act violently?

Here is a definition of liberal from the dictionary.

Liberal: Open to new behaviors or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.

Here is the definition of political liberalism.
Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.

Do any of those definitions imply anything about non-violence being a central. What about allowing superiortiy, that one little part would go directly against the notion of equality.

Is there any set tenet on how liberalism is supposed to achieve equality?

Is it a silly question? Sometimes I wonder.

Silly question and dumb poll. No possible answer.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
Silly question and dumb poll. No possible answer.
You look at posts like #7, it can actually be pretty thought provoking. There is a reason the right wants to paint liberals hypocrites for not letting their heroes speak. There truly is a certain irony in trying to advocate tolerance while telling people they aren't allowed to be intolerant.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Does anyone believe that liberals can never be angered or provoked to act violently?

Here is a definition of liberal from the dictionary.

Liberal: Open to new behaviors or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.

Here is the definition of political liberalism.
Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.

Do any of those definitions imply anything about non-violence being a central. What about allowing superiortiy, that one little part would go directly against the notion of equality.

Is there any set tenet on how liberalism is supposed to achieve equality?

Is it a silly question? Sometimes I wonder.

Violence is about getting others to submit to your control. How does this promote equality?
 
Top