So you implicitly admit that certain ideologies ARE indeed more likely to push people towards the use of violence than others. THAT is what this post is about.
That being said, you do have a point in that bloodlust is already present in all people. I thought your post overall was very interesting BTW.
"Yes you could cetainly "say it", but it wouldn't be true and as such it is pointless to do so."
Obviously I WOULD consider it to be true though. You mentioned the word "pointless." Well, I would say this whole back-and-forth disagreeing is quite pointless.
PEOPLE who join certain ideologies push the rest towards the use of violence. Violent people USE ideology to justify their actions.
A person doesn't become violent because of ideology, they were violent before they ever found it.
Just like playing "doom" didn't cause columbine, they just liked it because it suited the tastes of the violent people they ALREADY were on the inside.
"PEOPLE who join certain ideologies push the rest towards the use of violence. Violent people USE ideology to justify their actions."
Yes, I'm not denying there are indeed (many) such people. However,I ALSO think an ideology can IN ITSELF be violent.
"A person doesn't become violent because of ideology, they were violent before they ever found it."
Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that an ideology CAN be violent IN ITSELF, because of what it teaches.
Let's say (hypothetically of course) that I have a political ideology that teaches that all, say, Belgians must violently die. I would say that that IN ITSELF would be a violent political ideology then, wouldn't you?
"Just like playing "doom" didn't cause columbine, they just liked it because it suited the tastes of the violent people they ALREADY were on the inside."
Is bloodshed an intrinsic part of communism?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
"That proves my point"
So you implicitly admit that certain ideologies ARE indeed more likely to push people towards the use of violence than others. THAT is what this post is about.
That being said, you do have a point in that bloodlust is already present in all people. I thought your post overall was very interesting BTW.
"Yes you could cetainly "say it", but it wouldn't be true and as such it is pointless to do so."
Obviously I WOULD consider it to be true though. You mentioned the word "pointless." Well, I would say this whole back-and-forth disagreeing is quite pointless.
My apologies for the late response BTW.
--
[Old Memory]
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Implicitly admit? Not at all.
PEOPLE who join certain ideologies push the rest towards the use of violence. Violent people USE ideology to justify their actions.
A person doesn't become violent because of ideology, they were violent before they ever found it.
Just like playing "doom" didn't cause columbine, they just liked it because it suited the tastes of the violent people they ALREADY were on the inside.
--
BLAh81
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
"PEOPLE who join certain ideologies push the rest towards the use of violence. Violent people USE ideology to justify their actions."
Yes, I'm not denying there are indeed (many) such people. However,I ALSO think an ideology can IN ITSELF be violent.
"A person doesn't become violent because of ideology, they were violent before they ever found it."
Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that an ideology CAN be violent IN ITSELF, because of what it teaches.
Let's say (hypothetically of course) that I have a political ideology that teaches that all, say, Belgians must violently die. I would say that that IN ITSELF would be a violent political ideology then, wouldn't you?
"Just like playing "doom" didn't cause columbine, they just liked it because it suited the tastes of the violent people they ALREADY were on the inside."
Yes, I agree 100%.