Do you believe the world would be a better place if your political opponents were dead?

[Penner]

So, I just saw this thread and I would say that no, I do not want all political opponent dead or even in prison (both are pretty insane to think about it). Also, everyone needs their opponents because at least the other side will try to keep the other side in check once they try to take over all branches of government.

[BjornP]

Would it be easier for my own political beliefs to become realized, if fewer people who'd object to them, were alive?

Of course.

Would I want them killed, though? No. But naturally, it would be easier to get things done if there are fewer dissenting voices. That’s logical.

Sounds boring, though. Too easy. Wits ought to be sharpened by competition from time to time.

It's a simple question to ask whether or not people of your persuasion find the removal of people of an alien persuasion to be beneficial to yourselves. Collectively. The harder question would be the why, or the how. As for the how, I cannot say what exactly needs to be done. I propose fighting fire with fire. Game Theory dictates that a group working towards disparate ends will always lose to the cohesive, single minded group. As for the why, I should hope that self preservation would warrant a good enough motivation.

Self-preservation is ultimately the justification for lethal action against political opponents. If they actually threaten your life or freedom. And by actual threat, I mean by force of arms. Not by simply existing and them wailing in your general direction.

[C-Mag]

We seem to have a consensus that killing political opponents is not something were in favor of across the board. Yeah, I know, amazingly we agree on something.

To me, this is why talking about politicals is great, and should be promoted. I reject the old line of never talk about politics and religion.

If we take a moment, we realize that we have far more in common than different.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Wait for it...

[Montegriffo]

Is this what happened to Doug?

[C-Mag]

Go ahead boys. You're cute.

I speaking from a position of power. Deny the olive branch if you want.

I have something for you.

[Montegriffo]

I thought you were just channeling Jo Cox.

[Speaker to Animals]

Would it be easier for my own political beliefs to become realized, if fewer people who'd object to them, were alive?

Of course.

Would I want them killed, though? No. But naturally, it would be easier to get things done if there are fewer dissenting voices. That’s logical.

Sounds boring, though. Too easy. Wits ought to be sharpened by competition from time to time.

It's a simple question to ask whether or not people of your persuasion find the removal of people of an alien persuasion to be beneficial to yourselves. Collectively. The harder question would be the why, or the how. As for the how, I cannot say what exactly needs to be done. I propose fighting fire with fire. Game Theory dictates that a group working towards disparate ends will always lose to the cohesive, single minded group. As for the why, I should hope that self preservation would warrant a good enough motivation.

Self-preservation is ultimately the justification for lethal action against political opponents. If they actually threaten your life or freedom. And by actual threat, I mean by force of arms. Not by simply existing and them wailing in your general direction.

So are actual Swedes at that point yet?

[Kath]

I reject the old line of never talk about politics and religion. If we take a moment, we realize that we have far more in common than different.

+1. I cannot discuss politics with my friends, though. Nerd & I align pretty closely politically, but he doesn't like to talk about it like I do. 'Tis why I forum.

[BjornP]

It's a simple question to ask whether or not people of your persuasion find the removal of people of an alien persuasion to be beneficial to yourselves. Collectively. The harder question would be the why, or the how. As for the how, I cannot say what exactly needs to be done. I propose fighting fire with fire. Game Theory dictates that a group working towards disparate ends will always lose to the cohesive, single minded group. As for the why, I should hope that self preservation would warrant a good enough motivation.

Self-preservation is ultimately the justification for lethal action against political opponents. If they actually threaten your life or freedom. And by actual threat, I mean by force of arms. Not by simply existing and them wailing in your general direction.

So are actual Swedes at that point yet?

No. When I'm justifying the use of deadly force against people who threaten your life or freedom, I am not referring to petty criminals. Probably should have written life AND freedom instead, but I thought I'd made that whole "threats to one's way of life require more than just a criminal presence" point so many times over the years, I figured I didn't need to repeat myself.