The Follies of Activism

a reply to: ClovenSky

Reading your posts I know you're a good person. Its just that we are all sheep at certain times or places in our lives.

Do you really want sheep or informed people following your ideology otherwise you are no different than a despot

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

(something we've been doing for tens of thousands of years)

You said you were clued up on GMOs

www.who.int...

1. What are genetically modified (GM) organisms and GM foods? Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms (i.e. plants, animals or microorganisms)in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturallyby mating and/or natural recombination. The technology is often called “modern biotechnology” or “gene technology”, sometimes also “recombinant DNA technology” or “genetic engineering”.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope



What, the "laws passed quickly" or your "sharp penmanship?"

Keep up the personal attacks, you may have to change your avatar again soon to momentarily fool some simple minded newbies.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Thank you.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So in a nutshell all resistence is futile, activism is failure. Your life matters more than some ideals you hold dear. There are some ideals I would die for. Can you say the same or is the mention of North Korea somehow validation in your mind.

Would you judge Daniel Ellsberg likewise in exposing the Pentagon Papers that helped end the war?

Galileo knew the punishment opposing the Church. He should have self-censored.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Les would fit in so well with the Borg.

(Just kidding Les!)

a reply to: RowanBean

As an American you enjoy your freedom at the cost of others - you brought up Marcos

Thanks to your freedom loving CIA LOL


en.wikipedia.org...

Later, in 1969, a memorandum concerning US commitments abroad went out between US officials. The memo indicated that there could be a disastrous fallout between the US and Philippines if it ever got out that the US had been storing nuclear weapons in the Philippines without the prior consent of the government.[32] A later dated memo disclosed that, although the Filipino public or government was not aware of the weapons being stored, Marcos had secretly known about them since 1996, but did not reveal their existence as it would not have been advantageous in the upcoming elections.

a reply to: RowanBean

I try to refrain from personal attacks

What a ridiculous thread. The right argues for the 2nd for the very reason that they might, at some point, have to resort to violent activism.

originally posted by: okrian
What a ridiculous thread. The right argues for the 2nd for the very reason that they might, at some point, have to resort to violent activism.

Actually you brought up a very good point. It seems that the OP considers the Founding Fathers pretty silly when they wrote the Second Amendment specifically to protect themselves from the government if it ever gone amok.

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: okrian
What a ridiculous thread. The right argues for the 2nd for the very reason that they might, at some point, have to resort to violent activism.

Actually you brought up a very good point. It seems that the OP considers the Founding Fathers pretty silly when they wrote the Second Amendment specifically to protect themselves from the government if it ever gone amok.

Why would you say that?

originally posted by: okrian
What a ridiculous thread. The right argues for the 2nd for the very reason that they might, at some point, have to resort to violent activism.

What a ridiculous post, bereft of both argument and sense.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So in a nutshell all resistence is futile, activism is failure. Your life matters more than some ideals you hold dear. There are some ideals I would die for. Can you say the same or is the mention of North Korea somehow validation in your mind.

Would you judge Daniel Ellsberg likewise in exposing the Pentagon Papers that helped end the war?

Galileo knew the punishment opposing the Church. He should have self-censored.

None of what you describe is activism.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: okrian
What a ridiculous thread. The right argues for the 2nd for the very reason that they might, at some point, have to resort to violent activism.

Actually you brought up a very good point. It seems that the OP considers the Founding Fathers pretty silly when they wrote the Second Amendment specifically to protect themselves from the government if it ever gone amok.

Why would you say that?

Because using the Second Amendment right to protect themselves against tyranny is a form of activism.

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: okrian
What a ridiculous thread. The right argues for the 2nd for the very reason that they might, at some point, have to resort to violent activism.

Actually you brought up a very good point. It seems that the OP considers the Founding Fathers pretty silly when they wrote the Second Amendment specifically to protect themselves from the government if it ever gone amok.

Why would you say that?

Because using the Second Amendment right to protect themselves against tyranny is a form of activism.

No it isn’t.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: okrian
What a ridiculous thread. The right argues for the 2nd for the very reason that they might, at some point, have to resort to violent activism.

Actually you brought up a very good point. It seems that the OP considers the Founding Fathers pretty silly when they wrote the Second Amendment specifically to protect themselves from the government if it ever gone amok.

Why would you say that?

Because using the Second Amendment right to protect themselves against tyranny is a form of activism.

No it isn’t.

Good answer.

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: okrian
What a ridiculous thread. The right argues for the 2nd for the very reason that they might, at some point, have to resort to violent activism.

Actually you brought up a very good point. It seems that the OP considers the Founding Fathers pretty silly when they wrote the Second Amendment specifically to protect themselves from the government if it ever gone amok.

Why would you say that?

Because using the Second Amendment right to protect themselves against tyranny is a form of activism.

No it isn’t.

Good answer.

Better than yours. You asserting something without evidence or reason can be dismissed without evidence and reason.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: okrian
What a ridiculous thread. The right argues for the 2nd for the very reason that they might, at some point, have to resort to violent activism.

Actually you brought up a very good point. It seems that the OP considers the Founding Fathers pretty silly when they wrote the Second Amendment specifically to protect themselves from the government if it ever gone amok.

Why would you say that?

Because using the Second Amendment right to protect themselves against tyranny is a form of activism.

No it isn’t.

Good answer.

Better than yours. You asserting something without evidence or reason can be dismissed without evidence and reason.

Nice try. You haven't explain why I am wrong.
If the government becomes too tyrannical and tramples on people's rights, they become activists using their First and Second Amendment rights.
Now prove me wrong.

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: okrian
What a ridiculous thread. The right argues for the 2nd for the very reason that they might, at some point, have to resort to violent activism.

Actually you brought up a very good point. It seems that the OP considers the Founding Fathers pretty silly when they wrote the Second Amendment specifically to protect themselves from the government if it ever gone amok.

Why would you say that?

Because using the Second Amendment right to protect themselves against tyranny is a form of activism.

No it isn’t.

Good answer.

Better than yours. You asserting something without evidence or reason can be dismissed without evidence and reason.

Nice try. You haven't explain why I am wrong.
If the government becomes too tyrannical and tramples on people's rights, they become activists using their First and Second Amendment rights.
Now prove me wrong.

You haven’t explained why you’re right. They “become activists”?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: okrian
What a ridiculous thread. The right argues for the 2nd for the very reason that they might, at some point, have to resort to violent activism.

Actually you brought up a very good point. It seems that the OP considers the Founding Fathers pretty silly when they wrote the Second Amendment specifically to protect themselves from the government if it ever gone amok.

Why would you say that?

Because using the Second Amendment right to protect themselves against tyranny is a form of activism.

No it isn’t.

Good answer.

Better than yours. You asserting something without evidence or reason can be dismissed without evidence and reason.

Nice try. You haven't explain why I am wrong.
If the government becomes too tyrannical and tramples on people's rights, they become activists using their First and Second Amendment rights.
Now prove me wrong.

You haven’t explained why you’re right. They “become activists”?

Which is one of the purposes of the Second Amendment. What is the purpose of the militia?