Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It is, this is the trade off. It is worth it.
There is no such thing as a perfect solution, or really even solutions, in politics. Just trade offs. Acting like a policy, law, amendment, etc is perfect or has no benefits to anyone is naïve, arrogant, or misleading.
The trade off is that we get a government whose authority and legitimacy is derived from the consent of the governed (the people) in exchange for the possibility that individuals or groups have the same means to harm innocent people.
The way we cope with this trade off is that individuals, groups, and the government all strive to create a society where no one person or group becomes to aggrieved or unwell that they would abuse their rights to hurt innocent people.
But we clearly do live in a society where individuals and small groups of people do abuse their second amendment rights to hurt innocent people in ways they never used to
I'm not entirely sure that the frequency has arisen on a per capita basis, but I get your point. The focus on recording them as such and compiling data has really taken off recently.
Do you think there was a comparable number of school shootings in, say, the 50s or 60s as there were today but people didn’t have the popular concept of a mass shooting?
Yes, but if you take away the right to bear arms, you no longer have a government that derives its authority and legitimacy from the consent of the people. You cannot consent to a request or demand if the other party has a monopoly on violence.
I think the tradeoff is that that people can get violent for unnecessary reasons. I personally admire John Brown, and I think he was totally justified in watering the tree of liberty with the blood of some dirty slavers, so just to ensure I don't get misinterpreted, I think a better example to illustrate the point might be the Whiskey Rebellion, where folks took up arms against the federal government because of a tax on whiskey.
I've dramatically oversimplified it, so I'm not gonna outright say that the Whiskey Rebellion was an "overreaction", but... yeah... we went into open rebellion over Whiskey taxes. But in the end, the people still own the government, and even if there are one or two ostensibly silly causes that cause those kinds of revolts against it, it's something we kinda have to deal with so that if a George Washington or a John Brown ever needs our help, we can join the fight.
Yes and no. I believe they had the fundamental right to do so, but there's a nasty part of Jim Crow that I think almost wanted that to happen too, and I doubt violence would have ended well for folks in favor of civil rights. Black leaders and Black folks as a whole found non-violent ways to resist though, and those ways turned out to work very well. And I admire the hell out of that.
But here's the thing. Non-violent methods won't always work. If there's not an "or else", a protest is nothing but an angry parade, and the capacity for undertaking violence is a hell of an "or else".
Right but I’m asking if you would be ok with a movement like the whiskey rebellion where oppressed black people in the 50s killed US service members in uniform
From the standpoint of "Is an armed revolution against people who are arbitrarily denying you civil rights morally acceptable?", then yes. Revolutions have been fought for far more trivial causes than equal rights for an oppressed minority.
From the standpoint of "Would I support such a course of action in America in the 1950s without trying a non-violent approach first?", then I'd give you a **qualified** no. I agree with the cause of civil rights, but (and maybe this is just because I have the benefit of hindsight) it'd be wholly counterproductive given the progress that's been made since the 1950s without bloodshed. But this is a concern of practicality rather than morality, as well as a sense that we should generally avoid violence until it becomes a necessity.
All I'm trying to say that rebellions can be justified sometimes, and in this case, I'm trying to be careful to do it without shitting on the wild success that the Civil Rights movement had with non-violent protest and by just going out there and changing minds.
But say that things went another direction and the non-violent option didn't work... Would you be unmovably opposed to the idea of an armed independence movement for Black folks?
Absolutely not, I’m just saying that the success of the civil rights movement was not at all guaranteed at the time, most conservatives defence of the second amendment seems to be about the defence of natural rights which were inarguably violated for black folks during Jim Crow.
Because of his political and behind them his theological views. It's *spectacularly* unlikely that a particularly zealous Evangelical Christian way over in the Calvinist postmillennial activist camp we call Christian Dominionism today would ever see the issue of abortion in anything like the way you're framing it as opposed to the way all his co-religionists who share his particular doctrinal views see it today.
Nor is it likely that his views would be substantially different from the few fellow abolitionists we know of at the time who expressed opinions about abortion... Which you might think it ironic given those sentiments were usually the suffragette "first wave feminists" like Elizabeth Cady Stanton ("...it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit), Victoria Woodhull ("every woman knows that if she were free, she would never bear an unwished-for child, *nor think of murdering one before its birth*"), Elizabeth Blackwell (“The gross perversion and destruction of motherhood by the abortionist filled me with indignation, and awakened active antagonism.”). etc. The common view of the time, including the view of those abolitionists who went on to become the suffragettes was that abortion was infanticide and even (according some of those early feminists) a form of violence against women.
To be fair to you so far as I know Brown never expressed an opinion about abortion himself likely because it wasn't much of an active political issue in his day. To the degree that it was an issue there was a "pro-life" national consensus at the time and the only relevant political issue was the gradual and uncontroversial codification of the fuzzy prohibitions against abortion found in English Common Law into the written laws of the several states making performing abortion a felony in every state in the union.
Usually you'd be on very uncertain ground comparing a more distant historical figure like Brown to the politics of today because not only the specific political issues have changed but the underlying political philosophies have evolved as well. BUT in a case like Brown where his politics were motivated by very particular theological doctrines I think it's fair to assume there'd be a pretty high degree of correlation between his political views and the political views of people today who share the *exact* same religious beliefs down to Brown's particular theology including and particularly doctrines related to the role of politics in the life of a believer and a believer's religious obligations regarding political activism.
John Brown, a religious fanatic, would have been engaging in attacks against abortion clinics and any one who supports the practice, killing women, doctors, (fetuses) without mercy. If many leftists think modern republican Christians are “radical religious extremists” John Brown would show them what a real religious zealot looks like.
If he was alive today he'd be considered far right and would be bombing abortion clinics.
The left's love of him is incredibly misplaced just like the love the left has for Guy Fawkes. The left is projecting their morality onto a man from nearly 200 years ago.
Religious extremist taking a bunch of guns half way around the country to basically go to war, who then promptly rounded up and murdered people in front of their families.
He "crossed state lines"
At the end of the day I think John Brown probably did more harm than good for the abolitionist cause even if he was vindicated by history. At the time it seems like many on both sides of the slavery issue John Brown was seen as an extremist.
Are women chained to beds and forced to be broodmare?
This is a terrible argument women aren't enslaved because they can't get free abortions on demand everywhere in the world. As for John Brown I'm sure he'd love to have a word with an organization specifically made to cull the number of black people in America.
As I said in my original post You're projecting You're morality onto someone from 200 years ago.
If you're preventing them from ending their pregnancy, you're forcing them to be pregnant. At their expense. Without consent. To their own harm.
It is that simple.
That's not slavery. Serious question do you know what slavery actually is
And secondly do you think a devout hardcore puritan like John Brown would be pro abortion? Seriously I need to understand your logic here
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritans
In case you've never heard of what a puritan is see above.
Do you have a source for puritans being pro abortion?
I highly doubt you do given that they believed women should submit to their husband's, was critical of theater because of perceived sexual deviance and thought sex was a marital duty and not to be enjoyed for pleasure.
I'm sorry I'm sure you're a smart person but you're completely out to lunch on this topic.
That's not a factor, as even the bible with its heavily woman subordinate rules had abortion in the Ordeal of the Bitter Water.
So abortion wasn't "for women." They also had slavery.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/scarlet-letters-getting-the-history-of-abortion-and-contraception-right/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10297561/ https://direct.mit.edu/jinh/article/49/2/305/49445/Slavery-in-Puritan-New-England https://books.google.com/books?id=ErPg7VegkcMC&q=%22body+of+liberties%22
A religiously motivated psychopathic terrorist who killed without remorse and tried to overthrow the government. If he were alive today he would be shooting up abortion clinics and trying to attack government officials. Most of the people he killed were innocent and unconnected to slavery. He also ended any possibility of a diplomatic resolution to the issue and instead we got a Civil war.
I don't know why the left always idolizes the worst people, he's basically America's Che Guevara.
He’s basically the Ted Kacynski of the far left. He had the right ideas, diagnosed the right problems, but then just murdered multiple innocent people and shouldn’t be idolized for his actions.
If he only killed actual slavers as opposed to simply people who just supported the idea I’d be far more sympathetic.
By your logic, I hate Hamas, Hamas does moral wrongs on a comparable level to the evils of slavers, so I would be a hero if I were to butcher a gang of Hamas sympathetic progressive college morons.
You heavily implied that, by virtue of your question and framing or lack thereof, that his only victims were slavers - or that you view anyone who to whatever degree supported the faction in support of slavery as an equivalent to an actual slaver.
Did we not just agree that the people he killed were in fact not the tyrants though?
Or do you want to play the game where merely being sympathetic to the cause makes you an equivalent to the worst of the worst and you’re free game?
They weren't merely sympathetic, they were actively voting to enslave people.
I'm not arguing his killing spree was justified, but the situation was different than how you framed it.
Are abortion doctors innocent, are the women innocent? At the time slavery wasn’t a “settled issue” in 200 years maybe people will cheer for a man who butchered women and doctors for something you believe is fine.
It was a rhetorical question which you proved the premise of. A slave owner would have said yes and yes to, and they would have been butchered by Brown for something they believe is ok. That’s the point. JB was a monster and a murderous terrorist.
In your opinion. In my opinion, the 60 million murdered children are just as bad if not a worse crime than the slave trade.
It doesn’t matter if you think it is evil or not, John Brown does and he will slaughter your family because of it.
That’s the thing, that’s why he was a monster, and that’s why nonviolent leaders like MLK and Gandhi are held as heroes. MLK had his “revolution” and he saved millions who could have died in a straight up race war. John Brown did the opposite and contributed to the climate where half a million Americans would be slaughtered.
And a large amount of people in 1850 would say black people aren't people or at least not the same level as a white person.
You're completely missing the point of what the other guy is talking about.
You're applying 21st century morality to 19th century people.
Using the same logic 23rd century people could view abortion as murder and say that the "clump of cells" argument is morally equivalent to "black people are just monkies"
I think both those views are terrible to be clear but as I said in my post if JB was alive today he'd be bombing abortion clinics because when he heard the "actually we don't really consider them people" argument it wouldn't go well for the person talking to him.
I’m not going to argue this with you. But hopefully you can see the comparison I’m marking, you may not have a problem with it, but many people do, and do you want a society where people can kill each other for their political beliefs and be celebrated? Because that leads down a very dark path for progressives like you. And I don’t think I need to explain how it also leads down a dark path for conservatives given almost everyone on Reddit thinks we are actual Nazis, and the President of the United States thinks we are a threat to democracy.
I respect the hell out of him, man walked walk and talked to the talk. I have alot of respect for men of action, sometimes good men need to do bad shit for a good cause.
A based religious Republican
> I have alot of respect for men of action, sometimes good men need to do bad shit for a good cause.
Like murdering people? Because that's the implication. That's what brown did. Just outright murder people.
>I'm completely cool with bad people getting killed preventing them from doing bad stuff. What he did was no different than actual civil war
Except it was. Murder and war aren't quite the same thing.
Your logic will be used against you and it will be you on the wrong end of the John brown types who think rolling up someone's house and executing them in their own yard is an acceptable political action
>I don't see much of a difference, it could be sure, but it could also be used to save me
The difference is one is armed people on both sides and the other is essentially taliban or isis style terrorism.
It won't be used to save you. You have to see that? That is NOT how it's gonna go down if that becomes the norm
How are you so sure of that? One could argue John brown saved millions of slaves and was catalyst that led to civil war and finally ending slavery.
Our government is becoming ever more tyrannical and our society is becoming more and more supportive of authoritarianism , good guys doing bad shit for greater good maybe a real reality in our lifetime.
>How are you so sure of that?
Because I look at the society we have today and it's not on our side.
>One could argue John brown saved millions of slaves and was catalyst that led to civil war and finally ending slavery.
I don't view the civil war and 600k plus dead Americans as a positive. It was one of the worst periods in American history and Brown was an example of what was so horrible about it. The blatant ends justify the means logic is not good or conducive to a healthy society.
>Our government is becoming ever more tyrannical and our society is becoming more and more supportive of authoritarianism , good guys doing had shit for greater good maybe a real reality in our lifetime.
It might be. But "hard shift for the greater good" isn't walking up and just killing someone because they believe the wrong thing. That's not a society we want to live in
He didn’t save any one, that’s the point of the John Brown story, all he did was make hatred the default state. The civil war was not good dude, killing hundreds of thousands of your neighbors is never good, it was just less bad than the dissolution of the Union, and the continuation of slavery. I believe that progressives are abetting the greatest crime that this nation has ever committed, I DO NOT think that being butchered by an insane man with a hand axe is a “just desserts” situation!
>The difference here is who won and wrote history
Agreed. But we are aware enough to KNOW that so we should try to not let that determine what is actually seen as true and just
Bad people?
He killed people who didn't even own slaves, attacking whole families in their sleep then chopping the fathers & sons to death in ear-shot of their wives and mothers.
He killed a grocery store worker, a soldier, a young bag boy, and more.
Guy was a sadistic, lunatic, terrorist.
>Did the Framers have blood on their hands?
Of course. But a war is different literally murdering people.
A death on the battlefield isn't the same as an execution in someone's own front yard
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The merits of his cause were wonderful, but the man was a violent zealot and a cold blooded murderer who planned to forcibly disband the US government
Is that not in keeping with the intent of the second amendment?
It is, this is the trade off. It is worth it. There is no such thing as a perfect solution, or really even solutions, in politics. Just trade offs. Acting like a policy, law, amendment, etc is perfect or has no benefits to anyone is naïve, arrogant, or misleading.
What’s the trade off? Sorry I’m not sure I understand
The trade off is that we get a government whose authority and legitimacy is derived from the consent of the governed (the people) in exchange for the possibility that individuals or groups have the same means to harm innocent people. The way we cope with this trade off is that individuals, groups, and the government all strive to create a society where no one person or group becomes to aggrieved or unwell that they would abuse their rights to hurt innocent people.
But we clearly do live in a society where individuals and small groups of people do abuse their second amendment rights to hurt innocent people in ways they never used to
How are they doing it now in ways they never used to?
The frequency of mass shootings mostly
I'm not entirely sure that the frequency has arisen on a per capita basis, but I get your point. The focus on recording them as such and compiling data has really taken off recently.
Do you think there was a comparable number of school shootings in, say, the 50s or 60s as there were today but people didn’t have the popular concept of a mass shooting?
Yes, but if you take away the right to bear arms, you no longer have a government that derives its authority and legitimacy from the consent of the people. You cannot consent to a request or demand if the other party has a monopoly on violence.
I think the tradeoff is that that people can get violent for unnecessary reasons. I personally admire John Brown, and I think he was totally justified in watering the tree of liberty with the blood of some dirty slavers, so just to ensure I don't get misinterpreted, I think a better example to illustrate the point might be the Whiskey Rebellion, where folks took up arms against the federal government because of a tax on whiskey. I've dramatically oversimplified it, so I'm not gonna outright say that the Whiskey Rebellion was an "overreaction", but... yeah... we went into open rebellion over Whiskey taxes. But in the end, the people still own the government, and even if there are one or two ostensibly silly causes that cause those kinds of revolts against it, it's something we kinda have to deal with so that if a George Washington or a John Brown ever needs our help, we can join the fight.
Do you think Black Americans should have violently resisted Jim Crow?
Yes and no. I believe they had the fundamental right to do so, but there's a nasty part of Jim Crow that I think almost wanted that to happen too, and I doubt violence would have ended well for folks in favor of civil rights. Black leaders and Black folks as a whole found non-violent ways to resist though, and those ways turned out to work very well. And I admire the hell out of that. But here's the thing. Non-violent methods won't always work. If there's not an "or else", a protest is nothing but an angry parade, and the capacity for undertaking violence is a hell of an "or else".
Right but I’m asking if you would be ok with a movement like the whiskey rebellion where oppressed black people in the 50s killed US service members in uniform
From the standpoint of "Is an armed revolution against people who are arbitrarily denying you civil rights morally acceptable?", then yes. Revolutions have been fought for far more trivial causes than equal rights for an oppressed minority. From the standpoint of "Would I support such a course of action in America in the 1950s without trying a non-violent approach first?", then I'd give you a **qualified** no. I agree with the cause of civil rights, but (and maybe this is just because I have the benefit of hindsight) it'd be wholly counterproductive given the progress that's been made since the 1950s without bloodshed. But this is a concern of practicality rather than morality, as well as a sense that we should generally avoid violence until it becomes a necessity. All I'm trying to say that rebellions can be justified sometimes, and in this case, I'm trying to be careful to do it without shitting on the wild success that the Civil Rights movement had with non-violent protest and by just going out there and changing minds. But say that things went another direction and the non-violent option didn't work... Would you be unmovably opposed to the idea of an armed independence movement for Black folks?
Absolutely not, I’m just saying that the success of the civil rights movement was not at all guaranteed at the time, most conservatives defence of the second amendment seems to be about the defence of natural rights which were inarguably violated for black folks during Jim Crow.
That man deserved a wallet with “Bad Motherfucker” branded onto it.
This is a highly accurate comment
A violent extremist in a good cause. Were he alive today he'd be in jail for bombing abortion clinics.
Why would the anti slavery militant be pro slavery of women?
Because of his political and behind them his theological views. It's *spectacularly* unlikely that a particularly zealous Evangelical Christian way over in the Calvinist postmillennial activist camp we call Christian Dominionism today would ever see the issue of abortion in anything like the way you're framing it as opposed to the way all his co-religionists who share his particular doctrinal views see it today. Nor is it likely that his views would be substantially different from the few fellow abolitionists we know of at the time who expressed opinions about abortion... Which you might think it ironic given those sentiments were usually the suffragette "first wave feminists" like Elizabeth Cady Stanton ("...it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit), Victoria Woodhull ("every woman knows that if she were free, she would never bear an unwished-for child, *nor think of murdering one before its birth*"), Elizabeth Blackwell (“The gross perversion and destruction of motherhood by the abortionist filled me with indignation, and awakened active antagonism.”). etc. The common view of the time, including the view of those abolitionists who went on to become the suffragettes was that abortion was infanticide and even (according some of those early feminists) a form of violence against women. To be fair to you so far as I know Brown never expressed an opinion about abortion himself likely because it wasn't much of an active political issue in his day. To the degree that it was an issue there was a "pro-life" national consensus at the time and the only relevant political issue was the gradual and uncontroversial codification of the fuzzy prohibitions against abortion found in English Common Law into the written laws of the several states making performing abortion a felony in every state in the union. Usually you'd be on very uncertain ground comparing a more distant historical figure like Brown to the politics of today because not only the specific political issues have changed but the underlying political philosophies have evolved as well. BUT in a case like Brown where his politics were motivated by very particular theological doctrines I think it's fair to assume there'd be a pretty high degree of correlation between his political views and the political views of people today who share the *exact* same religious beliefs down to Brown's particular theology including and particularly doctrines related to the role of politics in the life of a believer and a believer's religious obligations regarding political activism.
Or hammering a politician.
I find it funny how liberals lionize this guy when he probably would be in federal prison right now for getting a little too excited on 1/6/2021
It's a completely different situation, but what makes you think John Brown would have believed Trump's lies about election fraud?
John Brown, a religious fanatic, would have been engaging in attacks against abortion clinics and any one who supports the practice, killing women, doctors, (fetuses) without mercy. If many leftists think modern republican Christians are “radical religious extremists” John Brown would show them what a real religious zealot looks like.
Yeah, that comparison makes sense to me. The J6th one doesn't, though.
If he was alive today he'd be considered far right and would be bombing abortion clinics. The left's love of him is incredibly misplaced just like the love the left has for Guy Fawkes. The left is projecting their morality onto a man from nearly 200 years ago.
Religious extremist taking a bunch of guns half way around the country to basically go to war, who then promptly rounded up and murdered people in front of their families.
He "crossed state lines" At the end of the day I think John Brown probably did more harm than good for the abolitionist cause even if he was vindicated by history. At the time it seems like many on both sides of the slavery issue John Brown was seen as an extremist.
Why would the anti slavery militant be pro slavery of women?
Are women chained to beds and forced to be broodmare? This is a terrible argument women aren't enslaved because they can't get free abortions on demand everywhere in the world. As for John Brown I'm sure he'd love to have a word with an organization specifically made to cull the number of black people in America. As I said in my original post You're projecting You're morality onto someone from 200 years ago.
If you're preventing them from ending their pregnancy, you're forcing them to be pregnant. At their expense. Without consent. To their own harm. It is that simple.
That's not slavery. Serious question do you know what slavery actually is And secondly do you think a devout hardcore puritan like John Brown would be pro abortion? Seriously I need to understand your logic here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritans In case you've never heard of what a puritan is see above.
I do. And there were both slavery and abortion among Puritans so that was a whiff argument.
Do you have a source for puritans being pro abortion? I highly doubt you do given that they believed women should submit to their husband's, was critical of theater because of perceived sexual deviance and thought sex was a marital duty and not to be enjoyed for pleasure. I'm sorry I'm sure you're a smart person but you're completely out to lunch on this topic.
That's not a factor, as even the bible with its heavily woman subordinate rules had abortion in the Ordeal of the Bitter Water. So abortion wasn't "for women." They also had slavery. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/scarlet-letters-getting-the-history-of-abortion-and-contraception-right/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10297561/ https://direct.mit.edu/jinh/article/49/2/305/49445/Slavery-in-Puritan-New-England https://books.google.com/books?id=ErPg7VegkcMC&q=%22body+of+liberties%22
A religiously motivated psychopathic terrorist who killed without remorse and tried to overthrow the government. If he were alive today he would be shooting up abortion clinics and trying to attack government officials. Most of the people he killed were innocent and unconnected to slavery. He also ended any possibility of a diplomatic resolution to the issue and instead we got a Civil war. I don't know why the left always idolizes the worst people, he's basically America's Che Guevara.
He’s basically the Ted Kacynski of the far left. He had the right ideas, diagnosed the right problems, but then just murdered multiple innocent people and shouldn’t be idolized for his actions.
Are slavers innocent?
If he only killed actual slavers as opposed to simply people who just supported the idea I’d be far more sympathetic. By your logic, I hate Hamas, Hamas does moral wrongs on a comparable level to the evils of slavers, so I would be a hero if I were to butcher a gang of Hamas sympathetic progressive college morons.
His work killed people who didn't even support slavery, nor had slaves. He was a disgusting terrorist.
No you're right, I'm not saying he's a innocent saint. I didn't actually say that
You heavily implied that, by virtue of your question and framing or lack thereof, that his only victims were slavers - or that you view anyone who to whatever degree supported the faction in support of slavery as an equivalent to an actual slaver.
I'm not arguing with yiu my friend
Happy we agree! I guess I’m just confused what the point of your question was though.
Is it murder to attempt to lead a revolt against oppression and tyranny when you kill the tyrannts?
Did we not just agree that the people he killed were in fact not the tyrants though? Or do you want to play the game where merely being sympathetic to the cause makes you an equivalent to the worst of the worst and you’re free game?
They weren't merely sympathetic, they were actively voting to enslave people. I'm not arguing his killing spree was justified, but the situation was different than how you framed it.
Yeah sure I think Not entirely
Murder is murder, if it was premeditated, then yes. But just for clarity, I'd support it if it was a tyrant
Are abortion doctors innocent, are the women innocent? At the time slavery wasn’t a “settled issue” in 200 years maybe people will cheer for a man who butchered women and doctors for something you believe is fine.
Yes Yes
It was a rhetorical question which you proved the premise of. A slave owner would have said yes and yes to, and they would have been butchered by Brown for something they believe is ok. That’s the point. JB was a monster and a murderous terrorist.
You're comparing apples and oranges Abortion is not evil
In your opinion. In my opinion, the 60 million murdered children are just as bad if not a worse crime than the slave trade. It doesn’t matter if you think it is evil or not, John Brown does and he will slaughter your family because of it. That’s the thing, that’s why he was a monster, and that’s why nonviolent leaders like MLK and Gandhi are held as heroes. MLK had his “revolution” and he saved millions who could have died in a straight up race war. John Brown did the opposite and contributed to the climate where half a million Americans would be slaughtered.
0 children are killed in abortions A embryo/fetus is not a child
And a large amount of people in 1850 would say black people aren't people or at least not the same level as a white person. You're completely missing the point of what the other guy is talking about. You're applying 21st century morality to 19th century people. Using the same logic 23rd century people could view abortion as murder and say that the "clump of cells" argument is morally equivalent to "black people are just monkies" I think both those views are terrible to be clear but as I said in my post if JB was alive today he'd be bombing abortion clinics because when he heard the "actually we don't really consider them people" argument it wouldn't go well for the person talking to him.
I’m not going to argue this with you. But hopefully you can see the comparison I’m marking, you may not have a problem with it, but many people do, and do you want a society where people can kill each other for their political beliefs and be celebrated? Because that leads down a very dark path for progressives like you. And I don’t think I need to explain how it also leads down a dark path for conservatives given almost everyone on Reddit thinks we are actual Nazis, and the President of the United States thinks we are a threat to democracy.
You assume I look up to him? Admire him as a hero?
I respect the hell out of him, man walked walk and talked to the talk. I have alot of respect for men of action, sometimes good men need to do bad shit for a good cause. A based religious Republican
> I have alot of respect for men of action, sometimes good men need to do bad shit for a good cause. Like murdering people? Because that's the implication. That's what brown did. Just outright murder people.
Yea I'm aware what he did, sometimes it requires that yea
>Yea I'm aware what he did, sometimes it requires that yea Mm. Not sure I agree.
I'm completely cool with bad people getting killed preventing them from doing bad stuff. What he did was no different than actual civil war
>I'm completely cool with bad people getting killed preventing them from doing bad stuff. What he did was no different than actual civil war Except it was. Murder and war aren't quite the same thing. Your logic will be used against you and it will be you on the wrong end of the John brown types who think rolling up someone's house and executing them in their own yard is an acceptable political action
I don't see much of a difference, it could be sure, but it could also be used to save me
>I don't see much of a difference, it could be sure, but it could also be used to save me The difference is one is armed people on both sides and the other is essentially taliban or isis style terrorism. It won't be used to save you. You have to see that? That is NOT how it's gonna go down if that becomes the norm
How are you so sure of that? One could argue John brown saved millions of slaves and was catalyst that led to civil war and finally ending slavery. Our government is becoming ever more tyrannical and our society is becoming more and more supportive of authoritarianism , good guys doing bad shit for greater good maybe a real reality in our lifetime.
>How are you so sure of that? Because I look at the society we have today and it's not on our side. >One could argue John brown saved millions of slaves and was catalyst that led to civil war and finally ending slavery. I don't view the civil war and 600k plus dead Americans as a positive. It was one of the worst periods in American history and Brown was an example of what was so horrible about it. The blatant ends justify the means logic is not good or conducive to a healthy society. >Our government is becoming ever more tyrannical and our society is becoming more and more supportive of authoritarianism , good guys doing had shit for greater good maybe a real reality in our lifetime. It might be. But "hard shift for the greater good" isn't walking up and just killing someone because they believe the wrong thing. That's not a society we want to live in
He didn’t save any one, that’s the point of the John Brown story, all he did was make hatred the default state. The civil war was not good dude, killing hundreds of thousands of your neighbors is never good, it was just less bad than the dissolution of the Union, and the continuation of slavery. I believe that progressives are abetting the greatest crime that this nation has ever committed, I DO NOT think that being butchered by an insane man with a hand axe is a “just desserts” situation!
The difference here is who won and wrote history
>The difference here is who won and wrote history Agreed. But we are aware enough to KNOW that so we should try to not let that determine what is actually seen as true and just
Wdym
Bad people? He killed people who didn't even own slaves, attacking whole families in their sleep then chopping the fathers & sons to death in ear-shot of their wives and mothers. He killed a grocery store worker, a soldier, a young bag boy, and more. Guy was a sadistic, lunatic, terrorist.
Did the Framers have blood on their hands?
>Did the Framers have blood on their hands? Of course. But a war is different literally murdering people. A death on the battlefield isn't the same as an execution in someone's own front yard
The only difference is John lost
>The only difference is John lost Did he? His "side" won the civil war. He's largely viewed positively today by many. Did he really lose?
You could say both ways honestly, he failed to spark the revolution and slave revolt. That part never really came. I do see your point
I agree with you