Anytime a remark of mine spawns a post on CSGV’s “Things Pro-Gun Activists Say
That We Take Out Of Context“ I feel I must be doing something right. I finally got tired of them spewing their peacenik nonsense, and tried to make them live up to the logical conclusion of their rhetoric, which would be that the violent, armed resistance that was necessary to eradicate Nazism in Europe was an immoral act. Apparently they didn’t appreciate that, and went off at length to mischaracterize my statement as suggesting that advocating non-intervention was the same as outright support.
But the fact is, anyone who advocated for waging peace against the Nazis, or sitting idly by while Hitler conquered Europe and wiped the Jewish people off the face of the planet, certainly fits in the category of those who “would have let Hitler finish his final solution.” Perhaps that is a logical conclusion of CSGV’s rhetoric for which they are deeply uncomfortable. But I suspect that is the case.
I would point out I never got a satisfactory answer to my question posed here, and ultimately CSGV had to cop out of that particular conversation, suggesting that questions about how to defeat Hitler by waging peace were above their pay grade, even though they themselves advocate this philosophy on a regular basis.
25 Responses to “Annoying the Opposition By Using Their Own Logic”
- Pacifist-Agressives | Shall Not Be Questioned - [...] am reminded of my late interaction with our opponents, of a paper written a few years ago by Dave ...