Civil disobedience: violence should be a last resort

Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed belong solely to the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Eagle editors, staff, or adviser.

I would like to address some concerns regarding my last column, “Don’t be Livestock; Take A Stand Against Government Violence,” which was published three weeks ago.

First, I would like to apologize for the unclear wording in my article that led my readers to misinterpret my meaning.

This is ultimately my fault and I take full responsibility for it.

Because I was not present during the article’s editing process, it lost its hypothetical inclinations and instead took on a definitive literal slant.

I intended my article to be strictly hypothetical.

I did not intend in any way to encourage anyone in today’s America to consider violence as an appropriate form of protest against our current government.

Likewise, using the example of a successful pacifist movement—like the one organized and lead by Martin Luther King Jr.—to validate a call for violence against our government would be insane.

Violent resistance should only ever be realized when all other means have been exhausted—a worst-case scenario, an “Orwellian society” as Tim Streasick aptly said.

My opinion was meant to explain what we should do as citizens, if an oppressive government were to come into power. Again, I blame myself for not being present during editing to prevent this mistake.

While I understand my critics’ concerns and reasoning for voicing their opinions, I must comment on the way they went about critiquing my article. It is my opinion that the use of humor and witticisms has no place in a debate over a serious political issue.

The topic of my last article is a serious political issue.

I enjoy watching The Daily Show just as much as the next person, and while it may only be wishful thinking on my part, I assume the news parody show is not my critics’ primary source of political wisdom.

I hope that The Daily Show’s use of satirical humor is not the model used by anyone constructing a serious political argument.

As humorous-yet-informative as Stewart may be, I think it is unprofessional to use a comedian as a means of explaining opinions on a serious political matter.

I encourage anyone reading this to voice your opinions in a serious, logical way—especially when addressing an article or opinion you disagree with.

If you can’t refrain from using humor while discussing a serious topic, I politely ask you to keep your letters or articles to yourself until you have properly devised a professional argument.