Nonviolent Protest and Resistance Privileged

[Crunchy]

That is semantic torture in order to avoid admitting that a stupid mistake was made.  The discussion was clearly about whether or not actions could be justified by those taking part in the discussion and not about what some twisted soul would believe in their own mind.
This is just part of the "never admit your wrong or concede a point" tenure from some regulars and it is becoming rapidly boring.


This--> "At the exact moment that a person is willing to trade their life for change....it's justifiable."

Is stupid. It's wrong. It fails every test of critical thinking and moral thinking. Now, if the people here are so vacuous that they will spend ten pages trying in vain to defend the indefensible, what hope do you think there will be of having any reasonable discussion with this type of person?

I'm guessing you missed my point that justification, like any other human emotion, is inherently subjective? Or perhaps you disagree with my point, but don't want to bother with laying out why?

In either event, there's something you're not addressing in this sweeping dismissal of yours.

That's a strawman as no one disagreed that people ready to die for a cause didn't feel themselves justified. Self justification was not the issue being discussed and it would be crazy for someone to ask "When does it become self justifiable to resort to violence in a protest?" That's not what was asked. 

You can try all you want to find a semantic argument that will save the day but it won't help because the fact that someone is ready to trade their life for change proves absolutely zero about the change they want to make and that includes whether its justifiable or not.