Nonviolent Protest and Resistance Privileged

[paulpablo]

Not necessarily.
I'm not arguing that protestors are all mentally unhinged.
I'm arguing against the statement that the moment someone risks their life for a cause then their actions are justifiable.

A statement made in regards to protesters, in a thread about protest, in response to comments from another poster that had been..back and forth the entire time between us, been swirling around protesters.  Are you done, now, or is there anything else you like to "not" compare protesters to, any other thing you'd like to "not" argue?

Hey, while we're on the subject of things that go completely over your head...are you aware of the difference between what is justifiable, and what you..personally, or the state... agrees or disagrees with?

---

I recognise that someone can do the latter but believe they're doing the former.

At which point, regardless of the veracity of their beliefs, and by whose metrics that veracity is being judged..it's fair to say we have a problem that clearly needs to be resolved.  I suppose it;s easier to conceptualize as a black and white scenario when we can point to them as the other...foreign agitants, being such a popular example..as an example (terrorists from jihadi land, or people getting bussed in and paid by george soros).  

Little bit more pernicious when it's "us".

So a protest where someone risks their life is justifiable the moment someone risks their life for a that cause.
Justifiable being defined as reasonable, proven to be right, viable.
So protestors who attack abortion clinics, reasonable, justifiable. Let's say some of them kill a doctor or bomb the clinic and risk being shot by police or jailed for life.
Muslims who protest against and kill cartoonists and other forms of freedom of speech that's justifiable?
The risking of someone's life doesn't make the person risking their life correct.
That's just dopey.
It's fairly simple to comprehend.