Nonviolent Protest and Resistance Privileged

[paulpablo]

it's astonishing that you can't acknowledge the blatant contradiction you made in black and white right in front of you.  At the same time as trying to take the high ground by talking about nuance.

---

What you're basically saying.....

By the very nature of someone taking an action they've justified that action to themselves, just because someone takes an action doesn't mean they've justified it to themselves. And if you say that's a contradiction you're not nuanced enough. You should listen and learn from me more and admit you're too dull to understand.

I've been talking about nuance all along. It's startling that you still don't understand what is being written in plain English.

What I've said is that not every action is necessarily justified, but when you see someone sacrificing their life for a cause, you can bet that they've justified it to themselves.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Anyway, I'm done with you, and this exercise in casting pearls in front of swine.  You go back to playing with your Legos, now.

You're being intentionally the dullard, aren't you?

When someone takes an action, ipso facto that actor has decided that they are justified. Not Moe Bandy from South Fork, Indiana, not Thumpalumpacus from Texas, but that specific actor.

Nonsense. People do things they know aren't justified all the time. Are you on something that's affecting your thinking?

My bolding to highlight the main contradictory points.

[Crunchy]

Oh joy, another one that intends to make a passtime out of missing a fairly simple point.

Your simple point is simply incorrect and your ego won’t let you admit it.  It’s that or you’re simply trolling.
 
This:

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

 
Is simply incorrect.
There is no universe in which the fact that someone is willing to die for their cause provides justification for said cause.
It’s a false narrative that grade school children are aware of. Your refusal to acknowledge an incorrect statement you made doesn’t make you a brave man fighting to defend his ideas. It makes you a stubborn and ignorant man incapable of acknowledging a mistake.
 

Did it never occur to you that the people of germany had a legitimate grievance?   You don;t really think that they were throwing themselves into combat just for the privilege of cooking a few jews...do you? 

According to the Nazis the Aryan race was the best and strongest race. Jews were of another inferior race and were considered disposable. 
According to you, this is a legitimate grievance against jews and Nazi actions are justified…  because Nazis were willing to take up arms and die if necessary to prove the superiority of the Aryan race.
 
Way to go, you’ve taken an error you’ve made and turned it into nazi propaganda.
 
Can you really not see how silly your defence of a silly statement has become? You’ve lost this point and no amount of semantic twisting is going to save you. Here’s a clue for you. When you start defending Nazi actions as justifiable… you’ve lost the argument badly.
 
 

Begging doesn't work on me. 

And apparently neither does an appeal to reason and logic.
 

[Thumpalumpacus]

*yawn*

[paulpablo]

Just to clarify I do understand what the point is.

What he's trying to say that if someone is willing to die for a cause then that person has justified that cause in their own mind.

But what he said is if someone dies for a cause then it is justified.  Even if I don't agree with it then it's justified.

Which is basically like saying "that food tastes amazing.  I didn't like it.  But if someone else is willing to buy it and eat it repeatedly then it's tastes amazing."

[The Grand Nudger]

Your simple point is simply incorrect and your ego won’t let you admit it.  It’s that or you’re simply trolling.
 
Is simply incorrect.
There is no universe in which the fact that someone is willing to die for their cause provides justification for said cause.
It’s a false narrative that grade school children are aware of. Your refusal to acknowledge an incorrect statement you made doesn’t make you a brave man fighting to defend his ideas. It makes you a stubborn and ignorant man incapable of acknowledging a mistake.

If you say so, it must be so.
 

According to the Nazis the Aryan race was the best and strongest race. Jews were of another inferior race and were considered disposable. 
According to you, this is a legitimate grievance against jews and Nazi actions are justified…  because Nazis were willing to take up arms and die if necessary to prove the superiority of the Aryan race.

Is that why they were fighting, in your opinion?  
 

Way to go, you’ve taken an error you’ve made and turned it into nazi propaganda.
 
Can you really not see how silly your defence of a silly statement has become? You’ve lost this point and no amount of semantic twisting is going to save you. Here’s a clue for you. When you start defending Nazi actions as justifiable… you’ve lost the argument badly.
 
 
And apparently neither does an appeal to reason and logic.
 

I guess we'll have to wait and see?

[Crunchy]

What he's trying to say that if someone is willing to die for a cause then that person has justified that cause in their own mind.

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?

[The Grand Nudger]

Are protesters who turn to violent means twisted souls, in your opinion, Crunchy?

Personally, I see them as people whose disenfranchisement is so severe that they are willing to trade their life just to be noticed. That meets my criteria for justification for reasons expounded upon at length, in thread, already. It doesn't have to meet yours, dunce.

[Crunchy]

Are protesters who turn to violent means twisted souls, in your opinion, Crunchy?

Personally, I see them as people whose disenfranchisement is so severe that they are willing to trade their life just to be noticed.  That meets my criteria for justification for reasons expounded upon at length, in thread, already.  It doesn't have to meet yours, dunce.

That would depend entirely on what the protest is about now wouldn't it!  That is the point and you missed that point. What if people are protesting the presence of blacks in their schools. You're going to tell me that meets your criteria for justification?

I've already pointed this out to you:

The problem for some of you is that when you hear such a stupid comment as above, you have a specific cause in mind for which you feel violence is justified. You then defend the stupid comment as though you are defending the cause in in mind rather than the false logic of the stupid statement.

You lost this argument the moment you fired off that silly comment BEFORE thinking it through. All the insults in the world are not going to make you correct.

[The Grand Nudger]

That would depend entirely on what the protest is about now wouldn't it!  

Not in my book, no.  Didn't I make that clear?  Pretty sure I made that clear..in fact, pretty sure you quoted me making that clear, so...?

What if people are protesting the presence of blacks in their schools. You're going to tell me that meets your criteria for justification?

If those people are so disenfranchised that they're willing to trade their lives to be heard..why would I change my position..just because I disagree with their cause?  

You lost this argument the moment you fired off that silly comment BEFORE thinking it through. All the insults in the world are not going to make you correct.

Hahaha, you still think we're having an argument, that's cute.

[Amarok]

That would depend entirely on what the protest is about now wouldn't it!  

Not in my book, no.  Didn't I make that clear?  Pretty sure I made that clear..in fact, pretty sure you quoted me making that clear, so...?

What if people are protesting the presence of blacks in their schools. You're going to tell me that meets your criteria for justification?

If those people are so disenfranchised that they're willing to trade their lives to be heard..why would I change my position..just because I disagree with their cause?  

You lost this argument the moment you fired off that silly comment BEFORE thinking it through. All the insults in the world are not going to make you correct.

Hahaha, you still think we're having an argument, that's cute.

True enough. You can hate the protesters cause. But you can't fault there means if they are willing to die for it.