Nonviolent Protest and Resistance Privileged

[paulpablo]

No, you're not.  You're looking for a way to wheedle around and continue the "hur dur, troublemakers with no justification" line of bullshit.  

Are protesters mentally unhinged, in your opinion?

I'm not keeping up with what you said?

I can copy and paste exactly what you said.
You said it's justified the moment someone risks their life for change.

I definitely disagree because there's mentally unhinged people out there who risk their lives for unworthy, sometimes imaginary causes.

[The Grand Nudger]

Is that, in your estimation, the case with protesters who turn to violent methods?

[paulpablo]

Is that, in your estimation, the case with protesters who turn to violent methods?

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.

[Exian]

But you recognize the difference between someone standing up for what they believe in even if it means taking on the personal risk of death, and strapping yourself with a bomb for the express purpose of killing as many people as you can?

[paulpablo]

But you recognize the difference between someone standing up for what they believe in even if it means taking on the personal risk of death, and strapping yourself with a bomb for the express purpose of killing as many people as you can?

Do you understand the difference between arguing against the statement that the moment someone risks their life for change then their cause is justifiable, and saying that protesters are mentally unhinged and everyone risking their life for change is wrong?

[CanOfMountainDew]

But you recognize the difference between someone standing up for what they believe in even if it means taking on the personal risk of death, and strapping yourself with a bomb for the express purpose of killing as many people as you can?

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

[The Grand Nudger]

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", or when we're forced to confront our shared culpability.

[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.

[Autumnlicious]

I believe that violence is justified in circumstances of defense of self or others. Would you stand by and merely witness the beating of someone next to you?

If we go by Labor movement history, we see that the vast majority of people would passively witness murder and do nothing.

Yes, murder. And the perpetrators and those who ordered it suffered no consequences.

People are not prone to defend themselves, even if enraged and rioting.

When you observe the difference in accomplishments, the kooks who took over that state park got off nearly scot-free despite having far less popular support and more overt "gimme" demands whereas the Standing Rock protestors got hosed, arrested and pushed back into a little corner.

Being armed seemingly makes state forces think twice about their actions.

The theory of violence done in self defense backed up with guns is far stronger than trusting in your opponents humanity.

Why? Because of the Stanford Prison Experiment (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford...experiment) which demonstrated how a power differential easily mutates in a government setting to authoritarianism.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

More wheedling. 

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.

They clearly seem to believe as much, don't they?  

Muslims who protest against and kill cartoonists and other forms of freedom of speech that's justifiable?

Again, they clearly seem to believe as much, don't they?

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.

You;re trying to argue with me over whether or not they are right or wrong, whether or not you or I agree with them.  That, Pablo...is dopey.  What else is dopey, is imagining that these pat excuses you've given have any ability to address -why- those people believe or do what they believe or do, or whether or not what they believe or do has any justification.  To you, it's just a bunch of agitators and nuts, bad people™ starting shit.  Way to completely miss a serious problem with a silly suggestion...and way to maintain it in the face of your own inanity. Thankfully, we don't all conceptualize things in such a breathtakingly ignorant way...or we couldn't possibly come to a resolution on any issue around which protests become violent.