"A riot is the language of the unheard"

[LuisDantas]

Do you really believe that would be the consequence?

Often enough it is.

The core issue is that whether such is the case or not depends to a large degree on how reasonable the people who the rioters are opposing are.

 

[columbus]

I recommend expanding your repertoire.
To cry "false equivalency" at dang near every objection is less than cromulent.

Umm...
Tom points out that peaceful protest didn't even delay a preemptive invasion long enough to get answers to serious questions.
Rev changes the subject to years later when a president gets elected who didn't start the war and does his best to end it.
Yeah, that's both a tu toque and a false equivalency. And I am sufficiently nonpartisan to see it.
Tom

 

[Kirran]

It's now "deflection" to oppose violence against innocent bystanders?
Barsh!
Flimshaw!
To endure injustice is not license to perpetrate the same against others.

No, it's not license. But, as Martin Luther King says here, it is immoral to condemn riots while not paying the greater attention to the reason people are rioting.

 

[Revoltingest]

It would be a bit odd if you just did it by yourself.

I could get help if you prefer.

If there was damage to my property during a riot over a legitimate civil rights cause in its vicinity, I wouldn't really harbour any animosity towards whoever did it.

You're a strange one.

Also, getting the establishment to pay attention is only a rather small part of what marches, protests and riots are about. They are more raising awareness of the cause among the general population and about bringing sympathetic people together to become more confident and better networked.

If rioters use violence to burn down my house or business, would
you mind if I send a similarly strong message of protest?

 

[sayak83]

I prefer a different message.

No other message is effective. I consider such protests absolutely necessary for a democracy to remain a democracy. From women suffragists to black civil rights to Vietnam war...protests are meant as a show of force and to remind the state that it is a servant, not a master.

 

[Revoltingest]

Umm...
Tom points out that peaceful protest didn't even delay a preemptive invasion long enough to get answers to serious questions.
Rev changes the subject to years later when a president gets elected who didn't start the war and does his best to end it.
Yeah, that's both a tu toque and a false equivalency. And I am sufficiently nonpartisan to see it.

You've a false premise in there.
Obama did not do his best to end the war.
He continued both wars far too long.
But the protests ended when he became Prez.
From this, I deduce that they were strictly partisan in motivation.

You really need to study how to apply informal logical fallacies.
They shouldn't be just trotted out willy nilly.

 

[Kirran]

If rioters use violence to burn down my house or business, would
you mind if I send a similarly strong message of protest?

Yup. You'd be doing it out of personal retaliation, rather than out of inadvisable emotional overflow from a protest surrounding a legitimate cause.

You wanna stop people rioting? Find out what drove them to it and fix it.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, it's not license. But, as Martin Luther King says here, it is immoral to condemn riots while not paying the greater attention to the reason people are rioting.

MLK was a complete boob to criticize people he doesn't even know, & whose attention to issues he doesn't know.

Yeah, I criticized a saint.
Or rather, I criticized your misuse of his quote.
You're using him to justify violence against bystanders because
it might....just might....serve some nebulous greater good.
The shooter in Quebec City might find your stance inspiring.

 

[columbus]

Nuking Japan did indeed cause the death of many innocents.
But not doing so would've prolonged the war, causing many more deaths.
I see the choice as the lesser of 2 evils.

Something that many people don't grasp is this:
That's the same rationale Osama bin Laden used to justify 9/11.

Imperial USA was assaulting the Muslim world and had been for decades. Attacking the symbols of USA power, WTC/Pentagon/ Capitol Building, would cause a few casualties. But they were collateral damage in a much larger war and didn't matter any more than the civilian population of Nagasaki or Hiroshima.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

No other message is effective. I consider such protests absolutely necessary for a democracy to remain a democracy. From women suffragists to black civil rights to Vietnam war...protests are meant as a show of force and to remind the state that it is a servant, not a master.

If I understand you.....
You advocate violence against bystanders because nothing else works.

Really?
I hope that I just misunderstand your post.

 

[Kirran]

MLK was a complete boob to criticize people he doesn't even know, & whose attention to issues he doesn't know.

Yeah, I criticized a saint.
Or rather, I criticized your misuse of his quote.
You're using him to justify violence against bystanders because
it might....just might....serve some nebulous greater good.
The shooter in Quebec City might find your stance inspiring.

I'm not justifying it, actually - I can see why you'd think so, but I condemn it. I just couldn't see how one could be OK with atomic bombs and not with this. I am against both.

I just think the way to prevent it is not to harangue the people for not protesting oppression properly, but to actually do something about that oppression.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yup. You'd be doing it out of personal retaliation, rather than out of inadvisable emotional overflow from a protest surrounding a legitimate cause.

Oh, no....you misunderstand.
By fighting their violence with my own, I'm sending an in kind
message to support my legitimate cause, ie, self defense.

You wanna stop people rioting? Find out what drove them to it and fix it.

I do what I can.
But you justify violence for those who don't get what they want.
This would mean that all terrorism is justified.

 

[columbus]

Obama did not do his best to end the war.
He continued both wars far too long.

According to other conservative voters he ended them too early. That is why they blame Daesh on him, instead of their man Bush.

But the bottom line is that rather than respond to what I actually said you changed the subject to something entirely unrelated and drew an equivalency.
Tom

 

[Kirran]

I do what I can.
But you justify violence for those who don't get what they want.
This would mean that all terrorism is justified.

See the above post

 

[Revoltingest]

Something that many people don't grasp is this:
That's the same rationale Osama bin Laden used to justify 9/11.

Evidence for your over-reaching claim?

Imperial USA was assaulting the Muslim world and had been for decades. Attacking the symbols of USA power, WTC/Pentagon/ Capitol Building, would cause a few casualties. But they were collateral damage in a much larger war and didn't matter any more than the civilian population of Nagasaki or Hiroshima.
Tom

That is not the argument for nuking Japan.

 

[sayak83]

If I understand you.....
You advocate violence against bystanders because nothing else works.

Really?
I hope that I just misunderstand your post.

Violence against the state is not violence against bystanders. However, for example, a protest against gentrification may justifiably target the symbols of such a transformation, just as Gandhi organized and burnt en-masse clothes and goods from British imports as a protest against deliberate evisceration of Indian industries by British policy.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not justifying it, actually - I can see why you'd think so, but I condemn it. I just couldn't see how one could be OK with atomic bombs and not with this. I am against both.

Protest & war are very different things....at least to me they are.
If one is in a war for one's survival, violence to crush the opposition should be swift & sure.
Woe unto people who don't see the difference.

I just think the way to prevent it is not to harangue the people for not protesting oppression properly, but to actually do something about that oppression.

Since I'm not doing what is underlined, your point doesn't apply to me.

 

[Revoltingest]

According to other conservative voters he ended them too early. That is why they blame Daesh on him, instead of their man Bush.

In case you haven't noticed, I'm not a conservative.
(I identify variously as "liberal", "classical liberal", & "libertarian".)
I opposed both starting & continuing the wars.

But the bottom line is that rather than respond to what I actually said you changed the subject to something entirely unrelated and drew an equivalency.
Tom

Why is it those who cry "Logic!" have the least facility with it?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Can you imagine that I wasn't vaguely interested when we studied this stuff at school?

Ha, it doesn't require that much effort to see. That's also actually kind of sad. It's like black Americans not giving a **** about who MLK is.

 

[Revoltingest]

Violence against the state is not violence against bystanders. However, for example, a protest against gentrification may justifiably target the symbols of such a transformation, just as Gandhi organized and burnt en-masse clothes and goods from British imports as a protest against deliberate evisceration of Indian industries by British policy.

If protesters burn their own clothing, buildings & cars, then I'm OK with it.
Please just do so safely & responsibly.
(Remove toxic things like lead acid batteries.)

But anyone who wants to burn me or mine will be in for a rude awakening.