What is good for the goose...

Topic: Do you believe that when it comes to political disputes that whatever you feel is appropriate for your side to do, the other side should be able to do as well?

For example, say there is a political disagreement on deciding to place sanctions on a country. Group A and Group B each try to rally people to their cause. We all agree that they both can freely speak on the issue. We all agree that both can protest peacefully on the issue. Is there anything in this dispute that should be off limits for one party but not off limits for the other?

Obviously this is about BLM and what tactics are appropriate to use for people upset with state and municipal employees. I've seen many people on social media and in the regular media condone violence to have their voice heard. Here's the thing, if you support the use of a tactic for *your* cause than you have to support the use of a tactic for a cause you disagree with. So those who say violence is justified for police brutality, y'all good with pro-life folks burning down minority businesses the same way BLM rioters did?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Topic: Do you believe that when it comes to political disputes that whatever you feel is appropriate for your side to do, the other side should be able to do as well?

For example, say there is a political disagreement on deciding to place sanctions on a country. Group A and Group B each try to rally people to their cause. We all agree that they both can freely speak on the issue. We all agree that both can protest peacefully on the issue. Is there anything in this dispute that should be off limits for one party but not off limits for the other?

Obviously this is about BLM and what tactics are appropriate to use for people upset with state and municipal employees. I've seen many people on social media and in the regular media condone violence to have their voice heard. Here's the thing, if you support the use of a tactic for *your* cause than you have to support the use of a tactic for a cause you disagree with. So those who say violence is justified for police brutality, y'all good with pro-life folks burning down minority businesses the same way BLM rioters did?

---

I think if push came to shove very few people in general, and probably fewer still on this forum, would admit to supporting burning down minority businesses as a protest against police brutality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

I think if push came to shove very few people in general, and probably fewer still on this forum, would admit to supporting burning down minority businesses as a protest against police brutality.

---

Indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Timbuk2

Indeed.

---

If the choice is police brutality over many decades and country wide and burning a business (regardless of ownership), my reply would still be 'burn baby burn'.

But of course this whole thread is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt of Lewk to have his 'gotcha' moment for the week. So maybe I should simply counter with 'what do you think of the police intentionally damaging private property of people not involved in any protests whatsoever?

Is it right to kill people?
What about killing people in defense of your own life and/or the lives of your loved ones?

Is it right to hunt people?
What about hunting people who stole toothpaste from your boss?

Is it right to run people over with a car?
What about black liberals who're in your way when your porcine ass is jonesing for donuts?

Is it right to rape people?
What about raping people who're in jail for some crime that you disapprove of?

Is it right to kill thousands of civilians?
What about Iraqi civilians?

Is it right to destroy property?
What about Palestinian property in Gaza?

Is it right to break the law?
What about deeply unjust and dangerous laws?

The rightness or wrongness of actions are assessed in a variety of ways. Most people consider their intuitions about the inherent moral status of an action in combination with modifiers that help them determine whether or not an action is justified, or acceptable—often in comparison to some other alternative. For this reason, it is perfectly possible—and, under the practical moral frameworks used by most normal people, perfectly justifiable—to accept or even endorse an action under one set of circumstances, while opposing it under a different set of circumstances. For example, actions that may be unimportant, acceptable or even praiseworthy in opposition to a murderous police force may not be equally acceptable—let alone praiseworthy—in defense of some dull-witted chode's desire to get their nails done. You know this; this is precisely how you navigate the world—albeit with a broken compass, and a dullard's incapacity for discerning nuance. Now, you're a stupid and venal man, but why do you insist on trying to make yourself seem dumber than you really are? You don't need to put in the extra effort—we already have a couple of decades' worth of data to work with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

For example, actions that may be unimportant, acceptable or even praiseworthy in opposition to a murderous police force may not be equally acceptable—let alone praiseworthy—in defense of some dull-witted chode's desire to get their nails done.

---

I've seen this argument bandied about again and again on this forum, and I really don't think it is a fair or reasonable assessment. Were there some people who were upset primarily because they were being inconvenienced - I am sure. Were there specific protests by barbers and hair dressers? Yes. Was that really what the bulk of the protests were about? I don't think so. The protests weren't about hair cuts, or nails - they were about livelihoods, an incredibly painful and stressful time, mounting debt, and in many cases real financial ruin. Glossing over these concerns with, "My political opponents only care about getting their hair did and their nails done," is about as myopic, callous, and misleading as it gets. It's akin to saying the current protests are all about looting and destruction.

I put it in extreme terms to clarify the point; you can adjust the parameters however you like, but the point remains the same: determining the rightness or wrongness of an action is not a simple and straightforward task, and, for most people, it depends on context.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

...
Obviously this is about BLM and what tactics are appropriate to use for people upset with state and municipal employees. I've seen many people on social media and in the regular media condone violence to have their voice heard. Here's the thing, if you support the use of a tactic for *your* cause than you have to support the use of a tactic for a cause you disagree with. So those who say violence is justified for police brutality, y'all good with pro-life folks burning down minority businesses the same way BLM rioters did?

---

Apples to Oranges. There's a difference b/w violence and destroying property. Nuance and context aren't your strong suit.

No, it's not ok for "pro-life" groups to bomb abortion clinics in order to murder doctors who perform abortions. :donkey:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Nuance and context aren't your strong suit.

---

Understatement the size of a continent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Apples to Oranges. There's a difference b/w violence and destroying property. Nuance and context aren't your strong suit.

No, it's not ok for "pro-life" groups to bomb abortion clinics in order to murder doctors who perform abortions. :donkey:

---

Do you understand what the term violence is? For example punching a wall is a violent action.