Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 218

Thread: They sure are worried about her...

  1. #61
    I drew the line above at inciting violence. Offensive words are just that, words no more and no less. But violence is something else and either inciting it or conspiring to have it is something I agree with being a crime. Sticks and stones.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  2. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    That seems like a crime very different to "blocking roads." Pretty sure people do occasionally die as a consequence of non-violent resistance. The question is are we willing to tolerate that as a society to preserve our freedoms? After all, you guys are quite willing to tolerate the annual murder of thousands with guns for the same reason.

    Also odd that a libertarian would be looking for ways to strengthen the government's hand at the expense of those trying to challenge said government.
    How is blocking a road and blocking a hospital at all different? If a person getting blocked is travelling to the hospital it's the exact same thing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    That seems like a crime very different to "blocking roads." Pretty sure people do occasionally die as a consequence of non-violent resistance. The question is are we willing to tolerate that as a society to preserve our freedoms? After all, you guys are quite willing to tolerate the annual murder of thousands with guns for the same reason.
    I'm seeing a distinction without much of a difference. Rand's got the right of it, I think, if I block the road that leads to the hospital, is that much different from blocking the hospital's entrance?

    We absolutely should be willing to tolerate the risks freedom pose as a society, and you're right that allowing firearm ownership with very few restrictions carries inherent dangers. However, we are also willing to punish those who act dangerously or negligently with their freedoms. I can own a firearm, but I can't discharge it within city limits.

    I should also note that while I am certainly no expert on the matter, I would hazard that much of the utility of these kinds of protests during the civil rights movement came not from the actions themselves, but rather the state's reaction to them. Crossing a bridge in Selma had a very limited, localized impact. The televised videos and published images of the aftermath is what started changing hearts and minds.

    Also odd that a libertarian would be looking for ways to strengthen the government's hand at the expense of those trying to challenge said government.
    This libertarian is performing a Gedankenexperiment to find out what you think, and why you think it. I haven't voiced a position on this matter because I haven't really spent the necessary time to analyze the matter and develop a coherent position. Which is why I was asking how you think we should deal with that situation.

    I see a distinction between protesting and civil disobedience, and I'm uncertain that the goals of either are necessarily the same.

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Reasonable accommodations should be made for people exercising their first amendment. They don't need to loot or kidnap to utilize it.

    Do you think the Civil Rights Movement was wrong to use protests that blocked traffic?
    I don't recall the civil rights movement using standstill protests that barricaded traffic without any planning that didn't result in attempts to clear the blockage or other consequences. Perhaps you can give some examples.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  5. #65
    The illiberals here really need to read up on the Civil Rights Movement. It was far, far more disruptive than anything we're seeing in the US.

    http://www.theroot.com/mlk-would-nev...ths-1790856033
    Hope is the denial of reality

  6. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    I'm seeing a distinction without much of a difference. Rand's got the right of it, I think, if I block the road that leads to the hospital, is that much different from blocking the hospital's entrance?
    But every road blocked off (even those blocked with city permission from a formal permit process) is the road that leads to the hospital for some group of people. Your line of argument seems a bit too universally applicable.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    But every road blocked off (even those blocked with city permission from a formal permit process) is the road that leads to the hospital for some group of people. Your line of argument seems a bit too universally applicable.
    This is true, and a fair point, however roads that have been blocked with city permission are known, can be planned for, and able to be routed around, especially by emergency responders. Roads that have been been blocked without warning could pose a far more serious problem for people who are in serious medical need.

    I suppose what I'm asking is, what is the recourse for a family who has lost a family member because they were unable to get medical attention due to an obstructed road that has been willfully blocked by an act of civil disobedience? Is the penumbra of civil disobedience a blank check for avoiding the consequences of our actions? I am guessing that few would support that, but where and how that line gets drawn is what interests me. Especially in cases where those consequences could fairly easily be foreseen. If I wanted to protest the laws prohibiting the discharge of a firearm within city limits by firing into the air, (maybe this would not be classified strictly as civil disobedience, but I digress) should I not be responsible if that bullet then kills or injures someone because I was protesting?

  8. #68
    What is the recourse for a family who lost a family member due to gun violence? The state legally allowed someone to possess a weapon that makes murder incredibly simple. Guns kill thousands, the current protests have yet to kill one. Your logic makes no sense from a libertarian perspective.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  9. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    What is the recourse for a family who lost a family member due to gun violence? The state legally allowed someone to possess a weapon that makes murder incredibly simple. Guns kill thousands, the current protests have yet to kill one. Your logic makes no sense from a libertarian perspective.
    Prosecution of the murderer? Civil damages?

    I question your understanding of the libertarian perspective if you believe a core tenant of libertarianism is that actions should not have consequences.
    Last edited by Enoch the Red; 03-07-2017 at 02:37 PM.

  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post



    You didn't want to just go after that girl, you wanted to go after everyone who couldn't prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt.
    Bull Shit.

  11. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    This is absolute nonsense. It makes about as much saying that a person who thinks murder should be illegal must also think that war should be illegal or that drugs should be illegal. Or that a person who thinks abortion should be illegal must also think that capital punishment should be abolished.
    How is it absolute nonsense? I'm really curious as to why you think in a completely non-partisan way you can be in favor of protesting one group of people but not another from a legal standpoint. Either the action is legal or it is not. You can't make a rule for protesting Republicans if you don't apply it to protesting Democrats. You can't make one rule for X and another for Y based on what you think is worth being protested.

  12. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Reasonable accommodations should be made for people exercising their first amendment. They don't need to loot or kidnap to utilize it.

    Do you think the Civil Rights Movement was wrong to use protests that blocked traffic?
    Exercising a protected right doesn't give you any more ability to break laws not directly related to that right. Just because you add 'protest' to something doesn't mean you get to break other laws. That's an absurd and stupid belief, furthermore what you would define as a 'reasonable accommodation' is likely very different than someone else would.

    In regards to the Civil Rights Movement - Yes, absolutely they shouldn't have been blocking traffic. Protesting something awful doesn't give people the right to disobey other laws. From a moral standpoint - I respect civil disobedience in the essence of where someone may do something they know is illegal but desires to be imprisoned to try to call attention to it. This should be non-violent and they should not resist arrest. Those people are courageous and should be honored by society, even as they go to prison. This is a far cry from today's cry baby left.

  13. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    What is the recourse for a family who lost a family member due to gun violence?
    Well Black Lives Matter isn't a central organization - and while it is an un-disputable fact that the 'organizations' actions precipitated an increase in the murder rate I don't see who they could actually sue...

  14. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    But every road blocked off (even those blocked with city permission from a formal permit process) is the road that leads to the hospital for some group of people. Your line of argument seems a bit too universally applicable.
    Which is why spontaneously barricading roads trapping people who could be in a life or death situation as far as you know is a dreadful idea yes. That's why protest marches normally traditionally require planning so that life or death situations and others can be diverted rather than trapped by someone who doesn't know and doesn't care how they're affecting others.
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    The illiberals here really need to read up on the Civil Rights Movement. It was far, far more disruptive than anything we're seeing in the US.

    http://www.theroot.com/mlk-would-nev...ths-1790856033
    Nothing in that links says that roads were spontaneously barricaded trapping people without the police trying to clear the roads. I have little doubt that had MLK shut down a freeway then the Police would have got involved to reopen it. The Selma marches were planned and well publicised in advance.

    Incidentally "overflowing the jails" rather implies that not only was such civil disobedience not given a free pass to break as many laws as they wanted but that they were sent to jail for doing so. The idea that protestor must be allowed to break any laws they want and get away with it without the police getting involved is specious.
    Last edited by RandBlade; 03-07-2017 at 11:11 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  15. #75
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    I drew the line above at inciting violence. Offensive words are just that, words no more and no less. But violence is something else and either inciting it or conspiring to have it is something I agree with being a crime. Sticks and stones.
    That is pretty vague and depends highly on what you consider inciting violence though. If you're not explicitly calling for violence but implicitly doing so in a way your audience understands for example.
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    How is blocking a road and blocking a hospital at all different? If a person getting blocked is travelling to the hospital it's the exact same thing.
    That depends highly on what road you are blocking and I realise that this is a tradeoff between the right to protest and keeping civil order. I realise this is not black and white which may make it hard to understand for some here, but no, I do not think hospitals should be blocked AND i don't support banning any protest that may block some street. I think the local government should make that call and protesters may challenge that in court, leaving it up to the judge to do that balance.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  16. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    That is pretty vague and depends highly on what you consider inciting violence though. If you're not explicitly calling for violence but implicitly doing so in a way your audience understands for example.
    I think the burden should be very high to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a deliberate incitement to violence. If its grey then err on the side of free speech. Innocent until proven guilty.
    That depends highly on what road you are blocking and I realise that this is a tradeoff between the right to protest and keeping civil order.
    Any road could be used to get to a hospital. Some may be more obvious than other, but you don't know why anyone is in their vehicle - for all you know there could be a pregnant woman with a breeched baby or premature labour etc trying to get to the hospital.
    I realise this is not black and white which may make it hard to understand for some here, but no, I do not think hospitals should be blocked AND i don't support banning any protest that may block some street. I think the local government should make that call and protesters may challenge that in court, leaving it up to the judge to do that balance.
    Well I agree with that, there is a method to organise a protest and get a permit to close streets to use for protests, as happened in the past with many famous marches. I don't think anyone in this thread has objected to that. What we are objecting to is spontaneous blockades that trap people where they are and trap them from going any further regardless of how critical their journey may be or where they are going to.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  17. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    This is true, and a fair point, however roads that have been blocked with city permission are known, can be planned for, and able to be routed around, especially by emergency responders. Roads that have been been blocked without warning could pose a far more serious problem for people who are in serious medical need.

    I suppose what I'm asking is, what is the recourse for a family who has lost a family member because they were unable to get medical attention due to an obstructed road that has been willfully blocked by an act of civil disobedience? Is the penumbra of civil disobedience a blank check for avoiding the consequences of our actions? I am guessing that few would support that, but where and how that line gets drawn is what interests me. Especially in cases where those consequences could fairly easily be foreseen. If I wanted to protest the laws prohibiting the discharge of a firearm within city limits by firing into the air, (maybe this would not be classified strictly as civil disobedience, but I digress) should I not be responsible if that bullet then kills or injures someone because I was protesting?
    I'm going to say something which will probably be unpopular. It depends what is being protested. Protests aren't limited to attempts at self-expression or demonstrating numbers in a governmental system which is very concerned with populr numbers. Protests are historically a method of resistance. Labor strikes and picket lines are a form of protest and a demonstration of resistance. The historical civil rights protests are another. People are SUPPOSED to be discommoded by them. They are an attempt at persuasion and coercion to the protestor's position. You're here objecting to the idea that blocking a road could put someone's life at risk. That's regrettable but you know what? Black lives matter too. It is just as or more regrettable that we keep seeing these overzealous to outright unlawful shootings by police of black people, a number of whom shouldn't have ever had the police's attention at all. If someone else's life being at risk is what it takes to make an impact, to help put a stop to this behavior, than you know maybe that IS acceptable. Cold hard utilitarian functionalism. Those lives you're championing aren't worth any more than the ones which have already been lost and which protesting is trying to get stopped. And the ability to get somewhere on time and without inconvenience is certainly worth far less.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  18. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    I'm going to say something which will probably be unpopular. It depends what is being protested. Protests aren't limited to attempts at self-expression or demonstrating numbers in a governmental system which is very concerned with populr numbers. Protests are historically a method of resistance. Labor strikes and picket lines are a form of protest and a demonstration of resistance. The historical civil rights protests are another. People are SUPPOSED to be discommoded by them. They are an attempt at persuasion and coercion to the protestor's position. You're here objecting to the idea that blocking a road could put someone's life at risk. That's regrettable but you know what? Black lives matter too. It is just as or more regrettable that we keep seeing these overzealous to outright unlawful shootings by police of black people, a number of whom shouldn't have ever had the police's attention at all. If someone else's life being at risk is what it takes to make an impact, to help put a stop to this behavior, than you know maybe that IS acceptable. Cold hard utilitarian functionalism. Those lives you're championing aren't worth any more than the ones which have already been lost and which protesting is trying to get stopped. And the ability to get somewhere on time and without inconvenience is certainly worth far less.
    Just to clarify my position, the questions I am posing aren't intended as rhetorical pedagogical devices designed to lead someone to my point of view. I am trying to suss out exactly what my position is, as this is a subject which I am internally conflicted about. In this instance I am searching out a broader perspective than my own. I do see value in protests and civil disobedience, and I'm inclined to agree with you that the impetus behind the protest may play a role in what we as a society should be willing to accept. The needless and often unjustified killing of unarmed black men is a problem. It is worth talking about, protesting, and acts of civil disobedience, but what I am left wondering is can there be a place for protests, civil disobedience, as well as accountability? Is there a societal nexus of these conflicting interests that can allow for injured parties who have suffered more than a minor inconvenience to also be heard?
    Last edited by Enoch the Red; 03-08-2017 at 04:46 PM.

  19. #79
    Is it so bad to have arrests for blocking traffic, without the violence Lewk was celebrating in previous threads? Thats what protesters want, the media coverage of the heavy handed tactics the police use. Thats why the civil rights movement ended up being so effective.

    I understand the need/desire to protest. I also understand that people have shit to do and places to be. Police need better training to deescalate situations instead of feeding the media the violence everyone is expecting.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  20. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    I'm going to say something which will probably be unpopular. It depends what is being protested. Protests aren't limited to attempts at self-expression or demonstrating numbers in a governmental system which is very concerned with populr numbers. Protests are historically a method of resistance. Labor strikes and picket lines are a form of protest and a demonstration of resistance. The historical civil rights protests are another. People are SUPPOSED to be discommoded by them. They are an attempt at persuasion and coercion to the protestor's position. You're here objecting to the idea that blocking a road could put someone's life at risk. That's regrettable but you know what? Black lives matter too. It is just as or more regrettable that we keep seeing these overzealous to outright unlawful shootings by police of black people, a number of whom shouldn't have ever had the police's attention at all. If someone else's life being at risk is what it takes to make an impact, to help put a stop to this behavior, than you know maybe that IS acceptable. Cold hard utilitarian functionalism. Those lives you're championing aren't worth any more than the ones which have already been lost and which protesting is trying to get stopped. And the ability to get somewhere on time and without inconvenience is certainly worth far less.
    The thing with civil disobedience is that there is a cost for everyone, the protestors of the past didn't just inconvenience others but took (and were prepared to take) consequences for themselves. The idea of civil disobedience is not to do whatever you want and everyone to give you a free pass for it.

    EDIT: OG is quite right.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  21. #81
    FYI, I think this law is stupid. Just like I think punishing Muslims for their speech is stupid. Yet you and Lewk clearly don't agree with the latter. The very accusation of bad behavior for a Muslim is sufficient to discredit them in your eyes.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  22. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    FYI, I think this law is stupid. Just like I think punishing Muslims for their speech is stupid. Yet you and Lewk clearly don't agree with the latter. The very accusation of bad behavior for a Muslim is sufficient to discredit them in your eyes.
    Investigation != punishment.

    I'd like to ask a direct question Loki. If someone starts making pro-jihad statements on social media should there be an investigation. A simple yes or no on the issue.

  23. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Investigation != punishment.

    I'd like to ask a direct question Loki. If someone starts making pro-jihad statements on social media should there be an investigation. A simple yes or no on the issue.
    The response should be the same as it would be for someone making statements calling for the death of gays. Your move.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  24. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    FYI, I think this law is stupid. Just like I think punishing Muslims for their speech is stupid. Yet you and Lewk clearly don't agree with the latter. The very accusation of bad behavior for a Muslim is sufficient to discredit them in your eyes.
    Where have I supported punishing Muslims for their speech?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  25. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    The response should be the same as it would be for someone making statements calling for the death of gays. Your move.
    Yes. Anyone calling for violence in that capacity should be investigated.

  26. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Investigation != punishment.

    I'd like to ask a direct question Loki. If someone starts making pro-jihad statements on social media should there be an investigation. A simple yes or no on the issue.
    Should you be investigated for your pro-bullying statements after that rash of suicides at one high school, Lewk?
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  27. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Yes. Anyone calling for violence in that capacity should be investigated.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_W._Allen#Controversy

    Like that?

    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Where have I supported punishing Muslims for their speech?
    http://theworldforgotten.com/showthr...l=1#post185697

    http://theworldforgotten.com/showthr...l=1#post185669
    Hope is the denial of reality

  28. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Should you be investigated for your pro-bullying statements after that rash of suicides at one high school, Lewk?
    If there is evidence he may be committing or has committed an offence? Yes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  29. #89
    Evidence being: is Lewk Muslim, right?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  30. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    That may be a bit of a stretch. Christian dogma teaches that everyone is deserving of death, and that it is only by accepting Christ that the penalty of sin is removed. You know this. A Christian telling other Christians that a sinner is worthy of death carries an entirely different context than you seem intent on making it out to be. Is it hypocritical to say that about gays and lesbians and not other 'sinners,' sure. Is it a threat? Hardly.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •