User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 96

  1. #31
    Pubic Enemy #1 Crabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,252

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OrionzRevenge View Post
    Would your same rule apply in this situation???
    http://www.lbjlibrary.org/assets/upl...lma_march.jpeg

    If not then again we are back to asking who will decide when & where???
    i'm not sure if they marched through residential areas or stayed on the highway. either way, these types of protests, however noble or vile, can cause a lot of disruption, closing streets that people need access to and interfering with local businesses. i don't think the government should regulate what causes people can rally behind, but i do think there should be restrictions on where and how they take place.

  2. #32
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pixie sticks View Post
    i'm not sure if they marched through residential areas or stayed on the highway. either way, these types of protests, however noble or vile, can cause a lot of disruption, closing streets that people need access to and interfering with local businesses. i don't think the government should regulate what causes people can rally behind, but i do think there should be restrictions on where and how they take place.
    Some times letting them go disturb the peace a little is less damaging than trying to stop them and having them riot or something which disturbs the peace a lot more.

  3. #33
    Pubic Enemy #1 Crabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,252

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    Some times letting them go disturb the peace a little is less damaging than trying to stop them and having them riot or something which disturbs the peace a lot more.
    in ferguson, the governor of missouri failed to activate the national guard and basically did nothing while 25 businesses burned to the ground due to intense media scrutiny and a false narrative that inflamed racial tensions. many of the businesses won't be returning to the area and ferguson's economy has suffered as a result. that's not to say there weren't legitimate grievances the community had against the police department, but one has to wonder if the protests did more harm than good. even some of the residents of ferguson were complaining about the crowds remaining after months of protesting.

    of course violent protests shouldn't reflect negatively on peaceful protests, but even non-violent protests can have a detrimental effect on local commerce and the community as a whole. ultimately, a line has to be drawn somewhere. i would rather the government regulate how protests can be conducted than what causes are appropriate to support. nobody wants to see the KKK marching through the streets, blocking roads and disturbing the peace; but if they want to rent a convention center or spread propaganda via various media outlets, by all means, have at it. even anti-civilization rhetoric should be tolerated if it doesn't evolve into violence or a disruption of society.

  4. #34
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pixie sticks View Post
    in ferguson, the governor of missouri failed to activate the national guard and basically did nothing while 25 businesses burned to the ground due to intense media scrutiny and a false narrative that inflamed racial tensions. many of the businesses won't be returning to the area and ferguson's economy has suffered as a result. that's not to say there weren't legitimate grievances the community had against the police department, but one has to wonder if the protests did more harm than good. even some of the residents of ferguson were complaining about the crowds remaining after months of protesting.

    of course violent protests shouldn't reflect negatively on peaceful protests, but even non-violent protests can have a detrimental effect on local commerce and the community as a whole. ultimately, a line has to be drawn somewhere. i would rather the government regulate how protests can be conducted than what causes are appropriate to support. nobody wants to see the KKK marching through the streets, blocking roads and disturbing the peace; but if they want to rent a convention center or spread propaganda via various media outlets, by all means, have at it. even anti-civilization rhetoric should be tolerated if it doesn't evolve into violence or a disruption of society.
    If regulating peaceful protests prompts them to become violent protests, is it still the right thing?

    I mean just look at the countries that actually regulate protests strictly and how well it turns out.

    Edit: and regardless, protests happen because people feel they must take action for a cause. If they're resisted, they eventually take action with more force. They don't just merely give up because they feel it's a cause they need to fight for.

    The wrong crowd is not going to back off from a police line. Or even if they do, eventually they're going to come back with rocks and molotovs the next time.

  5. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,628

    Default

    Right to feel emotion of offense =/= right to have all offenders silenced.
    Likes SpankyMcFly liked this post

  6. #36
    Pubic Enemy #1 Crabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,252

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    If regulating peaceful protests prompts them to become violent protests, is it still the right thing?
    in this case, you're no longer dealing with the freedom of speech, but the freedom to protest violently and revolt. i suppose the issue of morality is subjective. depending on how moral the authority is would determine how moral it is to violently oppose them, but again, that's all pretty subjective.

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    I mean just look at the countries that actually regulate protests strictly and how well it turns out.
    i'm not sure which countries you're referring to or how restrictive their protests are.

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    Edit: and regardless, protests happen because people feel they must take action for a cause. If they're resisted, they eventually take action with more force. They don't just merely give up because they feel it's a cause they need to fight for.
    sure. and there are probably plenty of people who disagree with the position of the protestors. but where is the line drawn to maintain civility? not simply to curb violence, but to prevent people from blocking roads and being a nuisance to those who don't agree with them?

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    The wrong crowd is not going to back off from a police line. Or even if they do, eventually they're going to come back with rocks and molotovs the next time.
    of course. that's why police have riot gear and generally have the right to use lethal force to protect themselves.
    Likes Hard liked this post

  7. #37
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    @pixie sticks

    My point is if you try to stop protesters from blocking roads, they can do a lot worse than block roads.

    If the goal is to protect businesses and keep the peace yet cops need riot gear, to me that is defeating the purpose and causing the opposite to happen by making the situation worse than if it'd been left alone.

    It's like when cops chase a fleeing suspect through the city and the chase causes all kinds of damage and risks the lives of citizens, causing many accidents and the suspects might even start shooting at the cops and hit bystanders. This is counter productive if the proposed mission is supposed to be to protect people.

  8. #38
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pixie sticks View Post
    of course violent protests shouldn't reflect negatively on peaceful protests, but even non-violent protests can have a detrimental effect on local commerce and the community as a whole. ultimately, a line has to be drawn somewhere. i would rather the government regulate how protests can be conducted than what causes are appropriate to support. nobody wants to see the KKK marching through the streets, blocking roads and disturbing the peace; but if they want to rent a convention center or spread propaganda via various media outlets, by all means, have at it. even anti-civilization rhetoric should be tolerated if it doesn't evolve into violence or a disruption of society.
    One problem, the whole point of having the right to protest should mean that you don't have to pay someone else or use someone else's possessions to do it. If you made people have to comply with this then if you opposed their point of view, all you'd have to do is block their access to these things and their voices would never be heard.

    For all the inconveniences, the only vestige left of proper inclusion of the common man in how the big shots set things up is the right to gather and protest.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  9. #39
    Senior Member Kephalos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5(?)
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    103

    Default

    Even when protests are unregulated they escalate. In Mexico it went from blocking roads and making grafitti everywhere they went to burning government buildings and cars, stealing trucks to move their people and now protesters will block elections in two provinces. Protestors need to be controlled and punished if they destroy either private or public property.
    Likes Crabs liked this post

  10. #40
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kephalos View Post
    Even when protests are unregulated they escalate. In Mexico it went from blocking roads and making grafitti everywhere they went to burning government buildings and cars, stealing trucks to move their people and now protesters will block elections in two provinces. Protestors need to be controlled and punished if they destroy either private or public property.
    There's legal protest and crime, if the government has become criminal then these rules change or are temporarily suspended but even were a government and irregular forces are contending in a struggle there remain rules of war, and those who break those rules are war criminals.
    Likes Crabs liked this post

Similar Threads

  1. Should freedom of speech on the forum be tolerated?
    By The Ü™ in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 05-29-2013, 11:30 PM
  2. The end of freedom of speech?
    By Sahara in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 12-29-2009, 03:45 PM
  3. Do we have the right to manipulate and destory nature?
    By Nyx in forum Home, Garden and Nature
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 09-05-2009, 08:16 AM
  4. [MBTItm] Freedom of speech and all?
    By Mayflow in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 07-05-2009, 07:51 PM
  5. [MBTItm] The goal of T vs the goal of F
    By murkrow in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 08-12-2008, 02:31 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO