ThePlayDrive
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2011
- Messages
- 19,610
- Reaction score
- 7,647
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Note : While I understand that everyone will respond to this thread through the lens of their experiences, I ask that everyone do their best to put aside any emotions, prejudices or non-intellectual motives that may color how they present their ideas when responding to the thread question and to other posters.
In light of the violent protests in Ferguson as well as the calls for peaceful protests by some Americans, I believe that the question of when violent protest is justified has become a very important one to consider, if not fully answer. Given this importance, I pose the question to the members of DP : When is violent protest justified?
Before you answer the question, I think it's fair for me to do that myself, though I should note that my position on this topic is still developing. In short, I believe that violent protest is justified when two conditions are met : 1. When the human or civil rights of the protesters have been threatened. 2. When all or most nonviolent means of protest have failed to secure the human or civil rights that have been threatened.
Imo, it isn't. If you're going to resort to violence, it had better be because you are willing to go to war, and sever your ties.
There is no "right" to commit violence and destruction against others in society.
Imo, it isn't. If you're going to resort to violence, it had better be because you are willing to go to war, and sever your ties.
There is no "right" to commit violence and destruction against others in society.
Self defense isn't violent protest against society. It is defense of self against an individual or group who is trying to harm you.Yes there is - basic self defense is a right. Your right to freely swing your arm ends where my nose begins.
I tentatively suggest that every person and institution is entitled to their own idea of whether violence is appropriate and that, the value of their violence should be measured according to whether or not it helped them reach their goal. In other words, I wonder if the question to ask is "Who won?" rather than "Who should and should not have used force?"I tend to agree.
But who determines that the violence is appropriate and which force may the government bring to bear on the protesters?
It depends on what you mean by 'right'. But there is no doubt that it is quite proper to take up arms against an oppressor., whether he be foreign or domestic. It is in an other context not only admissible but arguably even a duty to take up arms, where a leader is committing atrocities.
I agree with that. What do think about a society that does not have mechanisms to change said laws?In a society of laws with mechanisms to change said laws violent protest is never justified.
Note : While I understand that everyone will respond to this thread through the lens of their experiences, I ask that everyone do their best to put aside any emotions, prejudices or non-intellectual motives that may color how they present their ideas when responding to the thread question and to other posters.
In light of the violent protests in Ferguson as well as the calls for peaceful protests by some Americans, I believe that the question of when violent protest is justified has become a very important one to consider, if not fully answer. Given this importance, I pose the question to the members of DP : When is violent protest justified?
Before you answer the question, I think it's fair for me to do that myself, though I should note that my position on this topic is still developing. In short, I believe that violent protest is justified when two conditions are met : 1. When the human or civil rights of the protesters have been threatened. 2. When all or most nonviolent means of protest have failed to secure the human or civil rights that have been threatened.
In a society of laws with mechanisms to change said laws violent protest is never justified.
Fair question. I think my answer to your points are located in part 2 of my argument in the OP : "When all or most nonviolent means of protest have failed to secure the human or civil rights that have been threatened." In the case of the store owner, he may call the police or his insurance company to get justice or money to pay for the damage. He may even get money from the public to put his store back together. And, if those do not work - if he has no constructive means of defending his livilhood - then violence may be justified.I said other because if the tables are turned what would be said? Suppose that a store owner "violently protests" being looted/burned out by shooting the looters/arsonists - would that be acceptable? Is that store owner not allowed the basic human right of earning a living and having their personal property (and safety) respected?
I asked that this sort of anti-intellectual rhetoric not be brought into this thread. Please honor that. Thanks.When the police decide to "stand down", in order to appease the race hustling, poverty pimps, then they are simply begging the otherwise law abiding folks to take matters into their own hands.
Self defense isn't violent protest against society. It is defense of self against an individual or group who is trying to harm you.
In a society of laws with mechanisms to change said laws violent protest is never justified.
Vandalism, looting and burning of private structures is also violent protest against individuals. Society is simply a collection of individuals - note that the OP did not specify "society" as the target of violent protest since it is not.
Your conditions for the justification of violent protest are rooted in the presence of imminent threats (e.g. live rounds). Do you think violent protest (including the destruction of property) is ever justified even when an imminent threat is not present? For instance, I believe that even if the police are completely passive, violent protest can be justified if nonviolent protest has not been successful. Would you agree or do you have another perspective on that?Depends on what you mean as violence. Some hold that property destruction is not violence (I do not hold this view, just sayin). But I say under certain conditions it can be, especially when the police strike you first, or are using overwhelming force such as live round shooting people. But other than that, I think for the most part protestors should stay peaceful, or as peaceful as the conditions call for.
Note : While I understand that everyone will respond to this thread through the lens of their experiences, I ask that everyone do their best to put aside any emotions, prejudices or non-intellectual motives that may color how they present their ideas when responding to the thread question and to other posters.
In light of the violent protests in Ferguson as well as the calls for peaceful protests by some Americans, I believe that the question of when violent protest is justified has become a very important one to consider, if not fully answer. Given this importance, I pose the question to the members of DP : When is violent protest justified?
Before you answer the question, I think it's fair for me to do that myself, though I should note that my position on this topic is still developing. In short, I believe that violent protest is justified when two conditions are met : 1. When the human or civil rights of the protesters have been threatened. 2. When all or most nonviolent means of protest have failed to secure the human or civil rights that have been threatened.
Your conditions for the justification of violent protest are rooted in the presence of imminent threats (e.g. live rounds). Do you think violent protest (including the destruction of property) is ever justified even when an imminent threat is not present? For instance, I believe that even if the police are completely passive, violent protest can be justified if nonviolent protest has not been successful. Would you agree or do you have another perspective on that?
What conditions, in your opinion, would have to be met to be considered enslavement?If violence is called for I aint gona be in the street with protesters. There is a time for violence. That time is when you or yours lives are threatened in such manner that it is tantamount to enslavement or death, and the covenant under which we live has been substantially altered to the detriment of my family and myself. That's war time. Violent protest sure, if you call it a protest. When your backs are put against the wall there is only one course of action, as Sun Tzu said, when in death ground, fight.
In a situation where the message protesters want to send is not acknowledged when they send it peacefully, what would be the next step for protesters, in your opinion?I cannot come up with any examples of actual justified violent protests. Not only are the people who are usually hurt in violent protesters usually innocent themselves, but it takes away from the message that those very protesters are trying to get out, which makes it somewhat self-defeating.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?