I didn't ask you about my civil rights, I asked you about your civil or human rights. This means that civil or human rights that you have already accepted as being threatened. I'll ask the question again and I would appreciate it you would answer it directly : If your human or civil rights are being attacked and your legal means haven't yielded results for ~20 years, what do you do next?
What could push you to traverse those barriers?I am of the disposition to not like protesters to begin with. I find protesting beneathe civilized behavior. I do not see myself, ever, under any circumstances, resorting to violent protest. I would have to traverse so many barriers in my character to begin with. .
What could push you to traverse those barriers?
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.
First of all, what is happening in Ferguson is not violent protest, it's theft, vandalism and arson. there is no protest, just a bunch of thugs using this situation as an excuse to run wild.
In what situation?Violence will not help.
In what situation?
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.
I tend to agree with your position. Only in the most of extreme situations would it be justified, but I could not come up with an example. This, however, would qualify.Extreme situations like those found in the Nazi ghettos, and so on.
I can't say that I agree because it's for me to think of a single significant injustice that was ended without the aid of violent protest.In both of these situations.
It will just bring about more violence.
In both of these situations.
It will just bring about more violence.
I can't say that I agree because it's for me to think of a single significant injustice that was ended without the aid of violent protest.
While creating enmity rather than consensus, turning those who might be persuaded to your point of view away.
That's nice, but naive... in the sense that it presumes the system is always pure and just and above board.
Or, are you saying that we only have such a system on paper and not in reality?
I do not believe that I said that. I am sure the Syrians wish that it had taken another course there and I think the Ukrainians might think so too. On the other hand, the US did rather well, when it used force to get rid of what the citizens considered illigitimate rule.
That does not mean that force as in these riots is legal. But the revolution was not legal, when it happened either. The problem is they never are considered so. That means the participants are always in the same position of not knowing with certainty and being forced to take the decision right or wrong my county. Both sides are in this position.
To be frank, I do not believe that those who reject an argument because protesters are violent were ever allies or potential allies in the first place. If someone makes an argument you agree with, then you agree with it regardless of how they behave. People who don't agree with the argument just use bad behavior as an excuse for their disagreement. As a result, protestors should never be concerned with getting "consensus" from people like them, in my opinion.While creating enmity rather than consensus, turning those who might be persuaded to your point of view away.
I don't know, one could call The Boston Tea Party (the original) a violent protest. Property was most certainly destroyed.
Does that mean that the American Revolution was not 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.
When I heard about this, I thought you should know. A woman whose bakery was vandalized by the violence in Ferguson has raised had over $200K raised for her to repay by the damages. Like I said, it can be done.Can you provide us examples of an owner being repaid by society for injuries, or loss of their home, business or property, due to criminal acts?
When her new bakery was vandalized in the riots that rocked Ferguson on Monday night, Natalie Dubose turned to a crowdfunding page to raise $20,000 and get her business back up and running.
Within one day, she beat her goal by a wide margin and netted more than $200,000—10 times her goal— from roughly 6,000 backers.
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.
Funny, I consider my standard fairly objective and a high threshold. Objective because it is a single standard based in rights that apply to all human beings and a high threshold because it is only permits violence when all nonviolent means have been exhausted.That seems to be a very subjective standard, further a very low threshold for violence.
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?