• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ferguson protesters shut down malls, trains on Black Friday

This a comment on protests in general, not whether these particular people should have been arrested.

I am on the left and I do not support violent protest. I support non-violent protest and civil disobedience that is well-targetted. The goal should be to demonstrate that your side is the side that supports freedom, justice and peace for all.

Intentionally keeping ordinary people from going about their business freely is not non-violent protest. When people are stuck in traffic or on public transportation for a long period of time because protesters have intentionally blocked the streets, it is a form of kidnapping. Residual, unintended effects from a large protest (such as traffic backups) are not immoral, but intentionally causing harm to ordinary people is violence against innocent people. Wasting a significant amount of a person's time is causing harm. Not only is it wrong, it is not helpful for the cause being promoted.

Looting is even worse, it is nothing but greedy people taking advantage of an opportunity. Most destruction and violence is similar, I have seen who does it, and it is a handful of violent and destructive boys and young men taking advantage of the opportunity to act out their violent desires.

That said, one should not let the jerks who arrogantly and/or opportunistically highjack a protest distract from the original message of the majority of protesters who are peaceful and respectful of their community.

By that logic, a red light that is too long could be considered a form of violence.
 
The police aren't the people the public hates over this.

Agreed...
And that's saying a bunch, considering the "more-often-than-preferred" interaction I had in college with law enforcement... :mrgreen:
 
The legal - justice system is broken, this is basically why these protests are ongoing. People want to see some changes made.

Much like the riots of the 1960's, people are making a statement now, they're fed up with the biased legal system, the establishment.

This is true, as well.

Unfortunately, IMHO the Michael Brown/Ferguson incident was probably the worst example to highlight to make a case for system overhaul...

A damn shame, too... Its an important issue.
 
Nice goalpost shift. My link clearly refutes your assertion that the Republicans overwhelmingly carried the Civil Rights Act. No, it was the non-Southern states that did that. Many times we Southerners need help to move forward, and the Civil Rights Act did exactly that.

Of course, if you want to go there, let's talk about what the two parties stood for before and after desegregation. You are familiar with the Southern Strategy, right?

I dont recall saying anything about the southern states, but lets not forget who our racist POTUS was. You are getting too far off course here, MLK wanted people judged on the content of their character. Brown, by that measure was absolutely a thug, its the left treating him differently based on his race-making excuses and such.
 
I dont recall saying anything about the southern states, but lets not forget who our racist POTUS was. You are getting too far off course here, MLK wanted people judged on the content of their character. Brown, by that measure was absolutely a thug, its the left treating him differently based on his race-making excuses and such.

That's what I thought. You don't want to discuss things such as the Southern Strategy, because it would undermine your arguments, such as the fact that MLK wanted to dismantle the institutions of power and privilege that benefited whites at the expense of blacks. Oh, and your boy Ronald Reagan was a big fan of it, too.
 
That's what I thought. You don't want to discuss things such as the Southern Strategy, because it would undermine your arguments, such as the fact that MLK wanted to dismantle the institutions of power and privilege that benefited whites at the expense of blacks. Oh, and your boy Ronald Reagan was a big fan of it, too.

What you thought was that you could derail the discussion again. Nobody cares.
 
What you thought was that you could derail the discussion again. Nobody cares.

You were the one who brought MLK into this discussion and then ran away fast, once I called your bluff. And FWIW, whites constantly misinterpret the MLK quote you referenced. It had everything to do with dismantling anti-black power structures. (You are in favor of that happening, right?)
 
You were the one who brought MLK into this discussion and then ran away fast, once I called your bluff. And FWIW, whites constantly misinterpret the MLK quote you referenced. It had everything to do with dismantling anti-black power structures. (You are in favor of that happening, right?)

His fault is obvious. He pretends there is equal opportunity. He pretends we have reached a mountaintop that only exists metaphorically. That basic (and horribly ignorant) presumption is the basis of all his misconceptions about race and the role it plays in society today.
 
His fault is obvious. He pretends there is equal opportunity. He pretends we have reached a mountaintop that only exists metaphorically. That basic (and horribly ignorant) presumption is the basis of all his misconceptions about race and the role it plays in society today.

Yup. It's a lot more expedient to deal with or ignore racism for those of us who aren't directly affected by it.
 
Yup. It's a lot more expedient to deal with or ignore racism for those of us who aren't directly affected by it.

Such a false belief is key to racist propaganda, it forms the basis from which all conspiracy is invented.
 
I'm in the same boat as you. But here is my answer:The people that are defending Michael Brown tooth and nail are assholes. Screw them for saying the cop shouldn't have been scared. What do they know what it's like to be attacked?
We don't know if Wilson was attacked. We know that he said he was attacked.
 
By that logic, a red light that is too long could be considered a form of violence.

A red light light isn't a form of violence unless it was intentionally programmed to harass people. Intentionally shutting down the subways and preventing people from going home for two hours (which has happened in my town) is violence that harms innocent people. Note that I said "Residual, unintended effects from a large protest (such as traffic backups) are not immoral.."
 
The legal - justice system is broken, this is basically why these protests are ongoing. People want to see some changes made.

Much like the riots of the 1960's, people are making a statement now, they're fed up with the biased legal system, the establishment.

Yes, because nothing says you are concerned about a "broken" justice system, like destroying personal property and stealing from the very people you claim to care about. :roll: Especially concerning a case where the justice system appears to have worked.
 
Were you around in the 60's? I recall the very same thing happening. Some people believe they need to tear stuff down and burn it to the ground before anything tangible in their favor happens. They think that is the only way to be heard, it worked in the 60's.

Just so we're clear. You believe destroying the personal property of an innocent bystander is the best way to be heard? Yes, or no.
 
Are you not in favor of a person's constitutional rights? I think your sense of right v wrong is severely flawed, now, say something about the protesters shutting down the malls, you know, the topic of the thread?

People have a "constitutional right" to sucker punch a cop and go for his gun? What in the actual ****?
 
We don't know if Wilson was attacked. We know that he said he was attacked.

Forensic evidence, and eyewitness testimony corroborates officer Wilson's story. Why do you have a problem with that?
 
We don't know if Wilson was attacked. We know that he said he was attacked.

And the witnesses, the actual witnesses, not the liars who were later found to be lying, all of them said he was attacked by Brown.
 
You were the one who brought MLK into this discussion and then ran away fast, once I called your bluff. And FWIW, whites constantly misinterpret the MLK quote you referenced. It had everything to do with dismantling anti-black power structures. (You are in favor of that happening, right?)

MLK wanted people judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. The ferguson protesters are doing anything but that. Its particularly ironic that the anti-wilson group INSTANTLY knew he was guilty because he was white. If this cop was black we would have never heard of the case. Hard to take people seriously when they themselves are being racist like that. Spare me your lefty diatribe.
 
Last edited:
MLK wanted people judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. The ferguson protesters are doing anything but that. Its particularly ironic. Spare me your lefty diatribe.

You don't favor the dismantling of anti-black power structures. OK.
 
A red light light isn't a form of violence unless it was intentionally programmed to harass people. Intentionally shutting down the subways and preventing people from going home for two hours (which has happened in my town) is violence that harms innocent people. Note that I said "Residual, unintended effects from a large protest (such as traffic backups) are not immoral.."

Though I sense our positions on this issue are wildly different, I think we may have some common ground here. It raises the question of what defines the lines between vengeance, justice, and tyranny. And if you ask a hundred different people that question, you will get a hundred different answers. Add to the fact that the fate of human lives can depend on the application of those definitions, and you sow the ground for verbal strife. That is why it is so important that we discuss these issues rationally, with deference to the facts and without deference to lies. Speaking of which...

MLK wanted people judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

Stop right there. Conservative whites LOVE to quote this line of MLK, because it is so easy to interpret in the context of not challenging the system of oppression of blacks that was strong then, and is still strong now. But since you want to play quote game, let's play!

"We’ve got to fill the jails in order to win our equal rights."

"A second area in which there is need for strong leadership is from the white northern liberals. There is a dire need today for a liberalism which is truly liberal. What we are witnessing today in so many northern communities is a sort of quasi-liberalism which is based on the principle of looking sympathetically at all sides. It is a liberalism so bent on seeing all sides, that it fails to become committed to either side. It is a liberalism that is so objectively analytical that it is not subjectively committed. It is a liberalism which is neither hot nor cold, but lukewarm. We call for a liberalism from the North which will be thoroughly committed to the ideal of racial justice."

And to put your trite little quote into context...

"As you know, we are involved in a difficult struggle. It was about a hundred and four years ago that Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing the Negro from the bondage of physical slavery. And yet we stand here one hundred and four years later, and the Negro still isn’t free. One hundred and four years later, we still have states like Mississippi and Alabama where Negroes are lynched at whim and murdered at will. One hundred and four years later, we must face the tragic fact that the vast majority of Negroes in our country find themselves perishing on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred and four years later, fifty percent of the Negro families of our country are forced to live in substandard housing conditions, most of whom do not have wall-to-wall carpets; many of them are forced to live with wall-to-wall rats and roaches. One hundred and four years later, we find ourselves in a situation where even though we live in a nation founded on the principle that all men are created equal, men are still arguing over whether the color of a man’s skin determines the content of his character. Now this tells us that we have a long, long way to go."

All copy-pasted MLK quotes. All located with a two-second google search.

Your move.
 
Not sure what those MLK quotes are supposed to prove. They speak of things as they were 50 years ago. The 'being judged by the content of ones character' was him longing for the way things ought to be.
 
Not sure what those MLK quotes are supposed to prove. They speak of things as they were 50 years ago. The 'being judged by the content of ones character' was him longing for the way things ought to be.

I cited him merely to point out the irony of the "mob" wanting this cop judged by his skin color, sadly another forumite now wants to veer into what MLK "really meant". :doh
 
People have a "constitutional right" to sucker punch a cop and go for his gun? What in the actual ****?

If a cop rolls up to me in a police cruiser, opens his door and smacks me with it, I should just stand there and take that type of abuse huh?
 
Just so we're clear. You believe destroying the personal property of an innocent bystander is the best way to be heard? Yes, or no.

Just so I'm clear with you oh benevolent one, no, and I never said that I did, just to be clear.
 
Back
Top Bottom