View Poll Results: When is violent protest justified?

Voters
59. You may not vote on this poll
  • Always

    2 3.39%
  • Never

    24 40.68%
  • Under certain conditions (please explain)

    33 55.93%
Page 4 of 18 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 173

Thread: When is violent protest justified?

  1. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Melbourne Florida
    Last Seen
    04-18-17 @ 03:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    16,763

    Re: When is violent protest justified?

    I put never, because we are talking in context of a petty incident.

  2. #32
    Guru
    soot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    04-25-17 @ 03:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,308

    Re: When is violent protest justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    I believe Ferguson is justified, not by the Michael Brown death, but by the piss poor Media policies of the Ferguson Police in responding to the problem. First, they failed to immediately release relevant police reports that would have prevented an information vacuum that became filled with distorted, loud, frequent misinformation by agendas that had jumped to conclusions. Second, during the original violence many Reporters were arrested/abused/detained unlawfully and when you mess with the press, you get bad press. Third, the Police presented a militaristic response to a social problem that required persistent negotiation and was an opportunity to explain what actually happened and a complete failure to communicate resulted. Fourth, the Ferguson community must acknowledge that a black community needs black police officers that live in that community. For me personally, only the abuse of Reporters justifies the violence.
    I disagree with your conclusion, but I agree with your reasoning.

    No doubt the situation in Furguson was and is a ****show.

    And many in the Furguson community have a legitimate grievance.

    But attacking and destroying the property, and threatening the safety, of innocent third parties isn't an acceptable course of action.

    If the citizens of Furguson have a grievance with their municipal government and police force then the municipal government and police force should be the target of their violence.

    Understand, I'm not advocating for firebombing city hall and killing police officers, but if the Furguson protesters were doing that I could see how it would be a logical (if not rational) course of action given their specific complaints.
    “Now it is not good for the Christian’s health to hustle the Aryan brown,
    For the Christian riles, and the Aryan smiles and he weareth the Christian down;
    And the end of the fight is a tombstone white with the name of the late deceased,
    And the epitaph drear: “A Fool lies here who tried to hustle the East.”

  3. #33
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,576

    Re: When is violent protest justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    Well, no it really isn't against individuals. It's blind violent nonsense, not directed at any specific business or individual. If a group spefically focused on Mr Jones Hardware Store, because the owner had caused harm to the group or a member of the group, then your point would be more accurate. What I am referring to, and I believe the op is referring to, is protests such as we saw last night. That is protest, not a case of self-defense.
    What, other than a case being ruled "self defense", was being protested? Vandalism, looting and burning is not a protest - those are criminal acts. Being mad at a "system" does not excuse, in any way, destruction of property of those simply living under that "system" or violence against ordinary people that happen to be employed by that "system".

    Calling looters protestors is silly; there were both looters and protestors presented on TV last night but there was no overlap in those groups.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  4. #34
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,107

    Re: When is violent protest justified?

    Violent Protest is justified when in the course of human events it becomes necessary to overthrow your government.

  5. #35
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,336

    Re: When is violent protest justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Yes there is - basic self defense is a right. Your right to freely swing your arm ends where my nose begins.
    I think you are contradicting yourself with your two posts. Protecting yourself and your property using violence is a right. The looters that you find yourself defending against are violent protesters.

  6. #36
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: When is violent protest justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Rest assured that neither the police nor the insurance company are able to provide justice.
    If the store owner can have those who destroyed his property charged or have the damage paid for by insurance, then I do not believe he can justify violently protesting the threat to his human and civil rights. However, if cannot, then he may be able to justify violent protest.

    Can you provide us examples of an owner being repaid by society for loss of their home, business or property due to criminal acts? Money cannot replace everything even with the best of insurance settlements.
    I agree that money cannot replace everything. I do, however, believe that if money can replace damaged property, then violence is not justified in response to that property damage. Do you disagree? As for an example you requested, I know I've heard of communities (and wealthy individuals) raising money for businesses damaged by criminal acts in the past. I would have to search to find an example which I'm not interested in doing. Fortunately, my argument does not rely on that example.

    What did society provide to D. Wilson beaten by, or the shop owner robbed by, M. Brown?
    That question is not within the scope of this thread. The are other threads to debate the specifics of Ferguson. This thread is about the theory of violent protest.

  7. #37
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,107

    Re: When is violent protest justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by soot View Post
    I disagree with your conclusion, but I agree with your reasoning.

    No doubt the situation in Furguson was and is a ****show.

    And many in the Furguson community have a legitimate grievance.

    But attacking and destroying the property, and threatening the safety, of innocent third parties isn't an acceptable course of action.

    If the citizens of Furguson have a grievance with their municipal government and police force then the municipal government and police force should be the target of their violence.
    This is correct only if you have an autocratic form of government without the possibility for representative correction. Since that is not the case, however, directing violence against the municipal government and police force means that one wishes to overthrow the government of the people by the people by force, and you should be dealt with accordingly.

  8. #38
    User ThesisQuasar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Last Seen
    01-05-15 @ 01:56 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51

    Re: When is violent protest justified?

    At least these three conditions should be met:

    1. When there are particularly oppressive laws or infrastructure in place that Violate the peoples necessities or rights.

    2. When there are no peaceful mechanics Available to utilize that can allow the people to change aspects of society perceived to be oppressive.

    3. If the act of committing violence doesn't create more harm than it would good in both short-term and long-term foresights.

    Violence with the intended purpose of accomplishing something good is a double-edged action. It comes with negative effects in the hope that it produces a much bigger positive effect in the end. Unnecessary violence is both impermissible and unethical. The use of violence in any society structured as a democracy is unethical.
    Last edited by ThesisQuasar; 11-25-14 at 01:06 PM.

  9. #39
    Guru
    celticwar17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,889

    Re: When is violent protest justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    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.
    My exact thought... The only time you ought to protest in violence is when you want to go to war and start a revolution.

  10. #40
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: When is violent protest justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    I believe Ferguson is justified, not by the Michael Brown death, but by the piss poor Media policies of the Ferguson Police in responding to the problem. First, they failed to immediately release relevant police reports that would have prevented an information vacuum that became filled with distorted, loud, frequent misinformation by agendas that had jumped to conclusions. Second, during the original violence many Reporters were arrested/abused/detained unlawfully and when you mess with the press, you get bad press. Third, the Police presented a militaristic response to a social problem that required persistent negotiation and was an opportunity to explain what actually happened and a complete failure to communicate resulted. Fourth, the Ferguson community must acknowledge that a black community needs black police officers that live in that community. For me personally, only the abuse of Reporters justifies the violence.
    You brought up a point that I hadn't fully considered : the role of the press in the consideration of violence. While I took issue with how the press was treated in the Ferguson case (and the relationship of the press to the government in general), I had not spent much time thinking about the influence the press has on protest, violence and the intersection of both. Thanks for bringing this up; it gives me more to think on.

Page 4 of 18 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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