• 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!

When is violent protest justified?

When is violent protest justified?


  • Total voters
    56
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?

I understood what you meant. You (in the scenario) are driven to the conclusion that there is no other alternative but violence. I insisted on flipping it on you, so that we do not forget this part of the variable.

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.

To me the onus is on the attacker to convince the hegemony that their actions are justifiable. More often than not, they are *not* justifiable.
 
Last edited:
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.

Violence will not help.
 
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.

It is a riot, which is actually has more profound motivations than theft/vandalism/arson. A riot, according to Martin Luther King, is the language of the unheard. I think it is safe to say, in the case of Ferguson, that there are people that are lashing out because they feel "unheard".

MLK: A riot is the language of the unheard - CBS News
'Softmindedness,' Riots, and Science: Seven Lesser-Known King Quotes

To dismiss this as just a bunch of thugs is to dismiss the social ills that are gnawing at a significant segment of population. ...that is not to condone the riot, its only to explain why they occur. King when on to say that you can not condemn the rioters without condemning the very issue that gave rise to the riot.

To be clear, I am not trying to justify the riot; only explain it. But, I do agree that if you dismiss the root cause of it (by failing to consider it) you are perpetuating the problem.
 
Last edited:
In what situation?

In both of these situations.
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.

It will just bring about more violence.
 
Extreme situations like those found in the Nazi ghettos, and so on.
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.
 
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.
 
In both of these situations.


It will just bring about more violence.

While creating enmity rather than consensus, turning those who might be persuaded to your point of view away.
 
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.

True, if you can think of one I may change my mind. I can't think of any. The cops have just become more militant and will use force, while the protestors are not allowed to use the same force.
 
There are lawful ways to be heard. A riot accomplishes nothing but destruction and ill will.
 
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?

Happy Thanksgiving radcen.

I gave this a little thought yesterday during our 11 hour drive to our daughter's house and the more I thought of it the more I think that there's really no good justification for violent protest. Protest here is really just an expression of dissatisfaction and anger, it isn't, like a revolution might be, aimed at effecting any kind of lasting change. It's more about venting emotion. I'd take the position that violent protest in the long term hurts the protester's cause. It's really hard to see how burning down a hair salon that services the community and gives jobs to a few locals actually benefits anyone. It's more likely to make an enemy of the salon owner and employees.

And just as bad it's likely to spur violent reaction by the government.

I agree with you that in my initial post I assumed that the system actually works but actually working doesn't mean getting the result you wanted or even getting a fair result. What matters is that if the system isn't working that there are legal means to change the system. Throw corrupt officials out of office, change bad laws, fix broken processes etc. As long as there are legal ways to do that the system works. If there aren't I'm not sure violent protests are called for because they are ineffective. What's called for in that case is revolution.
 
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.


Violent priest and violent revolution aren't the same thing.
 
While creating enmity rather than consensus, turning those who might be persuaded to your point of view away.
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.
 
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?

I'm not sure. I have to give it some thought. The revolution was a good thing and had a good result - as least as far as we American citizens are concerned. That doesn't mean that the tea party itself was right. It was the destruction of private property in response to a government act that many, but probably not all, colonials disagreed with. Were there others, legal, means to show dissatisfaction? Could the colonials have worked within the system? Franklin at least seemed to think so.

At some point it became clear to enough colonials that violent revolution was needed because they couldn't get a fair under the system. I'm not sure they had reached that point at the time of tea party.
 
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.

If violent protest was justifiable in Ferguson it was mandatory when Obama ignored the constitution and granted amnesty to illegals.
 
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 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.

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.

Vandalized Ferguson bakery nets more than $200K in a day on GoFundMe
 
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.

That seems to be a very subjective standard, further a very low threshold for violence.
 
That seems to be a very subjective standard, further a very low threshold for violence.
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.
 
When is violent protest justified?

I'm basing my opinion on the Declaration of Independence that a violent protest can be justified under certain conditions.
 
Back
Top Bottom