View Poll Results: Can covering yourself in black bloc make you a conspirator to your group's crimes?

Voters
3. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    3 100.00%
  • no

    0 0%
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 40 of 40

Thread: Black Bloc Criminal Conspirators

  1. #31
    Senior Member Mike's Avatar
    Type
    INTx
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,253
    Quote Originally Posted by jyng1 View Post
    Well... the President certainly seems reluctant to denounce Klan violence.


    And the 1% and corporations just legally stole more than a trillion dollars off the American people which, according to a survey by Yale University, 90% of CEO's have no intention of investing back into the domestic economy (most will probably be used for stock buy backs and dividend payouts).
    Well the president did denounce violence on all sides. It seems to be you who is reluctant to denounce violence using black bloc tactics. In fact you appear to be trying to justify it.

  2. #32
    Hasta Siempre Madrigal's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Mañana
    Posts
    7,603
    INTPx Award Winner
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    impeding others' freedom of movement
    Pitifully puerile argument the right likes to use. Repairing roads also impedes free movement, but in that case, two rights are overlapping: the right to freedom of movement and the right to safety.

    Actually, democratic rights don't tend to end where another right begins; they frequently overlap and take precedence over other rights, in all spheres of life. The right to protest, justice or to freedom of speech can and does legitimately take precedence over the right to move freely in all city streets.
    Everything under heaven is in utter chaos; the situation is excellent. - Mao

  3. #33
    Senior Member Mike's Avatar
    Type
    INTx
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,253
    Quote Originally Posted by Madrigal View Post
    Pitifully puerile argument the right likes to use. Repairing roads also impedes free movement, but in that case, two rights are overlapping: the right to freedom of movement and the right to safety.

    Actually, democratic rights don't tend to end where another right begins; they frequently overlap and take precedence over other rights, in all spheres of life. The right to protest, justice or to freedom of speech can and does legitimately take precedence over the right to move freely in all city streets.
    You're entitled to say whatever you want. You're entitled to hold signs that say whatever you want. You're not entitled to block streets without getting a permit and coordinating with the police. That's how a civilized country works.

  4. #34
    Meae Musae Servus Hephaestus's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    12,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    How about you - are you down with smashing the corporations' property and punching the Nazis?
    This is my central conflict. It's like dieting: yes, I want to gorge on cheesecake, but it runs contrary to my long term goals.
    For some, "how", not "why", is the fundamental unit of measure for curiosity. This divergence is neither parallel, nor straight. Where one might have a "why?-5" problem, it might only be a "how?-2" question. But then, there are also many things where the "why?" is immediately obvious but the "how?" is best measured in centuries of perpetual wonder. Both approaches have their drawbacks.

    If one is superior, the other is unaware of it.

    --Meditations on Uncertainty Vol ξ(x)

  5. #35
    Hasta Siempre Madrigal's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Mañana
    Posts
    7,603
    INTPx Award Winner
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    You're entitled to say whatever you want. You're entitled to hold signs that say whatever you want. You're not entitled to block streets without getting a permit and coordinating with the police. That's how a civilized country works.
    No it's not. Plenty of countries allow protest to proceed without permits. Read the newspaper sometime.

    Which right can take precedence over another is a matter of opinion, not a hard and obvious fact. The gun control debate is a prime example of this. Some people don't find it plainly obvious that their right to own an assault rifle threatens innocent people's right to life. Strike action is another thorny issue; you may or may not believe that a labor stoppage for workers' rights or wages should take precedence over the supply of goods and services, or over the capitalist right to amass profit undeterred. Try as you might, democratic rights are complicated, not simple.

    "Legal" is not a synonym for legitimate. Legal is what has managed to impose itself in the letter of the law as a consequence of a historic struggle and shifting balance of power. Sometimes, a law has been won by the common people (like the 8 hour work day), and other times, it is won by elites (like privatized health care or tax regimes). In any Constitution and legal framework governing a society, you will have a mix of these two sides bound together into the letter of the law; the Law is a heterogeneous testament to class struggle, exhibiting the wins and losses of conflicting interests.

    How does one side impose their own law? Through strength. Be it in numbers, in the court of public opinion, in coercion, or just plain violence - on both sides. Look at history. Might makes right. Do you have the might to change the letter of the law, or to at least impede its application? Both the common man AND the elites are constantly asking themselves that question.

    Do you have a right to freedom of movement above all other rights? As a superlative preference, I find this to be quite odd, and almost neurotic. But at the end of the day, out there in the real world, it's merely your opinion.
    Everything under heaven is in utter chaos; the situation is excellent. - Mao

  6. #36
    Senior Member Mike's Avatar
    Type
    INTx
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,253
    Quote Originally Posted by Madrigal View Post
    No it's not. Plenty of countries allow protest to proceed without permits. Read the newspaper sometime.

    Which right can take precedence over another is a matter of opinion, not a hard and obvious fact. The gun control debate is a prime example of this. Some people don't find it plainly obvious that their right to own an assault rifle threatens innocent people's right to life. Strike action is another thorny issue; you may or may not believe that a labor stoppage for workers' rights or wages should take precedence over the supply of goods and services, or over the capitalist right to amass profit undeterred. Try as you might, democratic rights are complicated, not simple.

    "Legal" is not a synonym for legitimate. Legal is what has managed to impose itself in the letter of the law as a consequence of a historic struggle and shifting balance of power. Sometimes, a law has been won by the common people (like the 8 hour work day), and other times, it is won by elites (like privatized health care or tax regimes). In any Constitution and legal framework governing a society, you will have a mix of these two sides bound together into the letter of the law; the Law is a heterogeneous testament to class struggle, exhibiting the wins and losses of conflicting interests.

    How does one side impose their own law? Through strength. Be it in numbers, in the court of public opinion, in coercion, or just plain violence - on both sides. Look at history. Might makes right. Do you have the might to change the letter of the law, or to at least impede its application? Both the common man AND the elites are constantly asking themselves that question.

    Do you have a right to freedom of movement above all other rights? As a superlative preference, I find this to be quite odd, and almost neurotic. But at the end of the day, out there in the real world, it's merely your opinion.
    It doesn't have to be a question of which rights take precedence. The rights of people to protest and the rights of people to travel freely with minimum disruption can both be accommodated by coordinating with the government if your protest will be so large as to require closing off streets. That is unless you believe disruption of others is a necessary component of protesting. You know, "might makes right." I don't. That may be a point on which we disagree.

  7. #37
    Hasta Siempre Madrigal's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Mañana
    Posts
    7,603
    INTPx Award Winner
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    It doesn't have to be a question of which rights take precedence.
    Except that in a democracy, it is. Always.

    Some may tell you that asking a government for permission to protest the government, and its sponsors, is simply retarded. I am one of those people.
    Everything under heaven is in utter chaos; the situation is excellent. - Mao

  8. #38
    Senior Member jyng1's Avatar
    Type
    intp
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    3,021
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    It doesn't have to be a question of which rights take precedence. The rights of people to protest and the rights of people to travel freely with minimum disruption.
    Our bill of rights gives us the right to freedom of movement but there is no right to drive. English common law doesn't bar pedestrians from the road as that was an American thing lobbied for by the motor vehicle industry in the 1920s.

    The road is the "commons": "land or resources belonging to or affecting the whole of a community".

  9. #39
    Senior Member Mike's Avatar
    Type
    INTx
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,253
    As if it weren't already obvious, it's getting clearer that the common objective of leftists protests is to be the biggest pains in the ass possible.

    edit:
    Quoting @Ptah Protests are just "adult" tantrums.

  10. #40
    Senior Member jyng1's Avatar
    Type
    intp
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    3,021
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    As if it weren't already obvious, it's getting clearer that the common objective of leftists protests is to be the biggest pains in the ass possible.

    There wouldn't be any reason to protest otherwise would there?


Similar Threads

  1. Do you have a criminal record?
    By MCIV in forum Psychology & Sociology
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 01-09-2018, 03:46 PM
  2. rOAst a black person
    By interprétation erronée in forum The Pub
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 12-15-2017, 09:16 AM
  3. Ask a black guy!
    By interprétation erronée in forum The Pub
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 09-04-2017, 11:27 AM
  4. Black vs white bed frames
    By JohnClay in forum Rants, Raves & Hot Air
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-22-2017, 08:50 PM

Posting Permissions

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