I agree that starting fights with people is wrong. However, I also believe that if you are being beat down you have every right to fight back, regardless of whether the person beating you has a badge or not.
As for the idea that young males are inherently violent, you seem to me to be sexist. Your views are slanted and you can leave the conversation at any time. Thanks.
Egyptian here, all I want to say is good luck. One advice, try to gain the attention of the streets, for an example in Egypt before january 25th we started talking about the protest on 25th in public transports and so on, making an act of 2 people chatting and the one who is going down convinces the other guy, stuff like that.
Oh yeah, and if it catches on, don't trust anyone who would appear like a savior, we made a mistake here trusting our army council and now we have a lot stronger dictator in power.
There's nothing really controversial or sexist with claiming that many young males have the potential to be violent. More so than young women.
It's simple: testosterone -- the hormone which makes men men -- has a link to aggression, and generally having a stronger flight/fight-response. It's the same for women with higher testosterone, and the opposite with men with lower testosterone. It's simple hormones. And the highest testosterone levels are -- in average -- on men in their early twenties.
But, not all young males are violent. Many are intelligent enough to avoid pointless aggression. However, not everyone got lucky with their Gaussian IQ lottery.
Immaterial to the argument and sufficed to say, regardless of how you cast the character of John and Jane Doe protestor they are endowed with the same human rights everyone else has to legally and peacefully display their opinions. If you happen to disagree with them, let them know. Diologue is part of the answer, not social darwinism.
As to this protest, I think it's kind of pointless. A better place to rally would be on Capitol Hill, demanding politicians to make banks carry their financial risks -- and in situations where the risk are impossible to carry, not just donate money in bailouts, but do it as a profitable investment to the taxpayer.
As i've said before, I don't pretend to understand the arguments or the merits of their protest. The location of protest is a debate in and of itself. I'm sure some people blame the government for banks' financial malfeasance just as i'm sure others would say Wall St. itself had a central role. The truth of the matter is that both arguments have merit. You can't have a bailout without a monumentally greedy and mis-managed banking industry. Similarly, you can't have a tremendously mis-managed banking industry without a lack of oversight and regulation. It would be simple to say "well, they should have just let them [the banks] fail," but i'm sure any rational person would agree: that's political suicide. No matter how strongly you adhere to lassize fair or libertarian ideology it's not within the current zeitgeist to allow that kind of shock to the system.
The overarching point, however, remains: and that is these people have a right to present their greivances in a peaceful manner, exercising their first amendment rights.
Egyptian here, all I want to say is good luck. One advice, try to gain the attention of the streets, for an example in Egypt before january 25th we started talking about the protest on 25th in public transports and so on, making an act of 2 people chatting and the one who is going down convinces the other guy, stuff like that.
Oh yeah, and if it catches on, don't trust anyone who would appear like a savior, we made a mistake here trusting our army council and now we have a lot stronger dictator in power.
Stay the course sir. Your heroic efforts to wrest free of tyranny is an inspiration to us all.
I think it's very important for us to practice things like freedom of speech, freedom of expression, our right to peaceably assemble. If we start neglecting these they will be taken from us.
But should they be squandered on unworthy causes? A right is not an obligation. Wall street is the symptom, not the cause. But this isn't about that.
I by no means support any of the sneaky underhanded shit that has gotten by in the financial sector. I'd like to combat this mentality though. The mentality that there is this group of diabolical fatcats cackling to themselves over their scotch glasses while they steal your money.
In actuality, these people are more like kids who discovered there's a hole in the bottom of the cookie jar. They're kids (or in this case, businessmen), they just want to eat cookies (make money!), and when they see them lying around for the taking they can't help but snatch them up. It's human nature to not carefully examine the long term effects of our actions, our sense of the distant future is warped. This isn't an excuse, but more of a reality check. With the loopholes available, pretty much anyone in the same position would do the same thing.
The problem lies with our financial laws, and thus our government's lobbying policies. If we prevent the loopholes we prevent the problem, but the financial lobby keeps them open, tries to widen the gap. The problem then distills into corruption. People do favors for money.
Personally I think this is all a big waste of time, but if you're going to try to fight basic greedy human nature you might as well start as close to the source as possible. Our government is built around checks and balances, and those are what is failing, not the financial sector.
But this protest isn't really about making any changes. It's about people like you guys, who think protesting is a fun weekend activity. People who want to get mad and shout and feel validated.
"You haven't lived until you've tasted tear gas."
Apparently, this is a game. And when it goes too far, and it gets violent, you get your fun.
But should they be squandered on unworthy causes? A right is not an obligation.
Who is the judge about what is a worthy cause? That makes no sense. If it is so unworthy, people wouldn't feel compelled to debate, to express their opinions, to make their opinions known through speech, expression, or protest. It certainly isn't an obligation for everyone with an opinion to exercise their right to express it, but if you don't exercise those rights you will find that you may not have them. Totalitarianism is brough about by not just by a few bad people, but a lot of apathetic good people aswell.
I by no means support any of the sneaky underhanded shit that has gotten by in the financial sector. I'd like to combat this mentality though. The mentality that there is this group of diabolical fatcats cackling to themselves over their scotch glasses while they steal your money.
I thought we were not discussing this topic, but while we're still on it: A cursory glance at wall street salaries vs. that of the rest of the economy disproves your assertion. There is indeed a small group (again, compared to the rest of us) of beneficiaries on wall street that are most certainly smug about getting massive bonuses mere months after they helped to drive the economy onto the rocks.
In actuality, these people are more like kids who discovered there's a hole in the bottom of the cookie jar. They're kids (or in this case, businessmen), they just want to eat cookies (make money!), and when they see them lying around for the taking they can't help but snatch them up. It's human nature to not carefully examine the long term effects of our actions, our sense of the distant future is warped. This isn't an excuse, but more of a reality check. With the loopholes available, pretty much anyone in the same position would do the same thing.
I never put a lot of stock in the whole "it's simply human to fuck everyone over to make another dollar," arguments. This is the same kind of argument the deeply religous use to incinuate that people need religion to keep them from becoming a-social and violent psycopaths. Human beings are social primates, we have innate and evolved functions that promote empathy, team-work, and reciprocity. We may be specifically concerned with our own well-being, but that does not come at the complete eclipse of the welfare of others, specifically those we feel solidarity with. The culture that's been developed on wall street is the problem. They readily encourage people to deviate from their social nature and gut their morality for cash. They espouse the "greed is good," manure just to make it look less morally bankrupt.
I've been in a position to take a much higher paying job that would involve that kind of greed and admittedly, a much higher pay-check. I have never considered shattering my social obligations and my morality for that money and I hold anyone who would in the lowest regard, as should anyone else with a sufficient backbone to keep their head aloft their shoulders.
The problem lies with our financial laws, and thus our government's lobbying policies. If we prevent the loopholes we prevent the problem, but the financial lobby keeps them open, tries to widen the gap. The problem then distills into corruption. People do favors for money.
(You know, for a topic you dismissed this is running long.)
You make a good point here and, I might add, this kind of corruption is worth protesting over. But, more to the point, loopholes and corrpution are not an either/or situation. Loopholes are corruption in action. We should do our best to ensure both (as they are certainly related) cannot be taken advantage of. I don't assume to know the method most effective to do this, but it should be a diologue.
But this protest isn't really about making any changes. It's about people like you guys, who think protesting is a fun weekend activity. People who want to get mad and shout and feel validated.
Protest implies an attempt to promote change, I wouldn't doubt it does feel good for those people who feel voiceless to join the greater dissident crowd for once, but there are much easier and safer ways to bring validation. What baffles me is how you came to that conclusion.
Apparently, this is a game. And when it goes too far, and it gets violent, you get your fun.
I hope you enjoy it.
Actually, it's life, and it's not a game and I certainly don't hope anyone has to experience the tear gas (popular as it was in the 1970s) as my generation did, but that's a small price to pay in order to have voices heard. I'm not glib about protesting because I think it's fun. I'm glib because it is necessary and it shouldn't be feared. I'm not even arguing for the protest in question, but i'd be remissed to say anything negative if a large number of people want to make a peaceful demonstration. It is a crucial part of our democracy and a courageous thing to do.
Citziens exercise the rights that they are endowed with or they loose them. If you are an apathetic serf who pines to be enslaved: good for you. Just don't tell the rest of us to sit down an shut up because you're too afraid or lazy to exercise your right to free expression. If you resent the right to voice opinions I have a reccomendation: move to north korea. You'll love it there.
There's nothing really controversial or sexist with claiming that many young males have the potential to be violent. More so than young women.
It's simple: testosterone -- the hormone which makes men men -- has a link to aggression, and generally having a stronger flight/fight-response. It's the same for women with higher testosterone, and the opposite with men with lower testosterone. It's simple hormones. And the highest testosterone levels are -- in average -- on men in their early twenties.
But, not all young males are violent. Many are intelligent enough to avoid pointless aggression. However, not everyone got lucky with their Gaussian IQ lottery.
Immaterial to the argument and sufficed to say, regardless of how you cast the character of John and Jane Doe protestor they are endowed with the same human rights everyone else has to legally and peacefully display their opinions. If you happen to disagree with them, let them know. Diologue is part of the answer, not social darwinism.
Ugh...I hardly understood what you were saying there Proletariat...
Don was addressing the point of 'sexist attitude' specifically and explained himself well. You seem to be talking about a completely different thing or at least taking that argument away from its particular context. Decode please.
So the general idea is that its not peaceful to protest non-violently, because somebody might get butthurt and punch somebody else? If one group is acting in a non-violent manner and another group is acting in a violent manner, both groups become non-peaceful?
Don_G and Proletaria should decide on a topic they both feel strongly about and argue over it. It would be the best thread ever.
OT: I don't particularly care about this demonstration, but I'm interested in its outcome. I'd be very surprised if anon managed to camp in there without being forced out by the police. It would make quite a statement.
That is just blatant brainwashing, of the sort you'd expect textbook makers in Texas to come up with.
A peaceful man would not spout hate speech "because it is promoting free speech, and free speech is peace."
Full stop. You clearly don't understand the concept of free speech. Hate speech is protected aswell. That is how it works. If "hate" speech is banned that means someone has to decide what is and is not hateful. The implication there is obvious.
Ugh...I hardly understood what you were saying there Proletariat...
Don was addressing the point of 'sexist attitude' specifically and explained himself well. You seem to be talking about a completely different thing or at least taking that argument away from its particular context. Decode please.
I explained it was an irrelavent argument. Saying that men are pre-disposed to violence has no bearing on the efficacy of peaceful protest. It's an obvious straw-man.
What I was trying to say was that banks play an important beneficial role in a functional society (while pursuing their own ends, they are beneficial to the society). Many laypeople misunderstand banking even on a simple level, why they exist, what they do, and so forth. It's like me criticizing something chemistry-related when my knowledge of chemistry is rudimentary at best.
I wouldn't disagree, but that's no recourse for their incredibly irresponsible behavior. This isn't something a professor of economics would disagree with me about (i've talked to them on many occasions), even a die-hard Keynesian.
As for the protest, yes, like I said, the people have the right to protest their mind. They're just protecting against the wrong target, with possibly falsely based motives, but it's their right to do it in any case.
Assuming it gets any press, the target selection is largely irrelavent. It's about numbers, having a cogent opinion, and getting it across. I don't know if they can do it, but I respect them for trying. It is certainly better than not protesting out of apathy.
There have been a number of good debates recently on the subject. The point being, in recent days there is a fairly strong left (ultra-masochist and apologist relativeism) and right (fundamentalist religion) movement toward self-censorship and retarding free speech. While the nexus of this is certainly a fear of islamic reprisal, governments everywhere are becoming complicit or simply complacent. What the world needs now is precisely more people exercising these basic rights, letting the leaders of our governments know that we continue to demand free expression and human rights in general.
You are not even reading or comprehending my posts, you are just spouting knee jerk reactions.
If defending your right to speak openly about anything, without taboos isn't a knee jerk reaction for you then I suppose I can't convince you otherwise. I only pity that very odius point of view.
Peace should be kept, but that should not be pre-empted by censorship. If the only thing keeping someone from killing you is the understanding you'll never insult that person, there is no peace. That person will eventually find something that they feel is offensive and kill you anyway. There is no relativism when it comes to free expression.
If English is not your first language, I apologize, but I never said that hate speech should not be protected constitutional speech necessary for a free society.
You insisted on that very point. I invite you to clarify.
FFS, if someone can translate please do; I'm done trying to communicate with Proleteria until I see a semblance of comprehension.
I don't know what you're trying to qualify here. You either think censorship is good or you think that speech is necssarily free from censorship. Peace and Conflict are entirely diffirent, they are physical manifestations and have nothing to do with expressing the opinions of the mind. A peaceful protest can blast the most offensive ideas they like and still be peaceful. There is no objective person to decide what is offensive. If you decide to say that anything offensive negates the "peaceful," aspect of the protest I think you'll find nothing is absolutely not offensive and thus no discourse is peaceful by your definiton.
I'll give a more detailed response later, but I can summarize all I am trying to say with this hypothetical:
Two kids are sitting in a backseat
One is older and a lot more vocal and witty
The other is younger and quick to using fists
The older kid starts chastising the younger, baiting him
the younger kid blows up in anger, and hits the talker
If you say that younger kid is violent, I agree.
If you say that the older kid is peaceful, lol.
Yes, he is peaceful. He is not the one who resorted to violence. I would have thought that was obvious? Try using an incitement defense in a murder case, it won't get you very far. International and US law are quite clear on this.
Words and thoughts are always provocative. The moment you blame the speaker for the physical violence visited upon him: you leave free speech behind. Violence must be punished, but freedom of expression cannot and should not be compromised in order to make sure the violence doesn't occur. Civilized people should conduct themselves as such and realize that if they cross the threshold from words to fists, they have commited a crime and there is no excuse for it. Democracy is not for those with a thin skin. We debate devisive topics on a daily basis. What keeps the society going isn't being nice or avoiding offense, it's adressing taboos and ensuring that nothing goes undiscussed.
Nobody has an objective opinion on offensive speech. Nobody has the right to censorship in the public square because it will vary WIDELY based on who's opinion you take. Free speech is absolute, it is uncompromising, it is the right of every human being to say what they think and debate it with anyone else, regardless of how offensive it is. If it is a truly disdained point of view, I think you'll find it very unlikely that people will pay credence to the speaker.
Then we have a patent disagreement on what the word "peaceful" means.
I never said anything about laws, justice, or what someone deserves - I never said anything about censorship - I am talking specifically about the acts of a peaceful man.
To me, being peaceful, requires you to, to the best of your ability, prevent violence all around you.
If you can avoid conflict, a peaceful man should avoid that conflict.
If you do not avoid conflict, you are not really being peaceful.
And by that measure we would have massive censorship. I'd invite you to read what i'm posting, but it's evident that you do not.
I am not blaming the speaker for the physical violence, but at the same time, I am saying that the speaker IS partially responsible for it.
That is a self-evident non-sense statement. You've blamed the speaker and in doing so you've effectively given the violent person an excuse to do the same thing again (or others like him).
Not legally responsible, not morally responsible, but actually responsible as a proximate cause.
Just as to create fire you need oxygen, fuel, and a spark; the cause of a fire can be directed to any of the three.
A fire won't start if there is nothing to burn
A fire won't start in the vacuum of space
A fire won't start if there is nothing to ignite it
I get you're, once again, trying to explain incitement. Let me just tell you that sociopaths will be violent without those conditions and normal people don't resort to violence just because the conditions for violence are right. Take my earlier example about african american police guarding a kkk rally. Do you think they wanted to beat those racist idiots down? Sure. Were they going to? No. They had no right to under the law. They respect their right to free speech because they realize taking it from even the most awful person means is too much. If it isn't absolute free speech, it's absolute censorship.
The speaker can be in the right, fully in the right, and still be partially responsible for his own beating - to say otherwise is to ignore the possibility of avoiding conflict completely, which is what true pacifists do.
You're justifying physical violence with speech again. Shame on you.
Earlier it was posited that peaceful protests never accomplish anything; that public opinion and actual change will not come about by a group of people peacefully standing around someplace with signs.
To combat this statement, Ghandi and Dr. King were invoked.
In both of their campaigns, clear change was visible.
My argument is, that both of those campaigns were not peaceful, because they were filled with intentional martyrdom (we will go there and stand and be beat down, to prove our point).
You should read about both. I think you have a very loose understanding - at best - of what went on. I can suggest a few books to start with if you'd like.
I further stated that having a large group of young men gathered is not peaceful, because it is an implicit threat of violence / property damage (because historically that is what a large group of young men are for, and what they tend do haphazardly even when not planned)(see all the articles I linked previously).
So to say that nothing will come of this September 17th protest, because it is peaceful and peaceful protests go nowhere, is to gloss over reality; that having people gathered is a threat of force, and that change can occur through that threat; if people get abused by the police (or hopefully, a Banker in a Hummer Limo runs over someone), it will further support the cause much more so than people just showing support. Facebook "likes" do not accomplish nearly as much change as actual threats, or actual interference with the common norm. If these protests stop business as usual, they might effect change.
There you go denegrating peaceful protest again. Color me suprised.
And to be absolutely clear about my personal beliefs; I am for free speech and change, and I am not for maintaining peace at the cost of suffering social inequities.
Then you've articulated your points very ineffectively, also social inequity is a tangent issue. We are discussing free speech. If you want to diverge onto the class system or socio-economic problems I think we'll need another thread.
So the general idea is that its not peaceful to protest non-violently, because somebody might get butthurt and punch somebody else? If one group is acting in a non-violent manner and another group is acting in a violent manner, both groups become non-peaceful?
I don't understand your logic Groanan.
Yes, that is my position on "peaceful" protests, when the protestors know that the people they are protesting against will likely use violence and force to fight them off, that is not really peaceful.
Completely different from protests where the protestors reasonably expect that no one will be harmed (and no property destroyed).
That peacefulness is what it is to the ancient martial arts masters, that when you see your enemy crossing crossing the street, to avoid violent behavior, you go another way.
I have to disagree. A peaceful protest can occur anywhere at any time for any reason. Simply because a few violent people want to hurt the peaceful protesters does not automatically make the protesters into non-peaceful protesters. Nor does it make the peaceful protesters into inciters.
You can NOT define one person on the actions of another person.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As for the idea that young males are inherently violent, you seem to me to be sexist. Your views are slanted and you can leave the conversation at any time. Thanks.
Oh yeah, and if it catches on, don't trust anyone who would appear like a savior, we made a mistake here trusting our army council and now we have a lot stronger dictator in power.
Immaterial to the argument and sufficed to say, regardless of how you cast the character of John and Jane Doe protestor they are endowed with the same human rights everyone else has to legally and peacefully display their opinions. If you happen to disagree with them, let them know. Diologue is part of the answer, not social darwinism.
As i've said before, I don't pretend to understand the arguments or the merits of their protest. The location of protest is a debate in and of itself. I'm sure some people blame the government for banks' financial malfeasance just as i'm sure others would say Wall St. itself had a central role. The truth of the matter is that both arguments have merit. You can't have a bailout without a monumentally greedy and mis-managed banking industry. Similarly, you can't have a tremendously mis-managed banking industry without a lack of oversight and regulation. It would be simple to say "well, they should have just let them [the banks] fail," but i'm sure any rational person would agree: that's political suicide. No matter how strongly you adhere to lassize fair or libertarian ideology it's not within the current zeitgeist to allow that kind of shock to the system.
The overarching point, however, remains: and that is these people have a right to present their greivances in a peaceful manner, exercising their first amendment rights.
Stay the course sir. Your heroic efforts to wrest free of tyranny is an inspiration to us all.
The system failed us, and even if they're protesting in a sort of absurd place at least they're protesting.
And yet you still fail to rep my posts!
*shakefist*
But tomorrow!
As for Egypt, don't stop. You guys are what gives me hope that America can also change.
But should they be squandered on unworthy causes? A right is not an obligation. Wall street is the symptom, not the cause. But this isn't about that.
I by no means support any of the sneaky underhanded shit that has gotten by in the financial sector. I'd like to combat this mentality though. The mentality that there is this group of diabolical fatcats cackling to themselves over their scotch glasses while they steal your money.
In actuality, these people are more like kids who discovered there's a hole in the bottom of the cookie jar. They're kids (or in this case, businessmen), they just want to eat cookies (make money!), and when they see them lying around for the taking they can't help but snatch them up. It's human nature to not carefully examine the long term effects of our actions, our sense of the distant future is warped. This isn't an excuse, but more of a reality check. With the loopholes available, pretty much anyone in the same position would do the same thing.
The problem lies with our financial laws, and thus our government's lobbying policies. If we prevent the loopholes we prevent the problem, but the financial lobby keeps them open, tries to widen the gap. The problem then distills into corruption. People do favors for money.
Personally I think this is all a big waste of time, but if you're going to try to fight basic greedy human nature you might as well start as close to the source as possible. Our government is built around checks and balances, and those are what is failing, not the financial sector.
But this protest isn't really about making any changes. It's about people like you guys, who think protesting is a fun weekend activity. People who want to get mad and shout and feel validated.
"You haven't lived until you've tasted tear gas."
Apparently, this is a game. And when it goes too far, and it gets violent, you get your fun.
I hope you enjoy it.
Who is the judge about what is a worthy cause? That makes no sense. If it is so unworthy, people wouldn't feel compelled to debate, to express their opinions, to make their opinions known through speech, expression, or protest. It certainly isn't an obligation for everyone with an opinion to exercise their right to express it, but if you don't exercise those rights you will find that you may not have them. Totalitarianism is brough about by not just by a few bad people, but a lot of apathetic good people aswell.
I thought we were not discussing this topic, but while we're still on it: A cursory glance at wall street salaries vs. that of the rest of the economy disproves your assertion. There is indeed a small group (again, compared to the rest of us) of beneficiaries on wall street that are most certainly smug about getting massive bonuses mere months after they helped to drive the economy onto the rocks.
I never put a lot of stock in the whole "it's simply human to fuck everyone over to make another dollar," arguments. This is the same kind of argument the deeply religous use to incinuate that people need religion to keep them from becoming a-social and violent psycopaths. Human beings are social primates, we have innate and evolved functions that promote empathy, team-work, and reciprocity. We may be specifically concerned with our own well-being, but that does not come at the complete eclipse of the welfare of others, specifically those we feel solidarity with. The culture that's been developed on wall street is the problem. They readily encourage people to deviate from their social nature and gut their morality for cash. They espouse the "greed is good," manure just to make it look less morally bankrupt.
I've been in a position to take a much higher paying job that would involve that kind of greed and admittedly, a much higher pay-check. I have never considered shattering my social obligations and my morality for that money and I hold anyone who would in the lowest regard, as should anyone else with a sufficient backbone to keep their head aloft their shoulders.
(You know, for a topic you dismissed this is running long.)
You make a good point here and, I might add, this kind of corruption is worth protesting over. But, more to the point, loopholes and corrpution are not an either/or situation. Loopholes are corruption in action. We should do our best to ensure both (as they are certainly related) cannot be taken advantage of. I don't assume to know the method most effective to do this, but it should be a diologue.
Checks and balances are working as intended, what's happening is a gridlock of the legislature.
Protest implies an attempt to promote change, I wouldn't doubt it does feel good for those people who feel voiceless to join the greater dissident crowd for once, but there are much easier and safer ways to bring validation. What baffles me is how you came to that conclusion.
Actually, it's life, and it's not a game and I certainly don't hope anyone has to experience the tear gas (popular as it was in the 1970s) as my generation did, but that's a small price to pay in order to have voices heard. I'm not glib about protesting because I think it's fun. I'm glib because it is necessary and it shouldn't be feared. I'm not even arguing for the protest in question, but i'd be remissed to say anything negative if a large number of people want to make a peaceful demonstration. It is a crucial part of our democracy and a courageous thing to do.
Citziens exercise the rights that they are endowed with or they loose them. If you are an apathetic serf who pines to be enslaved: good for you. Just don't tell the rest of us to sit down an shut up because you're too afraid or lazy to exercise your right to free expression. If you resent the right to voice opinions I have a reccomendation: move to north korea. You'll love it there.
Ugh...I hardly understood what you were saying there Proletariat...
Don was addressing the point of 'sexist attitude' specifically and explained himself well. You seem to be talking about a completely different thing or at least taking that argument away from its particular context. Decode please.
I don't understand your logic Groanan.
OT: I don't particularly care about this demonstration, but I'm interested in its outcome. I'd be very surprised if anon managed to camp in there without being forced out by the police. It would make quite a statement.
http://www.soundcloud.com/salerno
Full stop. You clearly don't understand the concept of free speech. Hate speech is protected aswell. That is how it works. If "hate" speech is banned that means someone has to decide what is and is not hateful. The implication there is obvious.
Freedom of Speech MUST include a license to offend: Intelligence Squared Debate - 2007
This debate pretty well lays out the arguments for and against if you're interested. Sufficed to say, the opposition gets crushed.
I explained it was an irrelavent argument. Saying that men are pre-disposed to violence has no bearing on the efficacy of peaceful protest. It's an obvious straw-man.
I wouldn't disagree, but that's no recourse for their incredibly irresponsible behavior. This isn't something a professor of economics would disagree with me about (i've talked to them on many occasions), even a die-hard Keynesian.
Assuming it gets any press, the target selection is largely irrelavent. It's about numbers, having a cogent opinion, and getting it across. I don't know if they can do it, but I respect them for trying. It is certainly better than not protesting out of apathy.
Sam Harris did a piece on offensive language at one of Fora.tv, it was really good.
Anyway, five more days.
If defending your right to speak openly about anything, without taboos isn't a knee jerk reaction for you then I suppose I can't convince you otherwise. I only pity that very odius point of view.
Peace should be kept, but that should not be pre-empted by censorship. If the only thing keeping someone from killing you is the understanding you'll never insult that person, there is no peace. That person will eventually find something that they feel is offensive and kill you anyway. There is no relativism when it comes to free expression.
You insisted on that very point. I invite you to clarify.
I don't know what you're trying to qualify here. You either think censorship is good or you think that speech is necssarily free from censorship. Peace and Conflict are entirely diffirent, they are physical manifestations and have nothing to do with expressing the opinions of the mind. A peaceful protest can blast the most offensive ideas they like and still be peaceful. There is no objective person to decide what is offensive. If you decide to say that anything offensive negates the "peaceful," aspect of the protest I think you'll find nothing is absolutely not offensive and thus no discourse is peaceful by your definiton.
Yes, he is peaceful. He is not the one who resorted to violence. I would have thought that was obvious? Try using an incitement defense in a murder case, it won't get you very far. International and US law are quite clear on this.
Words and thoughts are always provocative. The moment you blame the speaker for the physical violence visited upon him: you leave free speech behind. Violence must be punished, but freedom of expression cannot and should not be compromised in order to make sure the violence doesn't occur. Civilized people should conduct themselves as such and realize that if they cross the threshold from words to fists, they have commited a crime and there is no excuse for it. Democracy is not for those with a thin skin. We debate devisive topics on a daily basis. What keeps the society going isn't being nice or avoiding offense, it's adressing taboos and ensuring that nothing goes undiscussed.
Nobody has an objective opinion on offensive speech. Nobody has the right to censorship in the public square because it will vary WIDELY based on who's opinion you take. Free speech is absolute, it is uncompromising, it is the right of every human being to say what they think and debate it with anyone else, regardless of how offensive it is. If it is a truly disdained point of view, I think you'll find it very unlikely that people will pay credence to the speaker.
And by that measure we would have massive censorship. I'd invite you to read what i'm posting, but it's evident that you do not.
That is a self-evident non-sense statement. You've blamed the speaker and in doing so you've effectively given the violent person an excuse to do the same thing again (or others like him).
I get you're, once again, trying to explain incitement. Let me just tell you that sociopaths will be violent without those conditions and normal people don't resort to violence just because the conditions for violence are right. Take my earlier example about african american police guarding a kkk rally. Do you think they wanted to beat those racist idiots down? Sure. Were they going to? No. They had no right to under the law. They respect their right to free speech because they realize taking it from even the most awful person means is too much. If it isn't absolute free speech, it's absolute censorship.
You're justifying physical violence with speech again. Shame on you.
You should read about both. I think you have a very loose understanding - at best - of what went on. I can suggest a few books to start with if you'd like.
There you go denegrating peaceful protest again. Color me suprised.
Then you've articulated your points very ineffectively, also social inequity is a tangent issue. We are discussing free speech. If you want to diverge onto the class system or socio-economic problems I think we'll need another thread.
I have to disagree. A peaceful protest can occur anywhere at any time for any reason. Simply because a few violent people want to hurt the peaceful protesters does not automatically make the protesters into non-peaceful protesters. Nor does it make the peaceful protesters into inciters.
You can NOT define one person on the actions of another person.