lostwanderingsoul
Well-Known Member
Violence is the language of the uncivilized.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"A riot is the language of the unheard"
- Thread starter 9-10ths_Penguin
- Start date
Hey, to those who believe it's OK to hurt innocent bystanders....
If it's OK to beat them up, can the be sexually assaulted too?
Or is only OK to give em cuts, broken bones, & concussions?
What if I don't want to hurt anyone...could I just lynch an effigy?
If it's OK to beat them up, can the be sexually assaulted too?
Or is only OK to give em cuts, broken bones, & concussions?
What if I don't want to hurt anyone...could I just lynch an effigy?
It's never ok to hurt bystanders. But in many protests there are violent standoffs with the police and in such cases property and bystanders can get broken and hurt, either by the police or by some of the more dodgy protesters. MLK, Gandhi, Suu-ki, Mandela have all been accused of rioting and worse. There is good historical evidence that all protests no matter how well directed against their targets, do often cause damage to provate property and bystanders often do get hurt. They can be minimized but never eliminated. And it is always the tactic of the state to try to delegitimize protest movement bY citing violence and calling them riots. One would be a fool to fall into such a transparent tactic and give up ones rights to protest as forcefully as necessary to make ones voice heard.
So every soldier and police person is a brute?
lostwanderingsoul
Well-Known Member
No, soldiers and police use force to stop criminals like those who use violence for their own benefit. There is a difference. Rioting has no place in a civilized society and if force must be used to stop it then that is not the same.
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
Governments only understand two languages: money and violence.
If you don't have money, you have to use violence.
If you don't have money, you have to use violence.
Violence is merely a tool, and it must sometimes be used to protect or elevate civilization.
Do you realize that you are literally asking for no one to reply?
I was addressing posters who say it's OK to riot....real riots, not phony government accusations.
I wasn't sure anyone would.
But even those who don't would face the fact that if they approve of violence
against bystanders, this means considering the extent & kind of violence.
And the difference is clear how? Historically if protesters succeed it becomes a legitimate, if the govt succeeds (i.e. protest fails ) it becomes a riot.
Either way, you chose to ask for no one to. Why? Were you trying to prove some point?
Yes, that is the point you have been resisting to consider. Did you change your mind now?
This avoids addressing real riots....the ones wherein protesters attack bystanders & property.
Already answered.
I'm resisting it?
No.
I'm the one advocating against violence...all kinds.
I will take it as a "no".
I condemn them unequivocally. I have also seen and heard real riots, where entire communities have been targeted and burnt out of their house and property, killed maimed and raped. My wife's family fled from Bangladesh to India in 1960's fearing for their lives from such real riots.
What I object to is the attempted delegitimization of many real protests due to some provoked violence that may unavoidably happen in such a charged atmosphere. There is difference between a protest and a parade. Here many protests look like parades honestly.
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Can not vote.
I do not find the question to be the false dichotomy the poll makes it out to be.
False dichotomy? No, it's an actual dichotomy. If you agree, vote "yes"; otherwise, vote "no".
What's the third response you think I should have included?
The Emperor of Mankind
Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
Exactly. There's something massively wrong with a system that represses people again & again which then condemns them for losing their tempers and brands them as violent anarchists - as if they don't ever have legitimate grievances.
You'll be wrong.