I fixed it.The quote: that was not me, it was @Tambourine.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I fixed it.The quote: that was not me, it was @Tambourine.
My question was not about what other people "should" or "should not" do, but whether you think we should "kill" or "not kill" over property.Human lives are important, but there are other important things too. Human lives cannot overcome all that. I am not one to support abandonment of capital punishments. For example, it takes money to buy a bus for public transport. A person should not damage it. Because if he/she does, then more money will be required to buy a replacement. This money could have been used for some other useful purpose. India is a poor country. Simple explanation.
What about people killed by police or military during riots? Do you think they deserve to be killed?I consider the law of the land to be supreme. We cannot be lenient in India otherwise India will turn (more) lawless. We have 1380 million people to care about. If anyone has a problem, let him/her go to Courts, and get a fair redress. Take law in hand, then the person should suffer the consequences. What about the people who are killed in riots? At least three people died in Bangalore riots this Tuesday apart from loss of properties.
Tantrums for adults?
Help me to understand the difference.
Not necessarily slightly threatening. The most effective demos use absolute non-violence, where demonstrators offer no resistance to violent attacks by the opposition, allowing themselves to be arrested, beaten or killed without raising a hand in self-defense. This type of demonstration is devastatingly effective.Isn't a peaceful demonstration just mob-lite..? I mean, it usually consists of making noise and catching peoples attention in a slightly threatening manner... Hence 'mob-lite'.
Don't arrest us over crap reasons again and we won't wreck the paddy wagon again.Rise or sit, IMHO, nobody has the right to damage private or public property (people spend life to gather it). If a protest, demonstration is doing that, then a democratic government should act against it and stop it (by whatever means it employs).
Then why did the queers have to riot? Even MLK grew to have a different view on the issue.Not necessarily slightly threatening. The most effective demos use absolute non-violence, where demonstrators offer no resistance to violent attacks by the opposition, allowing themselves to be arrested, beaten or killed without raising a hand in self-defense. This type of demonstration is devastatingly effective.
Salt March - Wikipedia
Non-violence Was Key to Civil Rights Movement
…it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear?…It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity.” (“The Other America,” 1968).
Don't create reasons that we should have to arrest you. Know your limits. My maternal uncle used to say 'khal mein raho' (be within your skin).Don't arrest us over crap reasons again and we won't wreck the paddy wagon again.
The queer did not have to riot in India. Of course, they demonstrated. The Supreme Court of India accepted their equal right without any problem. The last mile will be offocial permission of same-sex marriage. I do not know when that might come, but no problem about two people living together as far as the law goes.Then why did the queers have to riot? Even MLK grew to have a different view on the issue.
The reason was people born men wearing women's clothes and women loving other women.Don't create reasons that we should have to arrest you. Know your limits. My maternal uncle used to say 'khal mein raho' (be within your skin).
We had to riot or go to jail over bull**** reasons (and indeed were being arrested amd sent to jail).The queer did not have to riot in India. Of course, they demonstrated. The Supreme Court of India accepted their equal right without any problem. The last mile will be offocial permission of same-sex marriage. I do not know when that might come, but no problem about two people living together as far as the law goes.
and you did notI am sure you understood
and you did not
You say that, amd yet it was the Nazis doing that goosestepping, stomping thing she described as a tantrum.and you did not
Tantrums for adults?
Help me to understand the difference.
The entire point of protests is that cooperation has broken down and people need to voice their dissent in the open. People generally aren't going to protest if they feel like their voice is heard and their ideas are being considered.Cooperation with others to achieve goals and make peaceful change is a more efficient method than making noise IMO... Just as a second option.
Tantrums for adults?
Help me to understand the difference.
The entire point of protests is that cooperation has broken down and people need to voice their dissent in the open. People generally aren't going to protest if they feel like their voice is heard and their ideas are being considered.