Headhunter wrote:
This is a “Why are there no ends without bad means” question.
Is that a better result than busting windows of an auto repair shop?
i don't know. i think there absolutely should be change. i'm not going to justify or defend hurting people or property that is unrelated to what you're trying to change.
when the cops come en masse, cause you're rioting and breaking window, you're not gonna also fight them and cause a possible shoot out?
The actions that spur positive change in the world are never pretty and never justifiable in a vacuum. Never have been at any point. Our modern institutions don’t exist without musket fire and guillotines. Things don’t change unless people get uncomfortable or their lives are disrupted. That’s some ugly truth. This shit in Minneapolis is really tame relative to most historical protests.
I thought your whole thing was “riot against the police, not property”. Having it both ways defeats the purpose of the argument.
Headhunter wrote:
This is a “Why are there no ends without bad means” question.
Is that a better result than busting windows of an auto repair shop?
i don't know. i think there absolutely should be change. i'm not going to justify or defend hurting people or property that is unrelated to what you're trying to change.
when the cops come en masse, cause you're rioting and breaking window, you're not gonna also fight them and cause a possible shoot out?
The actions that spur positive change in the world are never pretty and never justifiable in a vacuum. Never have been at any point. Our modern institutions don’t exist without musket fire and guillotines. Things don’t change unless people get uncomfortable or their lives are disrupted. That’s some ugly truth. This shit in Minneapolis is really tame relative to most historical protests.
I thought your whole thing was “riot against the police, not property”. Having it both ways defeats the purpose of the argument.
it is ugly truth. i can acknowledge that it happens, without supporting it.
you asked a question that would involve both property damage and fighting the police.
Headhunter wrote:
This is a “Why are there no ends without bad means” question.
Is that a better result than busting windows of an auto repair shop?
i don't know. i think there absolutely should be change. i'm not going to justify or defend hurting people or property that is unrelated to what you're trying to change.
when the cops come en masse, cause you're rioting and breaking window, you're not gonna also fight them and cause a possible shoot out?
The actions that spur positive change in the world are never pretty and never justifiable in a vacuum. Never have been at any point. Our modern institutions don’t exist without musket fire and guillotines. Things don’t change unless people get uncomfortable or their lives are disrupted. That’s some ugly truth. This shit in Minneapolis is really tame relative to most historical protests.
I thought your whole thing was “riot against the police, not property”. Having it both ways defeats the purpose of the argument.
it is ugly truth. i can acknowledge that it happens, without supporting it.
you asked a question that would involve both property damage and fighting the police.
Do you want the positive outcomes or not? If you do, you have no choice but to support it.
No I didn’t. I’m taking up your suggestion that all the rioting is directed solely at the police. I’m asking if that’s better than damaging property.
Headhunter wrote:
This is a “Why are there no ends without bad means” question.
Is that a better result than busting windows of an auto repair shop?
i don't know. i think there absolutely should be change. i'm not going to justify or defend hurting people or property that is unrelated to what you're trying to change.
when the cops come en masse, cause you're rioting and breaking window, you're not gonna also fight them and cause a possible shoot out?
The actions that spur positive change in the world are never pretty and never justifiable in a vacuum. Never have been at any point. Our modern institutions don’t exist without musket fire and guillotines. Things don’t change unless people get uncomfortable or their lives are disrupted. That’s some ugly truth. This shit in Minneapolis is really tame relative to most historical protests.
I thought your whole thing was “riot against the police, not property”. Having it both ways defeats the purpose of the argument.
it is ugly truth. i can acknowledge that it happens, without supporting it.
you asked a question that would involve both property damage and fighting the police.
Do you want the positive outcomes or not? If you do, you have no choice but to support it.
No I didn’t. I’m taking up your suggestion that all the rioting is directed solely at the police. I’m asking if that’s better than damaging property.
neither of us support institutional racism. both of us benefit from it having happened, according to some. people don't support war all the time, but do benefit from wars having happened.
i don't think it's better, but it's at least focused on what you're trying to change. rioting that damages property is also going to involve the police though. it's unrealistic to frame a question that involves one and not the other.
Headhunter wrote:
This is a “Why are there no ends without bad means” question.
Is that a better result than busting windows of an auto repair shop?
i don't know. i think there absolutely should be change. i'm not going to justify or defend hurting people or property that is unrelated to what you're trying to change.
when the cops come en masse, cause you're rioting and breaking window, you're not gonna also fight them and cause a possible shoot out?
The actions that spur positive change in the world are never pretty and never justifiable in a vacuum. Never have been at any point. Our modern institutions don’t exist without musket fire and guillotines. Things don’t change unless people get uncomfortable or their lives are disrupted. That’s some ugly truth. This shit in Minneapolis is really tame relative to most historical protests.
I thought your whole thing was “riot against the police, not property”. Having it both ways defeats the purpose of the argument.
it is ugly truth. i can acknowledge that it happens, without supporting it.
you asked a question that would involve both property damage and fighting the police.
Do you want the positive outcomes or not? If you do, you have no choice but to support it.
No I didn’t. I’m taking up your suggestion that all the rioting is directed solely at the police. I’m asking if that’s better than damaging property.
neither of us support institutional racism. both of us benefit from it having happened, according to some. people don't support war all the time, but do benefit from wars having happened.
i don't think it's better, but it's at least focused on what you're trying to change. rioting that damages property is also going to involve the police though. it's unrealistic to frame a question that involves one and not the other.
My point is you can’t pick and choose the things you’re comfortable with and pretend it’s going to lead to equally positive outcomes. That’s fantasy land. There is compromise in every facet of life.
The police are there no matter what because of how many people are gathered in protest.
Headhunter wrote:
My point is you can’t pick and choose the things you’re comfortable with and pretend it’s going to lead to equally positive outcomes. That’s fantasy land. There is compromise in every facet of life.
The police are there no matter what because of how many people are gathered in protest.
i don't know where to go with this discussion then. *shrug*
showa58taro wrote:Just throwing it out there, you’d all be British if Tigg and Z had their way.
The Boston Tea Party = unjustified theft of property.
the desired change directly related to the imported tea.
Is stealing property a justified response to increased taxes?
this is focused protest. the theft in this situation is directly related to what they were trying to change. it's not breaking the windows out of a car or looting a shop because you are trying to fight against police brutality and abuse of power.
showa58taro wrote:Just throwing it out there, you’d all be British if Tigg and Z had their way.
The Boston Tea Party = unjustified theft of property.
the desired change directly related to the imported tea.
Is stealing property a justified response to increased taxes?
this is focused protest. the theft in this situation is directly related to what they were trying to change. it's not breaking the windows out of a car or looting a shop because you are trying to fight against police brutality and abuse of power.
So I’d the looting was in response to the failure by government to protect their well-being in a pandemic then it’d be ok?
showa58taro wrote:Just throwing it out there, you’d all be British if Tigg and Z had their way.
The Boston Tea Party = unjustified theft of property.
the desired change directly related to the imported tea.
Is stealing property a justified response to increased taxes?
this is focused protest. the theft in this situation is directly related to what they were trying to change. it's not breaking the windows out of a car or looting a shop because you are trying to fight against police brutality and abuse of power.
So I’d the looting was in response to the failure by government to protect their well-being in a pandemic then it’d be ok?
does the government own those businesses that are looted, or the company that stocks them?
showa58taro wrote:Just throwing it out there, you’d all be British if Tigg and Z had their way.
The tea party was an attack on government not innocents not on neighbors there is no connection at all also ridiculous. They didn't set their own businesses and neighbors horses on fire.
West Baltimore had a Target and in a place with little to no places to buy essential items it was valuable to that area. Now because of the riots there is no more Target there. Lots of businesses decided it was safer to go elsewhere so who won in the end?
The buck doesn’t stop at this piece of shit. He was enabled. The entire department needs to be held accountable for employing this thug for so many years while he terrorized the city.
Cops a murderer I've not heard anyone say anything else and everyone above him has blood on their hands but dont hurt innocent people dont create more innocent victims.
Tiggnutz wrote:Cops a murderer I've not heard anyone say anything else and everyone above him has blood on their hands but dont hurt innocent people dont create more innocent victims.
Cop’s a murderer but nothing should be done at a high level until the next piece of shit just like him comes along. And the cancerous police culture of this country doesn’t change. Muh Target though
