French Protests Continue

[Timber Loftis]

Well, Rokenn thanks for picking on the side issue of the Vietnam war rather than addressing the questions I put to you. I'll assume that means you have no good answer.

The fact that it allowed you to duck the real question does make me mindful I should not present side issues when trying to peg someone down on an issue. So, I apologize for addressing the side issue of Vietname.

[ 03-21-2003, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Timber Loftis]

Chewbacca - as to your question I felt it was rhetorical. Could there be any argument that I am worse off? I won't pretend there can be. But, I can state my fellow Americans should not *make* me listen to them if I don't want to, should not limit my freedom to move about my city after a long day at work, and certainly should not make the cesation of business their central goal.

Unless they want the rest of us to be jobless and have nothing better to do with our day than protest, that is.

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Well, Rokenn thanks for picking on the side issue of the Vietnam war rather than addressing the questions I put to you. I'll assume that means you have no good answer. The fact that it allowed you to duck the real question does make me mindful I should not present side issues when trying to peg someone down on an issue. So, I apologize for addressing the side issue of Vietname.

In my last response to you I said nothing about Vietnam, I was directly addressing the protest yesterday. Though my point about condemning an entire movement due to the violent actions of a small minority applies to both Vienam and present day protests.

[Cloudbringer]

Sorry, Rokenn, but in my opinion, you lose credibility and should lose the right to wander about freely in your 'protesting' if you harm other people (throw bottles or rebar as they did in SF), incite crowds to violence or deliberately damage other people's property (if the McDonald's incident happened here, I'd expect arrests no matter which side did the damage), or put them in danger (blocking major highways for example- this caused several car crashes out here yesterday).

I realize these people want the media coverage, but endangering others, intentionally doing harm to others or their property or deliberately tying up traffic and causing widespread problems for a city is just beyond what I consider 'reasonable'. I've seen peaceful protests get media coverage without the bottle throwing or blocking traffic for hours. But to me, it just seems like these people are really saying either "all we give a damn about is being SEEN or doing damage for the hell of it" or "we don't care WHAT happens to anyone else as long as we make ourselves visible to the media and shout our slogans loudly for the 6pm newscast".

IMO, it takes alot of the credibility from their arguments. Not because they aren't saying anything worthwhile (some or most of them, at any rate) but because I cannot get past the violence and and the 'in your face' attitude some have.

No matter what the issue, I'm more likely to LISTEN if they aren't hurting someone while talking to me. Guess that's just me. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Cloudbringer]

With regard to TL's comments... would it have been any more 'right' or less so if those protestors who blocked traffic and kept him 'hostage' in the street , held a gun to his head and said "You will listen to us!"?

To me, being forced to stop in the traffic jam and having posters and slogans shoved at you while you wait is pretty much equivalent...granted you don't have the threat of immediate bodily harm, but I dare say I'd never have done what TL did and argue with someone in the street for fear of mob-mentality and being physically harmed.

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Cloudbringer: Sorry, Rokenn, but in my opinion, you lose credibility and should lose the right to wander about freely in your 'protesting' if you harm other people (throw bottles or rebar as they did in SF), incite crowds to violence or deliberately damage other people's property (if the McDonald's incident happened here, I'd expect arrests no matter which side did the damage), or put them in danger (blocking major highways for example- this caused several car crashes out here yesterday). I realize these people want the media coverage, but endangering others, intentionally doing harm to others or their property or deliberately tying up traffic and causing widespread problems for a city is just beyond what I consider 'reasonable'. I've seen peaceful protests get media coverage without the bottle throwing or blocking traffic for hours. But to me, it just seems like these people are really saying either "all we give a damn about is being SEEN or doing damage for the hell of it" or "we don't care WHAT happens to anyone else as long as we make ourselves visible to the media and shout our slogans loudly for the 6pm newscast". IMO, it takes alot of the credibility from their arguments. Not because they aren't saying anything worthwhile (some or most of them, at any rate) but because I cannot get past the violence and and the 'in your face' attitude some have. No matter what the issue, I'm more likely to LISTEN if they aren't hurting someone while talking to me. Guess that's just me. [img]smile.gif[/img]

*sigh* Again you condemn an entire movement due to the violent actions of a few. Of course protesting the war is a moot point since Bush has stated that no matter how large the protests get he will still ignore them.

[Larry_OHF]

Most definately very well said, Cloudy. Very well said. Would the crowd blocking the streets have moved outta the way if an ambulance had to get through or a police car trying to stop a crime at somebody's home? What about people who work as temporary emplyees who lose thier job if they are late even once during thier trial period? Protests should not stop normal flow of taffic or prevent people from moving about.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Masklinn: Second, a MacDonalds got a bit broken, thaz true. Nothing really bad though, they didn't set it on fire or anything. What do you want ? MacDonalds are one of the biggest american symbol there.

Masklinn, I've looked at this paragraph several times and tried to ignore it, but I just can't. I'm too bothered by it.

So this was ok because the McDonald's was only busted up a bit? It was ok since they didn't set it on fire? The fact that it's a big symbol of America makes it acceptable? I'm sorry, but you are wrong to make excuses for this action, and I'm disappointed.

How would you have felt about me and my views if I had tried to explain away or excuse in any way the actions of those people who spray painted the French-American's garage door from the story earlier this week?

They didn't burn her house down. Heck, the didn't even bust her home up. All they did was spell out some mean words with paint on her garage door. The neighbors repainted it for her anyway. What do you want? She was the biggest symbol of France in the neighborhood.

How would that argument have been any different from what you said? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

To me, it wouldn't have been any different at all. Of course, I didn't say anything like that and never would. I immediately condemned that action against the French-America. I condemn protestors on all sides who result to violence or discrimination or illegal activities to make their point of view known. Don't you?

[ 03-21-2003, 12:50 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Cloudbringer]

No, you misunderstood me, Rokenn. I condemn those protestors who acted like crazed mobs instead of rational human beings. I have no quarrel with those who make their anti-war statements peacefully and without forcing it on me against my will. [img]smile.gif[/img] This really goes for any rally/protest, in my book. I don't care if you are screaming "LOVE, PEACE, FLOWERS", if you do it IN my face or block my movement...I'm not really inclined to listen to you.

In other words, if 'prowar' factions damaged buildings or threw metal bars at police or neighbors I'd be just as vocal in my criticism of their actions. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 03-21-2003, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: Cloudbringer ]

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Cloudbringer: With regard to TL's comments... would it have been any more 'right' or less so if those protestors who blocked traffic and kept him 'hostage' in the street , held a gun to his head and said "You will listen to us!"?

Cloudy that analogy is so over the top that it borders on being flame bait. An act of civil disobedience (stopping traffic) isn't even in the same county, let alone ballpark to holding a gun to someone's head.