Quote: Original post by jtagge75
So OP, I can protest your protest by coming to your house and busting all the windows and kicking in the doors right? I'm just exercising my civil liberties after all.

If you think that would be an exercise of civil liberty than you have a warped sense of civil liberty. Maybe those protesters should come to your house and break your windows and doors to protest you for supporting oppression or whatever. Then you can shoot them and feel good about it or whatever. Or maybe not. Maybe they will shoot you when you come to their house to bust their windows and doors or whatever. They aren't afraid of violent protest so you shouldn't think they wouldn't shoot you if you tried.

Personally, I don't think smashing windows helps the cause, unless the cause is giving police an excuse to smash heads. In that light the "black bloc" is reduced to an adjunct police force.

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by jtagge75
So OP, I can protest your protest by coming to your house and busting all the windows and kicking in the doors right? I'm just exercising my civil liberties after all.

If you think that would be an exercise of civil liberty than you have a warped sense of civil liberty.

Wasn't that quite obviously his point?

Quote: Original post by mattnewport

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by jtagge75
So OP, I can protest your protest by coming to your house and busting all the windows and kicking in the doors right? I'm just exercising my civil liberties after all.

If you think that would be an exercise of civil liberty than you have a warped sense of civil liberty.

Wasn't that quite obviously his point?

Do you think his point was to admit to having a warped sense of civil liberty?

If his point was to accuse djz of having a warped sense of civil liberty, then he should have just said so: djz, your sense of civil liberty is warped.

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by jtagge75
So OP, I can protest your protest by coming to your house and busting all the windows and kicking in the doors right? I'm just exercising my civil liberties after all.

If you think that would be an exercise of civil liberty than you have a warped sense of civil liberty. Maybe those protesters should come to your house and break your windows and doors to protest you for supporting oppression or whatever. Then you can shoot them and feel good about it or whatever. Or maybe not. Maybe they will shoot you when you come to their house to bust their windows and doors or whatever. They aren't afraid of violent protest so you shouldn't think they wouldn't shoot you if you tried.

Maybe we should shoot them first? What gives them anything remotely resembling a right to smash someone's windows or damage other property? If they want to smash windows and stuff as 'protest' then they should buy the glass, the land to put the glass on, and smash it safely away from bystanders.

You know what I don't like? I don't like people thinking they have deserve more rights than myself. So to protest this it is perfectly acceptable for me to go smash windows somewhere?

Quote: Original post by Talroth

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by jtagge75
So OP, I can protest your protest by coming to your house and busting all the windows and kicking in the doors right? I'm just exercising my civil liberties after all.

If you think that would be an exercise of civil liberty than you have a warped sense of civil liberty. Maybe those protesters should come to your house and break your windows and doors to protest you for supporting oppression or whatever. Then you can shoot them and feel good about it or whatever. Or maybe not. Maybe they will shoot you when you come to their house to bust their windows and doors or whatever. They aren't afraid of violent protest so you shouldn't think they wouldn't shoot you if you tried.

Maybe we should shoot them first? What gives them anything remotely resembling a right to smash someone's windows or damage other property? If they want to smash windows and stuff as 'protest' then they should buy the glass, the land to put the glass on, and smash it safely away from bystanders.

You know what I don't like? I don't like people thinking they have deserve more rights than myself. So to protest this it is perfectly acceptable for me to go smash windows somewhere?

I didn't claim they had the right to smash windows. I said that belief was warped and that such action gives the police an invitation to smash heads.

For those that are against protesters engaging in direct-action: I could draw a comparison to the Destruction of Tea at the Boston Tea-Party, and I am wondering if you consider the comparison invalid and if so, why?

My viewpoints on this stand challenged, but I am not willing to concede that destruction of property belonging to corporations is never acceptable. In what circumstances does it become acceptable, (in your opinion) if ever?

(I'd also like to reiterate that even Black Bloc protesters are extremely unlikely to target you, or your personal property.)

Are you aware that the boston tea party happened after the boston massacre.

I'd say killing people =/= hosting the olympics.

Quote: Original post by djz
For those that are against protesters engaging in direct-action: I could draw a comparison to the Destruction of Tea at the Boston Tea-Party, and I am wondering if you consider the comparison invalid and if so, why?

It wasn't valid then, and it isn't valid now. Just because something worked doesn't mean it was a right, just, or moral action.

My memory of that part of history is more than a little rusty, but as far as I remember it it was also a very different situation. You HAVE an elected government to which you can take your problems and have them heard. At that time they were fighting for representation in their government, and were protesting a clear violation of a single right and issue.

Quote: Original post by djz
For those that are against protesters engaging in direct-action: I could draw a comparison to the Destruction of Tea at the Boston Tea-Party, and I am wondering if you consider the comparison invalid and if so, why?

My viewpoints on this stand challenged, but I am not willing to concede that destruction of property belonging to corporations is never acceptable. In what circumstances does it become acceptable, (in your opinion) if ever?

(I'd also like to reiterate that even Black Bloc protesters are extremely unlikely to target you, or your personal property.)

For me the question pertained to whether there was a right to smash windows. When someone has a right to do something, then it would be wrong for the police to arrest them for doing it. In classic civil disobedience theory, protesters expect to be arrested for protesting. Arrest is part of the strategy. They put themselves at risk. They don't hide their identity behind masks. They subject themselves to capricious laws in order to expose the absurdity of those laws.

According to that Wikipedia entry, Sam Adams defended the Boston Tea Party as "the only remaining option the people had to defend their constitutional rights." Was that the case in Vancouver? Probably not.

I must say there hasn't been incident as of yet with individuals grouping publicly and protesting, where said group was supposed to all go stiff like manikins at a given time. There haven't been any rogue attempts by Pepsi or others to advertise in said public places by ripping off an overshirt and exposing a competitors logo. I see having sponsors and limiting the advertising and sales of said products to said corporations as normal competitive behavior and a traditional part of any athletic event.

I think it sucks that a lot of people wanted to ruin the party before it started. Even in spite of current economy and general spending behaviors that ensued the procurement of the privilege to host. If civil liberties are so bad why are there no protests any other day. If people are so concerned with regards to the homeless why does everybody walk by them everyday? Trust you me if things in the lower mainland became problematic in with regards to my civil liberties I would be the first to protest and it would NOT be pretty........ I am 3rd generation to this area and I have not seen anything take place that would be considered abnormal. Shit happens, sux but it does and I think people in general deal with it! Crying wolf and all will only make things messy and will not help any period.........

IMHO