you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]monochr -2 points-1 points


He's comparing people who murder hundreds to people who smash windows. If in your world the violence between the two is the same I have a three strike kneecapping anti-jwalking policy you'll just love.

[–]CRAZYSCIENTIST=] 2 points3 points


I don't believe that anyone has suggested they are the same, but that doesn't mean there are no similarities which might raise interesting points of discussion. I definitely accept that the sort of violence engaged in by protesters at these events is several orders of magnitude less than a Timothy McVeigh.

To my mind the similarity is that they are both engaging in a form of violence on the basis that they have a righteous imperative, which is fine but I feel more should be needed (outside of things like self defense). At the very least you should have some strong evidence/rationale which shows that such violence will further your righteous cause; It would be internally inconsistent to on the one hand claim a righteous cause as your justification for violence while admitting that such violence sets your cause back.

But more to the point I would suggest that before engaging in such actions you should have successfully made the political case for your cause to the population at large. This ties in with the first point because I would submit that what we have seen around the world is that such protesters, without the support of a large segment of the population, do nothing but assist the powers that they seek to challenge -- They self-marginalize.

What I was really interested in was your view on where the moral limits lie and why?