Real Riots Vs. Planned Riots

Share this page

aloyouis

aloyouis

at least generally aware
Joined
May 27, 2006
Messages
6,726
Reaction score
1,365
Points
113
Location
Michigan
HSanders said:
stealing is not fine.
Click to expand...
Are you sure? I certainly saw a lot of that going on all summer. Televisions, other appliances, 50 pound bags of dog food.

You name it they were stealing it.

It seemed more than fine with the liberal left.
 
PatsFan09

PatsFan09

Done. And. Done.
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
20,511
Reaction score
1,677
Points
113
Location
Circumlocuting around New England...
My wife’s boss just called her.
She has to hire 9 people for the Capitol Police.
Not sure how my wife’s engineering firm got this federal contract as a major liaison for the Capitol Police, but there it is.
These 9 are supposed to work the 12’ wall that has been constructed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Inspector_50

Inspector_50

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 30, 2020
Messages
2,955
Reaction score
449
Points
83
Location
California
johnlocke

johnlocke

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
11,226
Reaction score
3,063
Points
113
Age
48
Location
Salisbury, NH
Posted this about the riots this summer and it applies equally here:


Civil Disobedience​


Civil disobedience may be justifiable, in some cases, when and if an individual disobeys a law in order to bring an issue to court, as a test case. Such an action involves respect for legality and a protest directed only at a particular law which the individual seeks an opportunity to prove to be unjust. The same is true of a group of individuals when and if the risks involved are their own.

But there is no justification, in a civilized society, for the kind of mass civil disobedience that involves the violation of the rights of others—regardless of whether the demonstrators’ goal is good or evil. The end does not justify the means. No one’s rights can be secured by the violation of the rights of others. Mass disobedience is an assault on the concept of rights: it is a mob’s defiance of legality as such.

The forcible occupation of another man’s property or the obstruction of a public thoroughfare is so blatant a violation of rights that an attempt to justify it becomes an abrogation of morality. An individual has no right to do a “sit-in” in the home or office of a person he disagrees with—and he does not acquire such a right by joining a gang. Rights are not a matter of numbers—and there can be no such thing, in law or in morality, as actions forbidden to an individual, but permitted to a mob.

The only power of a mob, as against an individual, is greater muscular strength—i.e., plain, brute physical force. The attempt to solve social problems by means of physical force is what a civilized society is established to prevent. The advocates of mass civil disobedience admit that their purpose is intimidation. A society that tolerates intimidation as a means of settling disputes—the physical intimidation of some men or groups by others—loses its moral right to exist as a social system, and its collapse does not take long to follow.

Politically, mass civil disobedience is appropriate only as a prelude to civil war—as the declaration of a total break with a country’s political institutions.

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

“The Cashing-In: The Student ‘Rebellion,’”
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 256
 
IU_Knightmare

IU_Knightmare

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2004
Messages
941
Reaction score
482
Points
63
Location
God's Country
johnlocke said:
Posted this about the riots this summer and it applies equally here:


Civil Disobedience​


Civil disobedience may be justifiable, in some cases, when and if an individual disobeys a law in order to bring an issue to court, as a test case. Such an action involves respect for legality and a protest directed only at a particular law which the individual seeks an opportunity to prove to be unjust. The same is true of a group of individuals when and if the risks involved are their own.

But there is no justification, in a civilized society, for the kind of mass civil disobedience that involves the violation of the rights of others—regardless of whether the demonstrators’ goal is good or evil. The end does not justify the means. No one’s rights can be secured by the violation of the rights of others. Mass disobedience is an assault on the concept of rights: it is a mob’s defiance of legality as such.

The forcible occupation of another man’s property or the obstruction of a public thoroughfare is so blatant a violation of rights that an attempt to justify it becomes an abrogation of morality. An individual has no right to do a “sit-in” in the home or office of a person he disagrees with—and he does not acquire such a right by joining a gang. Rights are not a matter of numbers—and there can be no such thing, in law or in morality, as actions forbidden to an individual, but permitted to a mob.

The only power of a mob, as against an individual, is greater muscular strength—i.e., plain, brute physical force. The attempt to solve social problems by means of physical force is what a civilized society is established to prevent. The advocates of mass civil disobedience admit that their purpose is intimidation. A society that tolerates intimidation as a means of settling disputes—the physical intimidation of some men or groups by others—loses its moral right to exist as a social system, and its collapse does not take long to follow.

Politically, mass civil disobedience is appropriate only as a prelude to civil war—as the declaration of a total break with a country’s political institutions.

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

“The Cashing-In: The Student ‘Rebellion,’”
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 256
Click to expand...

And this is what I appreciate most about you in particular (and in general most of those here of a similar political and social mindset) as a poster. You are both fair and consistent in the application of your principles, regardless of the topic and where on the political spectrum said topic falls. There are several returned posters who could learn a thing or two from you, not the least of which is intellectual honesty.
 
johnlocke

johnlocke

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
11,226
Reaction score
3,063
Points
113
Age
48
Location
Salisbury, NH
IU_Knightmare said:
And this is what I appreciate most about you in particular (and in general most of those here of a similar political and social mindset) as a poster. You are both fair and consistent in the application of your principles, regardless of the topic and where on the political spectrum said topic falls. There are several returned posters who could learn a thing or two from you, not the least of which is intellectual honesty.
Click to expand...

Awwww. Thank you so much for the kind words. I don't get them a great deal even in my real world. Made me smile. Thank you so much!!!!!
 
aloyouis

aloyouis

at least generally aware
Joined
May 27, 2006
Messages
6,726
Reaction score
1,365
Points
113
Location
Michigan
IU_Knightmare said:
And this is what I appreciate most about you in particular (and in general most of those here of a similar political and social mindset) as a poster. You are both fair and consistent in the application of your principles, regardless of the topic and where on the political spectrum said topic falls. There are several returned posters who could learn a thing or two from you, not the least of which is intellectual honesty.
Click to expand...
Bingo!

  1. Intellectual honesty
    Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem solving, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways, including but not limited to: One's personal beliefs do not interfere with the pursuit of truth; Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis; Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another; References, or earlier work, are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided. Harvard ethicist Louis M. Guenin describes the "kernel" of intellectual honesty to be "a virtuous disposition to eschew deception when given an incentive for deception." Intentionally committed fallacies in debates and reasoning are sometimes called intellectual dishonesty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top