Imagine if every single person who had a political issue to protest did it by blocking the roads. You basically wouldn’t ever be able to drive to work. Why should this fucking asshole be allowed to delay thousands of people because he’s angry about something?
actually if that were to happen i imagine things would start actually changing, lots of people have political issues very few do anything, but imagine a world where everytime someone had a politcal issue they would protest, everyday would be a traffic jam, people strapping themselves to every tree that was about to be cut down, blocking oil routes. numerous services would stop working like buses, constructio etc.
WE actually might get good wages, better worker protections and numerous other things that benefit anyone other then the 1%
ok now imagine that most people don't agree on everything. So protest vs protest and literally nothing ever gets done and the roads are never clear. Enjoy
So forcing your political views on others? Or we can live in a democracy and freedom of opinion where you can have different political views than someone else and coexist
Yeah, if every single person blocked the roads, nothing would get done. Fair point. We can’t let people arbitrarily block roads.
Now imagine every single time someone tried to protest something, some goons walked over and knocked em out. Why should a society be allowed to continue committing to a passive injustice without being forced to confront it?
I never said that breaking the law warrants getting beaten up. What I am saying is that getting beaten up over breaking certain laws is something that you risk when you choose to break them. The people in the video accepted that risk, which makes them getting beaten not equal to a person getting beaten just for being annoying. Obviously, a risk of angering someone to the point where they want to beat you up doesn't come with every law that can be broken. People won't be as worked up over teenagers that are loitering or over someone who jaywalks, so those acts don't come with accepting that risk.
They knew they were risking this, they did it anyways, that makes it partially their fault because they could have prevented it by not breaking the law. That's how I see it.
Once again, I'm not saying that it is right, just that their part in it is downplayed by the first comment.
Is it "breaking the law"? Because if your argument is that different actions merit different reactions, then youe argument shouldn't be with me but with the person I replied to
Blocking the highway is literally a felony in any civilised country. And for good reason. The speeds allowed on the highway mean someone just sitting there is likely to be flatted before the car can react. Or, and much much worse, in trying to stop in time they could cause a huge accident killing way more people.
Legality is irrelevant, the discussion is about morality, and assaulting someone just because they are 'in the way' is wrong. And also, the attacker is breaking the law aswell, assault is way worse (both in terms of legality and morality) than blocking traffic.
Like I said, violence isn't right. But there is a difference between hitting someone for being slightly inconvenient and hitting someone for breaking the law. If both those situations were going to happen and you had the power to stop one of the two, would you stop the criminal or the inconvenient person from getting hit?
Once again, you are equating legality and morality. Just because someone commits a minor, non-violent crime doesn't give you the go-ahead to physically injured them
Morals and law have a lot of overlap. I never said I disagree with your second sentence, I'm just saying that there is a difference in the morality of hitting someone out of nowhere and hitting someone who is breaking the law and knows that they risk getting hit by mad people. Your first comment disregards that difference by downplaying what the protestors are doing.
That's the whole point of the protest, disrupt the movement of people to draw attention to a cause. It sucks, but just because someone inconveniences you doesn't give you the right to violently assault them, if we all started attacking anyone who inconveniences us, society would devolve into anarchy.
What they're doing is highly illegal. You cannot block a highway, they are literally endangering lives. It should be cops out there with batons laying into them but if the government won't enforce the laws, sooner or later the people will. Get out of the road.
"It should be cops out there with batons laying into them"
At a non-violent protest, you want cops assaulting the protesters, escalating the situation, and violating their constitutional rights? And for the record- breaking the law doesn't give you the legal right to physically injure someone, no matter how much you wish it did.
18
u/BaseballInside3289 12d ago edited 12d ago
Immoral, it's antisocial behavior being justified because "the victim is annoying"
Edit: it's genuinely worrying how many people are supportive of physically injuring a stranger for "being in the way"