Shooting and protests in Ferguson, Missouri

[bilwit]

Putting aside definitions for a moment, let's explore your retardation a bit further.

If you think destroying people's livelihoods isn't likely to turn into what you seem to think is "real violence", then you are, once again, retarded. What happens when those people defend their property? Putting aside again the fact that if they don't and have no insurance or something screws up along the way, they're fucked... thanks to these "non violent protests."

So yeah, newsflash: you're clueless.

You can tell someone's panties are in a twist when they start personally attacking you as a means to try to argue a point. It's just a bad look, Xant.

Throwing a brick into Well's Fargo is not destroying anyone's livelihood. Setting a CEO's car on fire is not destroying anyone's livelihood. Smashing a window of your local coffee shop isn't even going to destroy anyone's livelihood so I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. The concept of property is a complete farce anyway. You can possess something but you'll never truly own it.

[Taser]

What do you mean by pissed? You know, that word had a very different meaning in the fifteenth century.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[bilwit]

Its not the first time I've heard it. I've heard it many times. Mostly from people who dispute ownership of things.

But if you break my window, you've done damage to my window. I must replace that window. It directly affects me. It is a violent act and to try and spin it as a rights thing is laughable.

You're telling me that if I break your car windows, you're not going to be pissed and think I did something violent to your car? Please.

So you're saying it's violent because you have to buy a new window? Sure it indirectly affects you, but it isn't violence. Act of aggression? Maybe. Violent? No.

[Xant]

You can tell someone's panties are in a twist when they start personally attacking you as a means to try to argue a point. It's just a bad look, Xant.

None of the points I made were in any way logically related or dependent on the personal attacks, friend.

The concept of property is a complete farce anyway. You can possess something but you'll never truly own it.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Taser]

So you're saying it's violent because you have to buy a new window? Sure it indirectly affects you, but it isn't violence. Act of aggression? Maybe. Violent? No.

An act of aggression that isn't violent? skepticalhippo.jpg

But I see from your comment to xant that you don't believe in ownership. Or at least some very flimsy version of it.

Let me just propose a scenario to you and see how you respond.

If you burn my car and its my sole means of transportation to my job, you have destroyed my ability to get to my job. I get fired.

Is that a bad thing and would burning my car be a violent/bad act?

If so, why is that different from simply breaking my car windows? Is the sole way to justify it "well the livelihood of that person isn't endangered"?

[Taser]

Guys, isn't it pretty pointless to discuss a matter when you have totally different views about it that exclude each other? But go on, it's fun to read 

It is but sometimes I run across someone that actually is able to argue their side and I have to give them props.

Plus I gotta sperglord it up sometime in these forums.

[Xant]

The thing that really gets me with people like bilwit is that they are, without fail, complete and utter hypocrites. If someone walks up and breaks their computer for the lulz, you bet your berries they're not just going to sit there, smile and spout bromides about how ownership doesn't really exist.

[bilwit]

An act of aggression that isn't violent? skepticalhippo.jpg

But I see from your comment to xant that you don't believe in ownership. Or at least some very flimsy version of it.

Let me just propose a scenario to you and see how you respond.

If you burn my car and its my sole means of transportation to my job, you have destroyed my ability to get to my job. I get fired.

Is that a bad thing and would burning my car be a violent/bad act?

If so, why is that different from simply breaking my car windows? Is the sole way to justify it "well the livelihood of that person isn't endangered"?

That's a stretch and very narrow viewpoint. You can ride a bike, take public transportation, bum a ride from a friend or coworker, rent a car, etc and on top of that, you can tell your boss the situation and they should at least be lenient. Now you are arguing that violence == "bad" which is also a stretch. On top of this your job != your life anyway so the whole argument is void. Would you consider flirting with a coworker and being tagged for sexual harassment at the workplace an act of violence because you put your own "livelihood" in jeopardy? No, because if you get fired for any reason at any point you will still live on the next day and the day after that. Xant was the first person to bring up "livelihood" as a requirement which I don't agree with. Violence is strictly bodily harm.

The thing that really gets me with people like bilwit is that they are, without fail, complete and utter hypocrites. If someone walks up and breaks their computer for the lulz, you bet your berries they're not just going to sit there, smile and spout bromides about how ownership doesn't really exist.

And there it is with the namecalling again. Like I said, property damage can be an act of aggression that could potentially incite violence as a reaction, but it isn't an act of violence in of itself.

[Xant]

And there it is with the namecalling again. Like I said, property damage can be an act of aggression that could potentially incite violence as a reaction, but it isn't an act of violence in of itself.

It is according to dictionaries. You don't get to decide what "violence" means.

[Taser]

That's a stretch and very narrow viewpoint. You can ride a bike, take public transportation, bum a ride from a friend or coworker, rent a car, etc and on top of that, you can tell your boss the situation and they should at least be lenient.

It was a hypothetical. Obviously I can tell my boss some dude torched my car and I can't come in today or will be late. I noticed you didn't actually answer the question.

Is it a bad thing to torch my car if it is my means of transportation? Is that different from simply breaking the car windows?

If so then why?

Now you are arguing that violence == "bad" which is also a stretch.

Its not inherently bad or good but most people when they see their car torched see it as a bad thing simply because it was their car. The whole idea of owning that car thus depriving them of their possession.

I would think you'd be pissed if something happened to your car/house/computer/etc which would be hypocritical.

On top of this your job != your life anyway so the whole argument is void. Would you consider flirting with a coworker and being tagged for sexual harassment at the workplace an act of violence because you put your own "livelihood" in jeopardy? No, because if you get fired for any reason at any point you will still live on the next day and the day after that. Xant was the first person to bring up "livelihood" as a requirement which I don't agree with. Violence is strictly bodily harm.

Most of this is gibberish but I brought up livelihood since you used it as a defense after xant brought it up. "no one's livelihood is endangered if a ceo's car is torched" well some people really would have a problem with that and would lose their livelihood (which is their job.. not their life)

You also ignored my skepticism of an act of aggression not being violent. Interesting.

[bilwit]

It was a hypothetical. Obviously I can tell my boss some dude torched my car and I can't come in today or will be late. I noticed you didn't actually answer the question.

Is it a bad thing to torch my car if it is my means of transportation? Is that different from simply breaking the car windows?

If so then why?

Its not inherently bad or good but most people when they see their car torched see it as a bad thing simply because it was their car. The whole idea of owning that car thus depriving them of their possession.

I would think you'd be pissed if something happened to your car/house/computer/etc which would be hypocritical.

Most of this is gibberish but I brought up livelihood since you used it as a defense after xant brought it up. "no one's livelihood is endangered if a ceo's car is torched" well some people really would have a problem with that and would lose their livelihood (which is their job.. not their life)

You also ignored my skepticism of an act of aggression not being violent. Interesting.

You're straying really far away from the the violence versus non-violence argument but I'll entertain this. Is smashing up some random person's car for no particular reason "bad"? Uhh probably. Will someone be likely be upset afterward? Yes. Was it an act of violence? No, not particularly. Aggression can lead to violence as a consequence. If someone calls you a twat or scribbles on your book while you're reading it, are they being violent? No. However you could take this as an act of aggression and then punch him in the face, which would then be an act of violence.

[Taser]

You're straying really far away from the the violence versus non-violence argument but I'll entertain this. Is smashing up some random person's car for no particular reason "bad"? Uhh probably. Will someone be likely be upset afterward? Yes. Was it an act of violence? No, not particularly. Aggression can lead to violence as a consequence. If someone calls you a twat or scribbles on your book while you're reading it, are they being violent? No. However you could take this as an act of aggression and then punch him in the face, which would then be an act of violence.

I'm not straying far at all. Its your logic in labeling something non violent or violent against an item vs a person. Its entirely relevant to your idea of violence vs non violence.

I wouldn't call someone calling me a twat an act of aggression. Unless he called me a twat and said he was going to fist me.

But an act of aggression such as smashing someone's car is an act of violence. Trying to say it isn't and was simply an act of aggression is admitting its a violent, or at the very least destructive, act. You're playing a semantics game that doesn't apply.

Thus trying to say its merely an act of aggression (which is an act that threatens or carries out violence/destruction) is just trying to play it off.

[Xant]

This whole argument is absurd. When bilwit said "it's a form of non-violent protest" I for one assumed he was using the agreed upon English definitions, but apparently he was just making some sort of a philosophical statement -- so he's actually trying to argue against capitalism, not even talking about the current event.

[Taser]

This whole argument is absurd. When bilwit said "it's a form of non-violent protest" I for one assumed he was using the agreed upon English definitions, but apparently he was just making some sort of a philosophical statement -- so he's actually trying to argue against capitalism, not even talking about the current event.

Yeah its pretty much more of a philosophical statement than a comment on the protests themselves.

I need to sleep though so unless you want to continue this.. I'm out.

Was fun sperging it up with you tho billy.

[Jeade]

To be fair, people are protesting over the shooting, not the strong-arm robbery which just hit the surface today.
What does irritate me are the people who claim the shooting and robbery were unrelated.

If a guy just robbed a store and an hour later, a police officer confronts him, even if the officer didn't know (which he stated he didn't), the thief is going to be really fucking on edge.