Is this close enough? Greenpeace has had dubious relations with violent members of the Green movement. Its all in your definition of “terrorist.”
Alright well, I hate organizations that try to interrupt trade, etc. How about I go to their workplace and steal all of their burger spatulas. If they want to protest, fine but keep the obnoxiousness, militant acts and ecoterrorism to a minimum. I hate all of these organizations like PETA, the ALF, Greenpeace etc. They mislead the public, are more often than not militant and just plain ignorant. I would have eviscerated those who tried to interrupt my business or get in the way of my way of life. We have the right to live free, those who break the laws of freedom are trespassing on our rights and that will cause me to fight with my life for my freedoms.
Nice straw man.
You tried to claim that they were committing “violence” against the property rights. That’s like saying that if I miss paying a bill by a day, the people I owe money can come kick my ass, since I was committing “violence” against their company.
Once again, if there was not an immediate threat of bodily harm, they should not have attacked them.
Next Week:
Greenpeace disrupts United Steelworkers of America convention.
I don’t believe Greenpeace itself has resorted to terrorist means. Groups like Animal Liberation Front and other eco-terrorists have done a majority of that stuff.
Destroying labs equipment, blowing up SUV dealerships, etc. Some of it counterproductive. Setting lab animals free into the wilderness? Yeah, white rats really blend into foliage. They’ll survive easily. [/sarcasm]
-
You misunderstood my point. You don’t do violence against the “rights” themselves but you do “violence” against the people who possess the rights. When you don’t respect people’s rights you are essentially saying that you don’t value them as human beings and the lack of respect can be violence against the social order or rule of law thus is a criminal action.
-
Your analogy of paying your bills greatly misunderstands the situation. Paying the bill is a matter of legal contract not a matter of civil rights. When I don’t pay my bill I haven’t violated the companys civil rights. I have merely violated the terms of the contract I have with the company. The company you pay your bill has already given you services for the month you by your contact you should pay them for services rendered. When you missed paying you bills they don’t own the money at that point but they own the legal promise or a legal “right” to be paid. The legal right to “kick ass” under the contact is the exclusive right of the government which enforces the laws under which the contract was made thus making it a legally binding contract.
-
The situation with Greenpeace tresspassing and interfering with legal business on private property isn’t a matter of violating a legal contract with Oil Company but criminal invasion which the Government is suppose to protect law abiding persons like the Oil Coporations (which is are legal persons) from such criminality. However, there is no requirement that the law abiding person has to tolerate criminal violation of their rights and wait for the government to act on their behalf.
Repelling criminals has always been the right of free citizens in the western legal tradition. -
Let’s examine your standard for use of violence: " if there was not an immediate threat of bodily harm, they should not have attacked them. " Under this standard most home invasions should not be repealed with force by the owner or employees only the police. Since most home invasion are done in order to secure property and not harm the residents. The owners/residents should forbidden to stop the burglars and have wait for the police to retrieve any stolen property.
But this lends to problems:
First, since the police are quite unlikely to catch the burglars before they leave the premises and sell off the stolen goods doesn’t such
policy empower the profession crook and make it opening season on home owners?
Second, let’s say I own a small store and a shoplifter walks in and starts taking stuff off the rack and rushes for the exit (the classic grab and dash) under your standard I can’t hired a security guard to detain him as the security guard is just a private employee and not police. Wouldn’t this standard make shopowner powerless against shoplifters? The facts are the 80% of all crime is prevented by someone other than the police usually private security. Your standard would result in massive amounts of theft and that is why no society on Earth uses it as part of the legal framework without significant modifications to protect the rights of property owners.
Third, What is your address? You wouldn’t resist me invading your home as I am only interested in your computer equipment and so I would like to pay you a visit while wearing a ski mask. I think is would be a very profitable venture as are you a obviously an easy target…
I just thought of the perfect example to destroy your standard for the use of violence. Under your standard, Bullshido’s own Ronin69 does not have the right to throw a drunk from the bar if the drunk started trashing the bar because Ronin69 is not a cop. Ronin must call the cops and wait for the police to bounce the drunk. I’m sorry but no society on the freaking planet follows your standard ( bouncers even exist in communist nations).
Once again, a non-violent protest (legal or not) at a place of work is not AT ALL the same thing as a home invasion. It’s been pointed out before in this thread, but you choose to ignore it.
If some hippies came in to my workplace and started disrupting things, I would call the cops, not attack them.
If they mess up my work, break something of mine or show the least bit of hostility, I’d slay them.
such as looking at you the wrong way, looking at your woman the wrong way, making eye contact etc etc etc.
Man, I want to be a barbarian too! A mighty hippy slaying barbarian! :viking:
Again, you resort to straw-man tactics.
I have a better example, since they were not directly causing property damage:
The sit-ins of restaurants during the fight for civil liberties. It’s a very similar situation, in fact. People go in to a place in an effort to disrupt business being done there, without violence.
Would you support the ass-kicking of people who did sit-ins?
I’m really not hostile, I try to be as calm and laid back as possible. As a result some things cause me to fly into a rage instantly.
Aha, but that just means that you hold in your rage; you have not truly transcended it.
gongs gong
You have the right to call the cops but you also have the right to repell invaders using employees like the bar owners who employ bouncers.
Tell me the difference between invading a private residence and private business which is not open to the general public like a restaurant aka public estabishment ( I think its called a Public Accomodation in American Jurisprudence but something else in British Jurisprudence). I’m not ignoring the difference between private residence and private business because I deny any such difference should exist. Please justify your position that some property I can defend and other property I can not. I can think of no logical basis for such discrimination.
YOu are saying I don’t have the right to be secure in my property regardless whether it is being used for residence or private business? I understand there is are a large amount of laws regulating the degree and manner which property owners can defend their property. However, I fail to understand ANY moral basis for these regulations and I think they fundamentally violate the freedom to pursue one’s happiness.
The civil rights issue was an entirely different situation because the sits-in where directing dealing with the unconstituation discrimation based on race for public accommodations like restuarants. Also most the Restaurants where unable to physically throw out the protesters due to the the number of employees versus the number of protesters. When the cops did arrive, they did attack the protester and often mercilessly as you know full well.
The Protesters in that era knew full well that they were asking for beatings but due to a proper cost-benefit analysis found that such criminal activity was worth it for the greater good. No one has ever argued that such sit-ins where legal or that the owners didn’t have the legal right to have the protestors thrown out which is what you are arguing.
You do not have the right invade private and not open to public property and stage sit ins without the owner being able to have private employees forcibly you move from the property. There is no law stating that an private establishment cannot have employees forcibly remove you from the property. It is the property owner’s land and not yours. In American, if you staged a non-violent sit-in at an abortion clinic you be charged with racketeering and spend no less 2 years in federal prison.
If by support you mean encourage them, then no. In a perfect world the Greenpeace protesters would have been stopped by the employees who being well -versed in pain compliance holds and crowd control tactics quickly remove them from the building and lock the door until the authorities arrived and peacefully cart the unresisting protesters to jail. I would also like all suicide bomber’s bombs to turn into pink fluffy bunnies and cotton pillows. I know unlike yourself that I live in the real world where young testostorone-filled 24 year olds that are making lots of money at work and then rudely interrupted by Geenpeace Jackasses aren’t just gonna wait peacefully for the police while these envirojerkoffs are costing them millions of dollars. The young men are gonna be pissed and are gonna start kickingass if you continue to illegally interrupt their work. In the real world, if you don’t want an to have your ass kicked then don’t be a stupid time and money stealing Asshole.
For the record, I support asskicking’s for Jackasses in general because it discourages public jackassism which you seem to support.
I never said you don’t have that right. Seriously, do you know what a straw-man argument is? Stop claiming I am taking a position that I am not.
All I’m saying that if faced with a non-violent protest at your place of work, running up and punching the nearest protesor in the face might not be the best course of action.
The civil rights issue was an entirely different situation because the sits-in where directing dealing with the unconstituation discrimation based on race for public accommodations like restuarants. Also most the Restaurants where unable to physically throw out the protesters due to the the number of employees versus the number of protesters. When the cops did arrive, they did attack the protester and often mercilessly as you know full well.
So whether or not someone should be beaten depends not only on their real actions, but also on their goals on a larger scale?
The Protesters in that era knew full well that they were asking for beatings but due to a proper cost-benefit analysis found that such criminal activity was worth it for the greater good. No one has ever argued that such sit-ins where legal or that the owners didn’t have the legal right to have the protestors thrown out which is what you are arguing.
No I’m not. See the first part of my post.
It is the property owner’s land and not yours. In American, if you staged a non-violent sit-in at an abortion clinic you be charged with racketeering and spend no less 2 years in federal prison.
No you won’t. That decision was overturned by SCOTUS two years ago.
Jesus Christ, you either are really horrible at debate or you have a reading problem.
I never said I supported the jerks. I just suggested a course of action other than beating them.
So, in other words, sit-ins are good if you agree with the cause, and bad if you don’t. Great.
"I’m not ignoring the difference between private residence and private business because I deny any such difference should exist. Please justify your position that some property I can defend and other property I can not. I can think of no logical basis for such discrimination. "
What’s the UK law? Let’s not talk about logic if we want to talk about legal rights; let’s talk about what the law actually says. You whined the last time I brought up a legal distinction in US law…
I agree with Doc. You’re being silly.
In addition, you’ve been factually wrong. PWNED!
(Appeals to “The Real World” notwithstanding, where apparently “The Real World” means that you simply don’t know the law.)
i’ll bet the hippies used cars to get there.
No that is not what I said. In terms of the law all sit-ins are bad i.e. illegal acts however in terms of morality sit-ins can be justified if they serve a greater good given a particular context where the benefit of the effects of sit-ins are correctly judged to be greater than the general benefit of the rule of law and general social order. It is not so simple as all civil disobedence=always good or following law of rule= always the best thing to do.
You brought up an irrelevant legal distinction.
Because I believe people should be generally free of illegal hassasment by morons and have the right to fight against such stupidity and disrespect for their rights and privacy; I am being silly. If that is being silly then we need more of such silliness as we would be a better people for it.
I wasn’t factually wrong because Doc reads the AP’s “reporting” instead of the actual words of the decision and didn’t understand the sentencing guidelines to which I was primarily refering. Lastly, for knowing nothing about the law, I got 6 out of 10 on Sam Browning’s legal test higher than than any non-lawyer member of Bullshido.