1. PF has switched to Xenforo. Please see this post for more details. Search and other functions are still being worked on.
    Dismiss Notice

Civil Disobedience is not a legitimate Protest Tactic

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by SiliconMagician, Nov 10, 2011.

  1. SiliconMagician

    SiliconMagician Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,922
    Likes Received:
    433
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In another thread a certain liberal claimed that protesting necessarily involves civil disobedience.

    This is a fallacy.

    Civil disobedience is not a legitimate exercise in free speech. Free speech means just that. Talking and use of your voice and the passing out of flyers. That is free speech.

    Blocking traffic, attempting to shut down commerce, financially or economically damaging businesses and other means of "protest" are not protest but intimidation and extortion.

    You are more than welcome to gather together in a park, pass out flyers and try to convince people to see the world your way, but if no one listens to you, or the Government or corporations fail to heed your protests and calls for change, then too (*)(*)(*)(*)ing bad, you have to live with it. You are not allowed to try and intimidate or threaten people, businesses, Government officials or private citizens and other entities.

    I don't know who taught these (*)(*)(*)(*)ing kids that Civil disobedience and protest are one and the same. They are not.

    You are more than welcome to speak out against an action, you are not allowed to attempt to physically stop the action you are protesting against. Do you understand now?

    When you use your voice or the press to speak out. That is Free Speech. But you are not allowed to engage in direct action against those your protesting against.
     
  2. Margot

    Margot Account closed, not banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Messages:
    62,086
    Likes Received:
    323
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Civil Disobedience (Resistance to Civil Government) is an essay by American transcendentalist Henry David Thoreau that was first published in 1849.

    In it, Thoreau argues that individuals should not permit governments to overrule or atrophy their consciences, and that they have a duty to avoid allowing such acquiescence to enable the government to make them the agents of injustice.

    Thoreau was motivated in part by his disgust with slavery and the Mexican-American War.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_(Thoreau)

    More at the link.....
     
  3. SiliconMagician

    SiliconMagician Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,922
    Likes Received:
    433
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I know who Thoreau was and Walden Pond is little better than toilet paper.

    You are not allowed to engage in direct action against the entities that you are protesting against, regardless of what Thoreau said and I wipe my ass with "On Walden Pond" and his treatise "On Civil Disobedience".

    Thoreau is the only idiot I ever read who could watch ants fighting their little ant wars in his wood pile and turn it into a treatise on society. He was a hermit and a vagabond and the only people who worship his writings are academic socialists.
     
  4. Foolardi

    Foolardi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2009
    Messages:
    33,766
    Likes Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    83
    How true,And there's a Huge difference between mounting a
    Sit-in on a college campus or at a State Capital than actually
    disrupting the normal flow of events {traffic,other pedestrians
    or camping out and breaking regular curfew} not to mention
    illicit activity like theft,drug-use,sex in public,urinating in public,
    throwing things like bottles at cops etc.}
    These OWS Protests can and do become RIOTS.
    Liberals and our Democrats just don't care about breaking laws
    and disturbing the peace,as long as it fits Their agenda.
    Democrats need to be painted correctly with long broad strokes
    of Hypocrisy and Unamerican activity.I have no problem with
    orderly passive resistance { a Sit-in } but that's not what these
    OWS Punks are doing.They are taking over parks,camping out,
    disrupting traffic and committing felonies.As Michael Savage said,last
    week,any Mayor who allows this to continue need be sued.
    ALL Protestors need to be arrested,and treated as if a Riot.
    Any Lawyer Defending said arrested Protestor should Immediately
    have their law license revoked.
     
  5. Foolardi

    Foolardi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2009
    Messages:
    33,766
    Likes Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Yet,Thoreau,a hero to me,never harmed as much a fly in his life.
    He choose to live alone at Walden pond,building by himself with
    sparse help a tiny shack and becoming a hermit.After all his motivation
    was the love and observation of Nature.I'll have to go back and find
    if Thoreau ever acted in a rebellious way to any member of society.
     
  6. SiliconMagician

    SiliconMagician Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,922
    Likes Received:
    433
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A legitimate withdrawal from a society you disagree with is one thing, but to engage in direct action against those you protest against is another. Thoreau has been misinterpreted since he wrote his writings and honestly I'm not impressed with the man.
     
  7. stonehorse

    stonehorse New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2008
    Messages:
    563
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Do you think people should just speachify in an orderly manner and not upset the sheep?

    No, hell no!

    While the vandalism is uncalled for the public disruption is necessary. There is no point in demonstrating if no one notices.

    If the masses, calling for justice, upset the conservative sensibilities of the well off - - - too bad.
     
  8. SiliconMagician

    SiliconMagician Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,922
    Likes Received:
    433
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In a legitimate, democratic society such as the USA? Yes.

    Then you will get your head beat by the authorities.

    That's funny. They seemed to notice Glen Beck's rally. They seemed to notice the Montgomery Bus Boycotts, they seemed to notice when MLK Jr and those people hit the mall. Not a single bit of public disruption was involved in any of those great moments in protest history.

    Calling for justice is okay, engaging in direct action against those that won't deliver it to you on your time table is not.
     
  9. Leffe

    Leffe New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    11,726
    Likes Received:
    134
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The problem comes when the government decides to restrict free speech:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

    They can chose the "the time, place, and manner—but not content—of expression". So it's not really "free speech" any longer, it's "free-ish speech".

    No wonder people have ignored the other rules, when the government restricts your constitutionally "guaranteed " rights.
     
  10. SiliconMagician

    SiliconMagician Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,922
    Likes Received:
    433
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It has always been that way in America. Why are you complaining now?

    We have always placed a high value on public order.
     
  11. Leffe

    Leffe New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    11,726
    Likes Received:
    134
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't agree with at all.
     
  12. Leffe

    Leffe New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    11,726
    Likes Received:
    134
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What I find particularly odd, is when people who use expressions such as "from my cold dead hands" etc... to describe how they would resist the law if it changed regarding guns (ironically allowed, in case the government should need overthrowing), also strongly condemn students peacefully protesting.
     
  13. Leffe

    Leffe New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    11,726
    Likes Received:
    134
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No it hasn't (from my link):

    The GOP introduced free speech zones only a few years ago, when pesky demonstrators were upsetting his war plans.
     
  14. darckriver

    darckriver New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    7,774
    Likes Received:
    225
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The OWS protesters have given the word "protest" a negative flavor. They rail in Oakland about Wall Street banks and corporate greed, yet California's economic woes aren't primarily a function of the misbehavior of Wall Street banks or corporate greed. They should be protesting the fiscally irresponsible policies of those political vote-buyers they routinely elect.
     
  15. Foolardi

    Foolardi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2009
    Messages:
    33,766
    Likes Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Do you not understand the difference between the Boy Scout rule
    of always leaving a campground cleaner than when you arrived.
    We are talking a Taking over here.A moving-in of parks.Squatting,
    basically.There are specific laws against that irrespective of any right
    to Protest.
     
  16. Leffe

    Leffe New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    11,726
    Likes Received:
    134
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I wonder if the share traders and CEO's were Boy Scouts? Probably not, because they haven't left the economy in better shape than when they arrived. Which leads us back nicely to protesting about irresponsibility.
     
  17. Nunya D.

    Nunya D. New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    7,304
    Likes Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So, which one is the lie?

    The GOP couldn't have introduced free speech zones only a few years ago if they were instituted during the 60's and 70's.
     
  18. Leffe

    Leffe New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    11,726
    Likes Received:
    134
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If you hadn't have cut this part out of my post (oh so conveniently), you'd have your answer:

    Why would you do something so blindingly obvious to my post?
     
  19. Nunya D.

    Nunya D. New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    7,304
    Likes Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    0

    How can someone INTRODUCE something only a few years ago when it was a practice used OVER 50 years ago?

    Yes, Bush used them, but he did not INTRODUCE them.

    You are trying to paint Bush as the doing something extreme, but in reality, Free Speech Zones have been used by EVERY President since Kennedy....including ALL democrat presidents.
     
  20. Leffe

    Leffe New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    11,726
    Likes Received:
    134
    Trophy Points:
    0
    SiliconMagician claimed "It has always been that way in America.".

    I pointed out that it has not, I linked to the article.

    If you want to split hairs, go ahead and deflect.
     

Share This Page