F is for Fascism (Ferguson MO)

[ONW]

i'm way, way more scared of cops than black dudes. way more. had lots of interactions with both.

Are you black?

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

By "black and white" do you mean racial? Because if you do, I agree

No, but a refusal to acknowledge and respect the infuence of racial identity on experience certainly fits into my statement.

 

[RChildress107]

Sometimes, what posters don't say is as important as what they do say.

"Qui tacit consentire videtur"

Looting and arson should be condemned forcefully & unequivocally in all circumstances. When a poster refuses to condemn these actions in this manner, but instead says something along the line of "Looting is wrong, but I understand why they are doing it because yada, yada, yada (fill in your own reasons).... that poster is, in effect, giving tacit approval to the actions of the looters & arsonists....under the guise of opposing them.

What we have had in this thread are several posters offering of the 2nd kind of reaction to the looting & arson........not condemnation, but rather tacit approval, carefully couched in language from which they can tactfully deny their true feelings.

What's worse? Rioting or killing an unarmed person?

If you are clearly unwilling to condemn the latter in all circumstances then why are you so adamant that there are no circumstances where rioting is justified?

 

[RChildress107]

Sometimes, what posters don't say is as important as what they do say.

"Qui tacit consentire videtur"

Looting and arson should be condemned forcefully & unequivocally in all circumstances. When a poster refuses to condemn these actions in this manner, but instead says something along the line of "Looting is wrong, but I understand why they are doing it because yada, yada, yada (fill in your own reasons).... that poster is, in effect, giving tacit approval to the actions of the looters & arsonists....under the guise of opposing them.

What we have had in this thread are several posters offering of the 2nd kind of reaction to the looting & arson........not condemnation, but rather tacit approval, carefully couched in language from which they can tactfully deny their true feelings.

Again, noone is doing that.

Saying you understand someones motivations for doing something is not the same as approving of that something, tacitly or otherwise.

If anything, understanding someone's motivations for committing an act, but condemning that act nonetheless because it is wrong carries more weight than categorically saying that an act is never OK.

 

[RChildress107]

Why don't we just skip the foreplay--when, in your view, is rioting justified? More pertinently, is it justified in ferguson today?

Rioting is justified, IMO, when a group of people attempting to remedy a systemic, prolonged and grave injustice have exhausted all other available options.

More pertinently, You and I are not in the best position to answer whether rioting is justified in Ferguson. We are members of a privileged group that reaps substantial benefits from the very system the rioters are rioting against. I hope (and think) that all other available options have not been exhausted. That peaceful protests will be effective in creating a much needed dialogue that brings about real, swift and permanent change. But I don't pretend to know for certain that that is the case.

 

[RChildress107]

You are making a false argument. The people rioting, looting & burning buildings are committing crimes. The death of Michael Brown has been ruled justifiable under the law.

You don't seem to be very concerned about the actual laws we have in this country, but would rather just substitute your opinion for what you think the laws should be.

What's false in my post?

Michael Brown was killed. Michael Brown was unarmed. You think that killing an unarmed man is justifiable in at least some circumstances (namely this one). I don't dispute that killing an unarmed man is justifiable in some circumstances (though I might dispute this particular circumstance). Few would argue otherwise.

You also think there are no circumstances under which rioting would be justified. That seems an odd view to take, especially when you readily accept that killing is sometimes justified (so clearly it's not the violence per se).


Also unless you are a strict moral legalist (i.e. if it's against the law it's immoral and vice versa), then the fact that the grand jury returned a "no true bill" (which is not the same as ruling the killing justifiable under the law) seems irrelevant.

 

[RChildress107]

What's worse? Rioting or killing an unarmed person?

If you are clearly unwilling to condemn the latter in all circumstances then why are you so adamant that there are no circumstances where rioting is justified?

I'll rephrase my question since you failed to answer it.

What's worse? A person's death or widespread destruction of property?

If you think the former is worse, and that the former is sometimes justified, then it seems odd to think that the latter is never, ever, ever justified.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

The "law" is often unfair, unjust, and is certainly fallable. Just ask the two best friends who were recently exonerated and released from prison after 40 years. There should be no pretending that the indictment verdict was the final word on this issue.

 

[RChildress107]

Rioting is justified, IMO, when a group of people attempting to remedy a systemic, prolonged and grave injustice have exhausted all other available options.


If you think that looting and burning down private property of people who had absolutely nothing to do with the object of your grievance is justified, you are just totally full of shit. That's about all I can say about the matter.

At least, though, you finally admitted what your true feelings were about the looting & arson. Rest assured, you are not alone on this thread in this matter. That's what I've been trying to say all along.

Furthermore, your statement isn't even accurate. Those people haven't even exhausted all other available options. What percentage of the people of Ferguson even vote on a regular basis? That would be a good place to start.

That reading comprehension is bordering on rj levels. The part of my post you quoted was explicitly not in reference to ferguson. I later went on to state that I did not think Ferguson met the criteria i laid out in the part you quoted.

 

[RChildress107]

Rioting is justified, IMO, when a group of people attempting to remedy a systemic, prolonged and grave injustice have exhausted all other available options.


If you think that looting and burning down private property of people who had absolutely nothing to do with the object of your grievance is justified, you are just totally full of shit. That's about all I can say about the matter.

At least, though, you finally admitted what your true feelings were about the looting & arson. Rest assured, you are not alone on this thread in this matter. That's what I've been trying to say all along.

Furthermore, your statement isn't even accurate. Those people haven't even exhausted all other available options. What percentage of the people of Ferguson even vote on a regular basis? That would be a good place to start.

If you think shooting an unarmed, and already wounded kid, 10 times until he dies instead of retreating and calling for backup is justified then I'm not sure what to say to you.

If you think condemning the loss of private property is more important than condemning the death of a person then I am sure what to say to you but I'll refrain from posting it here.

 

[RChildress107]

I answered your question....but you are making false assumptions in the questions you are asking.

People die every day. I went to a funeral of a guy who died from colon cancer at 58 yesterday. There were around 150 there....but none of them rioted, looted local businesses or burned down any buildings after the funeral.

It is unfortunate that Michael Brown died, but he unnecessarily put himself in harm's way with one action after another the day he died. His actions that day were not indicative of "an innocent kid who was just getting ready to go to college". He committed at least three crimes...and probably four...in the hours before he died.

Care to direct me to your answer? Or outline the assumptions I made.

It's a simple question really. Which is worse? A or B?

I'm going to go ahead and assume you are a decent person and answer the question for you.

All things being equal, killing a person is worse than rioting or destroying property. Agreed?

 

[RChildress107]

I answered your question....but you are making false assumptions in the questions you are asking.

People die every day. I went to a funeral of a guy who died from colon cancer at 58 yesterday. There were around 150 there....but none of them rioted, looted local businesses or burned down any buildings after the funeral.

It is unfortunate that Michael Brown died, but he unnecessarily put himself in harm's way with one action after another the day he died. His actions that day were not indicative of "an innocent kid who was just getting ready to go to college". He committed at least three crimes...and probably more than that when you add them all up...in the hours before he died.

Let's count the crimes. 1) Illegal use of drugs. 2) Robbery at the convenience store. 3) Assault on the convenience store owner. 4) Refusal to obey a police officer's command. 5) Assault on a police officer. 6) Fleeing or resisting arrest.

And he deserved the chance to live until he was 58 just as much as your friend did. Committing 6 crimes doesn't make you any less of a human being and it doesn't make your life any less worth protecting. Suggesting otherwise is pretty sick.

 

[RChildress107]

One thing that I don't quite understand. Why is the word "but" included by several posters at the end of the statement "looting is not justified..."?

Either looting is justified or it's not justified. Where does the "but" enter the situation regarding looting?

When a poster comes on this thread and says "Looting, arson & rioting are wrong....BUT".... what he is really saying, in effect, is "I'm full of shit, because I don't really believe what I just said about those actions being wrong. ... anyone with an ounce of intelligence who reads my post with all my qualifiers about opposing the looters & arsonists should be able to figure out (wink, wink) how I really feel about what is going on now."

It is unfortunate that Michael Brown died, but he unnecessarily put himself in harm's way with one action after another the day he died. His actions that day were not indicative of "an innocent kid who was just getting ready to go to college". He committed at least three crimes...and probably more than that when you add them all up...in the hours before he died.

Either his death is unfortunate or it's not Bob. Why the but? I guess anyone with an ounce of intelligence will read that post and figure out how you really feel about Michael Brown's death.

 

[RChildress107]

No. Killing a person in self defense is not even comparable to needlessly destroying property. It doesn't have anything at all to do with the relative value of life and property. One act is necessary and the other act is unnecessary. I know you do not agree with the statement that Brown was killed in self defense.....but that really has nothing to do with this. We go by what the law says about the matter, not what your opinion about it is. And, as of now, the law has determined that Brown was justifiably killed in self defense.

So you are saying it is sometimes necessary to take another person's life

But that it is never necessary to destroy someone's property. You seriously can't imagine any scenario in which rioting would be justified?

The law also says that Bush beat Gore. Just in case you were feeling a little too confident in what the law says.

 

[RChildress107]

I didn't even know that guy. Never met him in my life. He was the brother of a fellow employee. I went to the funeral out of respect for his brother.

(And you still don't know the exact circumstances involved in Brown's death....but you continue to say he was just gunned down and bore no responsibility for his death.)

I have said nothing of the sort. You can keep reading whatever you'd like into my posts, but the conversation might be more fruitful if you just focused on the actual words.

I have said very little about the circumstances of Brown's death or whether or not Wilson was justified (legally or morally) in killing him.

 

[RChildress107]

No. Killing a person in self defense is not even comparable to needlessly destroying property. It doesn't have anything at all to do with the relative value of life and property. One act is necessary and the other act is unnecessary. I know you do not agree with the statement that Brown was killed in self defense.....but that really has nothing to do with this. We go by what the law says about the matter, not what your opinion about it is. And, as of now, the law has determined that Brown was justifiably killed in self defense.

How necessary was it? Did Wilson really have no other options? Was there nothing Wilson could have done to prevent the situation from reaching that point? These are the questions that should really be discussed, not whether his actions met the legal standard of self defense (under his version they did and that alone likely would have warranted an acquittal at trial).

 

[RChildress107]

Well, my feelings don't count. The law is all that matters here....and as of now the law has determined that Brown was responsible for his own death.

If the law determines that the people looting stores, burning buildings and engaging in inciting riots are not guilty of committing any crimes, then I guess your feelings about that won't matter, either.

Whether you like it or not, we live in a nation of laws. If people don't approve of the laws they can elect representatives to change them......but until that happens, the law has to have the final say in these matters.

No it hasn't. As of now at least 4 out of 12 randomly selected St. Louisians (9 of whom were white) and 1 DA did not think there was probable cause to indict Darren Wilson for 1st degree murder. Drawing the conclusion that Brown was responsible for his own death or that "the law" has determined anything beyond what I just wrote is dishonest.

 

[RChildress107]

Well, my feelings don't count. The law is all that matters here....and as of now the law has determined that Brown was responsible for his own death.

If the law determines that the people looting stores, burning buildings and engaging in inciting riots are not guilty of committing any crimes, then I guess your feelings about that won't matter, either.

Whether you like it or not, we live in a nation of laws. If people don't approve of the laws they can elect representatives to change them......but until that happens, the law has to have the final say in these matters.

Apparently, in your world, neither does Michael Brown.

 

[PhDeac]

You'd have to go a long way back, but I believe numbers openly advocated rioting at one point. Maybe Ph too, but I'm less confident about that.

My memory could be faulty, or I could have misinterpreted, so if I'm wrong, please correct me.

This board has a search engine. You don't need to rely on memory.

 

[RChildress107]

Well, my feelings don't count. The law is all that matters here....and as of now the law has determined that Brown was responsible for his own death.

If the law determines that the people looting stores, burning buildings and engaging in inciting riots are not guilty of committing any crimes, then I guess your feelings about that won't matter, either.

Whether you like it or not, we live in a nation of laws. If people don't approve of the laws they can elect representatives to change them......but until that happens, the law has to have the final say in these matters.

So when other people tacitly condone rioting in their posts you lose respect for them, but when you tacitly suggest that Michael Brown's death wasn't unfortunate your feelings don't count?