Sola
beta
8 months
Photo #1 from Fremont, United States of America by Philo 0316 made on 2018-08-06 04:38 for Sola

What do you think? Is destruction of property ever a morally permissible form of protest?

190votes
0SOL earned
Vote
Share
Vote
Share
13
61
190
United States of America, Fremont
13 comments
Cat Woman
Oh my goodness! HI PHILO! πŸ˜ƒπŸ˜ƒπŸ˜ƒπŸ˜ƒπŸ˜ƒ
1
Philo 0316Author
Hi to you too! Glad to see you
1
Cat Woman
Philo 0316, are you back forever??
Philo 0316Author
Cat Woman, probably never gonna be as active as I was before, but I guess I'm back?
3
never
So long as it's ok to react as the British did, I guess it's a valid option. When people want to destroy, but don't think anyone should shoot them, they have made an error in judgement.
Philo 0316Author
Well, do you think the British were justified in attacking US over property damage? I'd like to focus on the actions of people doing property damage, not the actions of people owning property, but if you think the latter is important in determining the former, please elaborate.
never
Philo 0316, I think that the Boston tea party was not a publicity stunt staged by attention starved children still living off their capitalist parents. They were not looking to destroy the property of random colonists, and they did not expect to be protected from consequence by the British. To compare the two events is awkward at best. These guys don't even put forward a believable cosplay. If you know any, have a beer with one and just listen.. Just one. Not more than one at a time. Listen to their goals. Then ask very basic questions. Easy ones. Count how many seconds before a wingman is called in or the conversation is ended in a huff. As far as attacking over property damage, that's what keeps most of the small group of people that don't have any ethical problems with it from doing it.
Philo 0316Author
never, is your point that the goal is the important distinction here? You're writing a lot but not really explaining your views well. Things like having "wingmen" or wanting protection seem morally irrelevant. People who get help aren't any more evil than people who don't.
never
Philo 0316, my position is that people who expect no consequences for their actions don't really need a lot of commitment, do they?
Philo 0316Author
never, that seems unrelated to what I asked, unless you're claiming that expecting resistance somehow makes one more moral.
never
Philo 0316, I'm claiming that they are a sad cosplay of men and they don't even know what their cause is. They destroy the property of random fellow citizens like they were storming Berlin, always with the three assurance that they will be protected by the same people they are trying to hurt. That is not protest. That is vandalism..
never
Deleted by comment owner
Write something...
Send