Anti-War Protests Have Big Price Tags

[WyldOne]

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

.....?.... Help me connect the dots, please.

Your willingness to inconvenience others just because you have something to say is ANYTHING BUT civil.

That's nice, but the tactic is referred to as civil disobedience.

And, as I've said before, I approve of police using all the force allowed by law to remove you.

That's fine. If I break the law, I fully expect to pay the consequences.

It isn't your message that I disagree with, but your tactics, which betray a belief that you are superior to those trying to go about their lives. We poor benighted members of the proletariat just don't know what is good for us.

You don't even know what my message is/was. And when did I ever say anything about me being superior?? You....do realize that I work a 9-5, correct?

Cheap shot. An attempt to to "poison the well" to deflect the opposition.

Call it what you wish, but it is my view of the level of responses here.

Nothing quite so offensive to the sensibilities of people as an attempt by the self-important to foist themselves and their beliefs upon others.

Please explain, using examples.

And take your toys with you.

Oh, I'm not going anywhere.

You need to earn respect.

As do you. In this entire thread, I have made one insult that I'm aware of, and I'm not proud of it. Yet I am being called childish, immature, elitist, etc.

Please tell me what of my behavior needs to change, in order to earn respect? I could sure tell a bunch of posters here what part of their behavior needs to change in order to earn my respect.

You have more than adequately shown that you don't have respect for others, through your hinderance of their movements.

And how have I shown this? Through my behvavior, or through a chosen protest tactic?

I can't see why you think that you a deserving of respect when you don't give it; your attitude belies a sense of superiority and entitlement.

I have posed questions to all of these points previously in this post. I am awaiting examples of my treating others with disrespect, acting superior, and acting entitled.

I, for my part, won't tender you any more than simple politeness and a refrain from ad hominem.

A simple politeness is all that I ask; yet some people here cannot even muster that.

Oh, please!

We're just a bunch of ignorant rednecks who need a morally superior member of the educated class to disabuse us of our prejudices, misconceptions, and superstitions, eh?

Another subtle cheap shot by you.

That is NOT what I meant, Sir. What I meant was, judging from the level of responses, intelligent discourse is impossible here. Otherwise, we could be neck-deep in a discussion about various protest techniques, and their pro's and con's. But no, people instead have chosen to just call me names. So be it; but don't blame me if I react to that behavior by assuming that the posters are not capable of having a thoughtful discussion.

No thanks. I won't be visiting, as it'd only feed your ego gratification and give you another chance to talk down to us, only by YOUR rules.

That's fine, that comment wasn't directed toward you. It was directed toward someone who had indicated interest. If you don't come, I really don't care.

Sounds like double-talk for "those who agree with me and kiss my a**."

Not it at all, actually. Nice assumption though. Actually, at my site, I am in the minority. Most people there disagree with me. But they do so without resorting to name calling.

You can keep your smarmy sycophants. Only fifty-some have signed up.

Smarmy sycophants? LOL, that majority of the posters at my site are posters here.

 

[DeltaElite]

WyldOne,
So you are saying that there are limits on free speech?
Such as not being able to block a roadway?
How about not having to tolerate rudeness in your own home, business or message board?
All are valid limits on free speech, because they both infringe the freedoms of others.

You claim to respect my message, but not how I have delivered it in this thread. Fair enough.
I respect everyones right to protest, within the rules of law and without oppressing others.
Sounds like we actually agree on something.

You have attempted to divert the issues and insult us "dumb ole redneck gunowners", but I see through all the "higher education" gibberish.

Ise gots an edumacashion two.

I just chose to overcome my college education and learn to think for myself. Instead of parroting professors who have never lived a day in the real world, most of whom are hiding in the academic world to avoid getting a real job.

This conversation is starting to get really dull.
BTW, get back to work, quit wasting taxpayer dollars by messing around on the internet.

 

[Oleg Volk]

I will be back to re-read this thread tonight...hint, hint. Thank you.

 

[DeltaElite]

Shhhhhh, Dads looking into the room.

 

[Oleg Volk]

Bickering with your allies is easy, they are right next to you. Taking the fight to the enemy is harder, as evidenced by the scarcity of posts in the floated "time to act" thread.

Playing Dad...no thank you. Can't pay me enough to do that for chronologically adult people.

 

[Sven]

I'm shocked at the behavior demonstrated in this thread. Absolutely floored.

 

[WyldOne]

So you are saying that there are limits on free speech?

I waffle back and forth on this. I used to be a free speech absolutist, but lately I'm beginning to see useful limits on free speech (the whole "fire" in a crowded theater). My concern, however, is who determines what those limits are? When do "limits" become censorship?

Such as not being able to block a roadway?

I said that I've done it before and I'd do it again. I never said everyone has to agree with me or my tactics.

How about not having to tolerate rudeness in your own home, business or message board?

Home and (definitely ) messageboard, yeah. Business, I'm not sure of, because even if it is privately owned, it is still open to the public. So I don't know.

All are valid limits on free speech, because they both infringe the freedoms of others.

Yeah, I know. Can I be in-between on this?

You claim to respect my message, but not how I have delivered it in this thread. Fair enough.
I respect everyones right to protest, within the rules of law and without oppressing others.
Sounds like we actually agree on something.

Sounds like we do.

You have attempted to divert the issues and insult us "dumb ole redneck gunowners", but I see through all the "higher education" gibberish.

I have? I didn't realize that. You know that I'm a RKBA supporter, right? And, knowing that myself and other friends that I have met are, in fact, NOT "dumb ole redneck gunowners", I don't understand why I would believe in that stereotype? Especially when that's exactly the stereotype that I wish to break.

And...What "higher education" gibberish?

Ise gots an edumacashion two.

Um...congratulations?

I just chose to overcome my college education and learn to think for myself. Instead of parroting professors who have never lived a day in the real world, most of whom are hiding in the academic world to avoid getting a real job.

Okay......

This conversation is starting to get really dull.

No kidding.

BTW, get back to work, quit wasting taxpayer dollars by messing
around on the internet.

I don't get paid by taxpayers

BUT, I do have to get back to work!!

 

[CZ-75]

.....?.... Help me connect the dots, please.

I put this simply, then. Just because you don't see the "right to travel freely" listed, doesn't mean we don't have it. Same with "the right to earn a living." Ditto for "the right to eat."

You don't even know what my message is/was. And when did I ever say anything about me being superior?? You....do realize that I work a 9-5, correct?

Nor do I care. The simple fact that you are willing to inconvenience others so that YOU may make a point, says everything I need to know.

Please explain, using examples.

Um, sitting in the middle of the road when people are trying to get somewhere, like a job?

As I said before, the fact that you place yourself above others. That is not the full extent of it though. That would merely be an ego problem.

The real point is that you place yourself above others enough to purposefully inconvenience them. Such as keeping people from earning a living by sitting in the street.

That doesn't even take into account the possibility that you are keeping emergency vehicles from getting to their destinations.

Sheer arrogance.

As do you. In this entire thread, I have made one insult that I'm aware of, and I'm not proud of it. Yet I am being called childish, immature, elitist, etc.

Please tell me what of my behavior needs to change, in order to earn respect? I could sure tell a bunch of posters here what part of their behavior needs to change in order to earn my respect.

The fact that you are arrogant enough to try to bend others to your message by infringing upon their rights is the part of your behavior that needs to change. Your justifications ARE childish and elitist.

You have NO right to impose your will upon me.

I haven't gone about trying to impose my will on others. Hence, I'm more deserving of respect than you are until you change your sentiments and tack.

And how have I shown this? Through my behvavior, or through a chosen protest tactic?

Are the two distinguishable? Your protest tactic IS your behavior.

It shows that you believe what you have to say is more important than the rights of others.

I have posed questions to all of these points previously in this post. I am awaiting examples of my treating others with disrespect, acting superior, and acting entitled.

Hopefully, you aren't so obtuse that you don't get it by now.

Placing your right to speak out before others rights is the ne plus ultra of examples.

That is NOT what I meant, Sir. What I meant was, judging from the level of responses , intelligent discourse is impossible here. Otherwise, we could be neck-deep in a discussion about various protest techniques, and their pro's and con's. But no, people instead have chosen to just call me names. So be it; but don't blame me if I react to that behavior by assuming that the posters are not capable of having a thoughtful discussion.

How is it possible to have an intelligent conversation with someone who believes their rights supercede those of others?

The failing lies with you.

I don't care to discuss ANY protest tactic that involves infringing upon the rights of others.

Name-calling is juvenille, but so is believing the world revolves around you and your viewpoint. I can EASILY see why you've so offended everyone.

I'm shocked at the behavior demonstrated in this thread. Absolutely floored.

Your sensibilites seem quite delicate, then.

I'm absolutely floored that someone could espouse their right to "free speech" to the extent that they act to the detriment of others rights.

 

[Master Blaster]

Some protesters are promising to chain themselves to fences at schools and day care centers so working parents will have to stay home from their jobs.

Folks are free to stand next to the daycare center and protest all they like. I may not agree with what they say but I would defend their right to say it.

Unpopular speech is the speech most in need of constitutional protection.

But if you get between me and my children and you interfere with my right to excersize life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, think about what a mama grizzly bear will do if you get between her and her cubs.

I have two little ones in daycare and I have to feed them, clothe them, shelter them and PROTECT them above anything else I do.

I support your right to protest even though I may not agree with what you are protesting.

BUT when you infringe upon my rights or threaten my safety or that of my children you will be in deep doo doo.

I dont think I will find Wyld ONE at my daycare center making threats.

But if she does or any other anarchist / protestor does, the police will no doubt remove them. At least I hope so for their safety as well as my own.



Thats my rant.

 

[DeltaElite]

Maybe we should retitle this thread. "I can't see the forest, because of all these dang trees."

Frankly, this thread has been rather tame, maybe not within "The High Roads" standards, but some people are openly discussing their criminal activities, disguised under the term "civil disobedience". I find that very distasteful and not worthy of "High Road" status.

So let me get this straight, name calling is bad, but board members proudly telling of their criminal acivities and stating they would do it again, is not.
Honestly, I am just mentioning this to point out that both activities are wrong, but only one is promoting criminal activity.

 

[Oleg Volk]

FWIW, my comment was addressed to several participants of this thread.

 

[ahenry]

You need to earn respect.

I disagree. Either you choose to act gentlemanly (or ladylike) regardless of the other persons actions or you don’t. Myself, I choose to act as gentlemanly as possible and provide the rope for the other person to cling to or hang themselves with.


BTW, regarding civil disobedience:
Civil disobedience is still disobedience and should still hold the appropriate consequences. It’s intent is not to break the law to inconvenience others but rather to demonstrate the absurdity (or immorality) of the law by forcing the law abiding to obey an unjust law. Civil disobedience is not blocking streets; it is a black person drinking from a white person water fountain. It is not sitting in the middle of a busy street blocking traffic; it is a black person sitting in the middle of a bus amongst the white people. Don’t mistake civil disobedience to be any form of disobedience but rather specific applications of disobedience thereby bringing the contested law to the forefront of social consciousness.

 

[CZ-75]

I agree w/ ahenry's assessment of civil disobedience.

Ghandi, the supreme practitioner thereof, never did anything to force his message down the throats of his fellow citizens/subjects.

Burning passbooks was an affront to silly regulation and govt. institutions, as were his general strikes, and his circumvention of the laws on making salt.

I disagree. Either you choose to act gentlemanly (or ladylike) regardless of the other persons actions or you don?t. Myself, I choose to act as gentlemanly as possible and provide the rope for the other person to cling to or hang themselves with.

A better choice of phrasing would've been, for my part, that you can, through your actions, lose your respect among others. The converse is also true.

 

[WyldOne]

I put this simply, then. Just because you don't see the "right to travel freely" listed, doesn't mean we don't have it. Same with "the right to earn a living." Ditto for "the right to eat."

Okay, because I've used kinda the same argument to say that education and healthcare are basic human rights. But everytime I use this argument, I get shot down (NOT to indicate that I think that everyone who "shoots" is against education and healthcare!!!).

Nor do I care. The simple fact that you are willing to inconvenience others so that YOU may make a point, says everything I need to know.

Okay.

As I said before, the fact that you place yourself above others. That is not the full extent of it though. That would merely be an ego problem.

Well, I don't see it as placing "myself" above others. I see it as forcing the issue into public view, in a manner that cannot be ignored.

That doesn't even take into account the possibility that you are keeping emergency vehicles from getting to their destinations.

That's a good point.

Your justifications ARE childish and elitist.

I haven't really made any justifications.

I haven't gone about trying to impose my will on others. Hence, I'm more deserving of respect than you are until you change your sentiments and tack.

Sorry, I disagree. Just because you dislike my chosen protest tactic, does not mean that you are justified to treat me as any lesser of a participant in these forums.

Are the two distinguishable? Your protest tactic IS your behavior.

It shows that you believe what you have to say is more important than the rights of others.

Yes, they are distinguishable. You say that blocking traffic is, say, childish. Have I acted childish in this thread? I treat people with respect; that is how I behave. My protest tactic is inconvenient, yes. That doesn't mean that I behave immaturely.

How is it possible to have an intelligent conversation with someone who believes their rights supercede those of others?

It is quite possible, as I and others somehow manage to do it every single day. Perhaps if we lay down judgements, and simply say: I disagree with your tactic; here is why, that would probably lead to an intelligent conversation. I'm quite open to constructive criticism.

Name-calling is juvenille, but so is believing the world revolves around you and your viewpoint. I can EASILY see why you've so offended everyone.

I've offended everyone? By simply revealing that I have participated in blocking traffic? Wow.

I thought I was among friends. Shall we all just remain strangers, then?

I dont think I will find Wyld ONE at my daycare center making threats.

Nopers.

But if she does or any other anarchist / protestor does, the police will no doubt remove them. At least I hope so for their safety as well as my own.

Well...I'm not an anarchist though, but I got ya.

ahenry
Senior Member

Civil disobedience is not blocking streets; it is a black person drinking from a white person water fountain. It is not sitting in the middle of a busy street blocking traffic; it is a black person sitting in the middle of a bus amongst the white people. Don’t mistake civil disobedience to be any form of disobedience but rather specific applications of disobedience thereby bringing the contested law to the forefront of social consciousness.

Hmmm.

I thought civil disobedience, was disobedience done in a civil manner (ie, not vandalizing or destroying property, which I do NOT do)?

 

[CZ-75]

Okay, because I've used kinda the same argument to say that education and healthcare are basic human rights. But everytime I use this argument, I get shot down (NOT to indicate that I think that everyone who "shoots" is against education and healthcare!!!).

Problem is, you expect someone else to pay for these "rights."

If you wish to couch these rights in the terms of "no one should be denied access to education or healthcare because of membership in some group," such as being black, a woman, elderly, etc., then I'd agree with you. You don't have right to my pocketbook to provide for your rights. I won't give up my income so that you can speak out or so that you may go to school or a doctor, though I'm somewhat ambivalent on education.

Sorry, I disagree. Just because you dislike my chosen protest tactic, does not mean that you are justified to treat me as any lesser of a participant in these forums.

Your chosen protest tactic shows a disrespect for everyone else. I WILL treat anyone who is disrespectful towards me or others with the lesser amount of respect that they've engendered.

BTW, your statement is indicative of the elitism and entitlement mentalities I've accused you of previously. You believe that you are entitled to be treated with a full measure of respect while treating others as if they were hired help. Works both ways.

 

[B9mmHP]

WildOne, I`m not sure I can be more clear on what my first reply was, but I will try.

Your first reply was. Many groups can get stuff donated.

I assumed you were talking about the Commie groups bankrolling the protestors.

Next you agreed to free speach and expressing a political opinion.
Well I agree with you on that. I will now try to explain what I wrote in my first reply that you were confused over.

I was sugesting that free speach would be stuffing the donated stuff up the rectum (rectum is where the sun dont shine) of blithering idiot protestors, and expressed that would be a political opinion.

I hope you get it this time, but even if you do I still think you are



If this reply doesn`t meet with your idea of a well- thought- reply, I guess I could try again.

PS: The rectum is the part of a human, that speach origniates in, from liberal socialists.

 

[WyldOne]

I WILL treat anyone who is disrespectful towards me or others with the lesser amount of respect that they've engendered.

And WHEN have I been disrespectul towards you?

BTW, your statement is indicative of the elitism and entitlement mentalities I've accused you of previously. You believe that you are entitled to be treated with a full measure of respect while treating others as if they were hired help. Works both ways.

My statement was that just because you disagree with a protest tactic that I have used, is not an excuse to treat me with disrespect. Where is the elitism in that? Where is the entitlement in that?

And who on EARTH am I treating "as if they were the hired help"???

I feel like I'm the frickin' enemy here, when I'm actually not the enemy.

ETA:

BP:

Your first reply was. Many groups can get stuff donated.

I assumed you were talking about the Commie groups bankrolling the protestors.

Okay, no. I don't know what "Commie groups" do. But, almost any nonprofit organization can ask supermarkets, stores, and whatever else they need to donate food, or art supplies, or sound equipment, or whatever.

Next you agreed to free speach and expressing a political opinion.

Yes.

I was sugesting that free speach would be stuffing the donated stuff up the rectum (rectum is where the sun dont shine) of blithering idiot protestors, and expressed that would be a political opinion.

So, free speach [sic] is putting food, art supplies, and sound equipment in someone's butt? Please explain how this qualifies, I see it as an act of violence.

Would you be saying anything political while you did this? Or would it just be an arbitrary act of aggression?

 

[CZ-75]

And WHEN have I been disrespectul towards you?

"Your chosen protest tactic shows a disrespect for everyone else."

You've been disrespectful to just about everyone, even if they don't live near you, because you don't care about their rights when you choose to exercise yours.

And who on EARTH am I treating "as if they were the hired help"???

The people, about whom you care so little, that you'd impose your "freedom of speech" upon them, even if it cost them their wages (or their lives, should they be in an ambulance that couldn't get through).

The same people, I might add, that you'd screw over again with another sit-down protest right in the middle of the street, as you've said previously. Sentiment or action are the same to me in this case.

My statement was that just because you disagree with a protest tactic that I have used, is not an excuse to treat me with disrespect. Where is the elitism in that? Where is the entitlement in that?

You have avowed use of a tactic that causes harm to others. These others could include me. I don't take being crapped upon lightly; I don't like to watch others receive the same. Neither do I get warm fuzzies for someone who unrepentently espouses doing it again.

I feel like I'm the frickin' enemy here, when I'm actually not the enemy.

You're as much the enemy as anyone else who wishes to impose their views upon others.

Dianne Feinstein is my Enemy because she'd deprive me of my RKBA.

So would you be should you cost me my pay so you could sit in the street.

I don't have much respect for someone who screws other people over so they can get what they want, be it their message heard or cold hard cash.

 

[ahenry]

I thought civil disobedience, was disobedience done in a civil manner (ie, not vandalizing or destroying property, which I do NOT do)?

I suppose it is your prerogative to believe that civil disobedience is whatever you want it to be. After all, you alone suffer the consequences of your actions (at least for the most part). However, do not expect others to remain sympathetic to your cause, when you lash out at the general population through your chosen means of protest. I will reiterate, the primary purpose of civil disobedience is not to alienate others, but rather to bring a particular unjust law to the forefront of discussion by forcing the law abiding to choice between abiding by an immoral or unjust law or breaking it themselves.

 

[B9mmHP]

WyldOne???

You don`t seem to get it
My first reply was ment as humor, just to add a little laugh.

Yes it would be sic to stuff sound equipment in that brown spot, that would alow a louder voice from the source of there speach. Just more humor

But Don`t let my(sic) humor fool you. I will not tolerate any blithering idiots screwing with my rights of free passage on a public road or anyother of my freedoms