zlacker

That still doesn't make looting self-defense.

>>efraim+(OP)
If you see the community, or the people, as a single organism. Then yes it is reacting in harmful way to an attack. And it is hard to control where the harm is directed.

>>baby+v11
You’re talking about human beings who are responsible for their own actions.

>>philwe+FC1
And yet people generalize the action of a few to the whole protest.

>>baby+ri2
Yes, especially when they say things like, "If you see the community, or the people, as a single organism..."

>>philwe+O63
it's like you're actively trying not to understand my comment?

>>baby+3I3
Not at all. If looting and vandalism is “the action of a few”, then it doesn’t make sense to characterize it as “self-defense” on behalf of some collective “organism”. It’s like you switched sides and started arguing my point in the middle of the argument.

>>baby+3I3
What is the point of your comments? You mention the community as an organism that can't control where the harm is directed, that is acting in self-defense. But the people looting, breaking windows and throwing stones are individuals that chose to participate in violent riots. They are not acting in self-defense.

>>philwe+PL3
> If looting and vandalism is “the action of a few”, then it doesn’t make sense to characterize it as “self-defense” on behalf of some collective “organism”.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree, opportunists don't exist without a crowd.

>>efraim+cU3
The point of my comment is that you will always have bad apples, doesn't make the whole field rotten.