zlacker

[parent] [thread] 7 comments
1. philwe+(OP)[view] [source] 2020-05-30 09:00:50
You’re talking about human beings who are responsible for their own actions.
replies(1): >>baby+MF
2. baby+MF[view] [source] 2020-05-30 16:24:51
>>philwe+(OP)
And yet people generalize the action of a few to the whole protest.
replies(1): >>philwe+9u1
◧◩
3. philwe+9u1[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-30 22:28:14
>>baby+MF
Yes, especially when they say things like, "If you see the community, or the people, as a single organism..."
replies(1): >>baby+o52
◧◩◪
4. baby+o52[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-31 06:29:50
>>philwe+9u1
it's like you're actively trying not to understand my comment?
replies(2): >>philwe+a92 >>efraim+xh2
◧◩◪◨
5. philwe+a92[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-31 07:32:41
>>baby+o52
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.
replies(1): >>baby+m33
◧◩◪◨
6. efraim+xh2[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-31 09:57:50
>>baby+o52
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.
replies(1): >>baby+s33
◧◩◪◨⬒
7. baby+m33[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-31 18:16:07
>>philwe+a92
> 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.

◧◩◪◨⬒
8. baby+s33[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-31 18:16:48
>>efraim+xh2
The point of my comment is that you will always have bad apples, doesn't make the whole field rotten.
[go to top]