Protestors Being A Public Nuisance Discussion

[Ifreann]

What part of my post confused you?

Uh.. Alot of it? I never heard of that happening,

I was referring to a post in this thread.

I didn't really pay much attention to BLM but after they cracked my Land Rover's windshield and some dipshit shot two of his fellow protestors while trying to shoot someone else for not respecting their checkpoint on the interstate by my apartment, I kept that in mind when I donated a few grand to Kyle Rittenhouse's legal fund even while I legitimately do think that American police culture is in dire need of reform

and even if it is, why would people who suffer property damage just... let it happen?

What does that have to do with anything?

I'd be pretty angry at the (insert political group or specific person) who've desecrated my property, especially farmland or small business.
Do you think everyone who owns property is right wing?

Obviously not.

[Portzania]

and even if it is, why would people who suffer property damage just... let it happen?

What does that have to do with anything?

The reason he donated to the legal fund is because he was angry at the protestors for destroying his property?

[Ifreann]

The reason he donated to the legal fund is because he was angry at the protestors for destroying his property?

Are you trying to make a point or are you just confused again?

[Portzania]

The reason he donated to the legal fund is because he was angry at the protestors for destroying his property?

Are you trying to make a point or are you just confused again?

Don't even know what I'm even arguing anymore at this point, respectfully I think I'll step out the thread.

[Huffmania]

Freedom of assembly, be mad about it all you want, it’s their right and I support them, because I don’t want the earth to go up in smoke. Also to compare climate activism (a largely scientific movement) to anti-vaxxers (a largely pseudo-scientific movement) is just not the comparison you think it is

[Australian rePublic]

https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/11bqq7f/senator_lidia_thorpe_clashes_with_police_at_mardi/

Well here we have a protestor disrupting a pro-LGBTQI+ parade. Considering how much you seem to love protestors disrupting things and hate parades, I guess this should make you happy

What I like here is that just a bit up-thread, you were arguing that it's totally different for police to block streets and be a public nuisance than for protesters to do it. So you already justify some disruptions to public life based on why they're being done. So you would have absolutely no grounds for calling anyone a hypocrite if they thought that trying to disrupt a Mardi Gras parade was stupid. In fact, you would be a hypocrite if you insisted that we must either support all disruptive protesters or none while you do not hold the same absolutist stance about public disruptions.

I don't support Lidia Thorpe's disruption of the Mardi Gras parade and never claimed to. I've always thought that Lidia Thorpe was a nut, even before this. Lidia Thorpe is just an other far left nut job. I just find it ironic now that a left-winger has disrupted a left-winged causing the apologists who think that the left can do no wrong to see which cause they will stand behind. Lidia Thorpe is a nut and I do not support her

Freedom of assembly, be mad about it all you want, it’s their right and I support them, because I don’t want the earth to go up in smoke. Also to compare climate activism (a largely scientific movement) to anti-vaxxers (a largely pseudo-scientific movement) is just not the comparison you think it is

Again, you are not the arbitor of what is and is not a good cause and claiming to be makes you seem less sympathetic to protesting as a concept. You can't claim to be pro-protest when you support protestors who are fighting for causes you like and hate protestors fighting for causes you hate. If you're truely pro-protest, you'd support people's rights to protests all causes, whether or not you agree with them. I'm not comparing climate protestors to anti-vaxxers, I'm merely comparing their actions. I support their right to protest, but not their right to be a public nuisance, irrespective of my opinion of their cause

[Australian rePublic]

If they block a road I'm driving down or trap me in place, they're more likely to piss me off even if I agree with their point.

Is it important for any of these causes that you think positively about them?

Um, yes, drawing people to your cause is part of the purpose of a protest

If you support these protestors in their efforts to be a public nuisance, then that must also mean that you should support anti-vaxxers who do the same crap. If you support climate protestors but not anti-vaxxers (a position which I know applies to some NSers), then you are a hypocrite as you are not the arbiter of what is and is not a good cause.

This makes no sense. It's like saying that if you agree with someone writing an article about climate change then you should also agree with someone writing an article about vaccines.

No. I agree that someone should have THE RIGHT to write an article about climate change, and I agree that someone should have THE RIGHT to write an article about vaccines. You have the right to write an article. Whether or not I agree with what the article says has very little to do with whether or not you have the right to write it. I can disagree with you but still believe that you have the ability to spread your message and to a degree, you do too. After all, that's how the entirety of NSG functions. It's when your right to express an opinion turn you into a public nuisance when I start having issue with it

[Khardsland]

The corporations and their puppet, the government, have committed unbelievable amounts of violence against people. Everything ranging from denying basic life services, rights, natives their lands and even more that is hidden from us. If they are able to commit such incomprehensible amounts of violence against the people, a tiny protest is nothing compared to it. True revolution needs to be violent, waiting for reform has never worked after all. And yes, I do support those climate protestors who were brave enough to sacrifice their own lives for the planet. And no, I don't care if you couldn't attend your little Timmy's football match because a group of people thought that not murdering people is not cool. Compare the Vietnam war protests (where protestors literally set buildings on fire) to the Iraq war protests (where the most violent thing the protestors did was protest behind an abandoned Blockbuster). If the state can commit violence, its actions should be responded to with similar amounts. Never let the ones with a monopoly on violence define it.

[Australian rePublic]

The corporations and their puppet, the government, have committed unbelievable amounts of violence against people. Everything ranging from denying basic life services, rights, natives their lands and even more that is hidden from us. If they are able to commit such incomprehensible amounts of violence against the people, a tiny protest is nothing compared to it. True revolution needs to be violent, waiting for reform has never worked after all. And yes, I do support those climate protestors who were brave enough to sacrifice their own lives for the planet. And no, I don't care if you couldn't attend your little Timmy's football match because a group of people thought that not murdering people is not cool. Compare the Vietnam war protests (where protestors literally set buildings on fire) to the Iraq war protests (where the most violent thing the protestors did was protest behind an abandoned Blockbuster). If the state can commit violence, its actions should be responded to with similar amounts. Never let the ones with a monopoly on violence define it.

And what did setting things on fire achieve? Setting things on fire to oppose war is LITERALLY fighting fire with fire. But let's call your bluff. People are fighting for their right to survive. Fine. What about anti-vaxxers who are also fighting for their right to not be killed by government. They're incorrect, but they're fighting for the same cause that you claim to support- the right to survive, albeit being incorrect

[Khardsland]

The corporations and their puppet, the government, have committed unbelievable amounts of violence against people. Everything ranging from denying basic life services, rights, natives their lands and even more that is hidden from us. If they are able to commit such incomprehensible amounts of violence against the people, a tiny protest is nothing compared to it. True revolution needs to be violent, waiting for reform has never worked after all. And yes, I do support those climate protestors who were brave enough to sacrifice their own lives for the planet. And no, I don't care if you couldn't attend your little Timmy's football match because a group of people thought that not murdering people is not cool. Compare the Vietnam war protests (where protestors literally set buildings on fire) to the Iraq war protests (where the most violent thing the protestors did was protest behind an abandoned Blockbuster). If the state can commit violence, its actions should be responded to with similar amounts. Never let the ones with a monopoly on violence define it.

And what did setting things on fire achieve? Setting things on fire to oppose war is LITERALLY fighting fire with fire. But let's call your bluff. People are fighting for their right to survive. Fine. What about anti-vaxxers who are also fighting for their right to not be killed by government. They're incorrect, but they're fighting for the same cause that you claim to support- the right to survive, albeit being incorrect

As I said, peaceful protests are about as good as no protest. If a protest isn't gonna be violent, it won't get anything done. That is why BLM died quickly and Iraq suffered. The right to peaceful protest wasn't earned peacefully. Another thing to note is the definition of violent. Protesting outside of a judge's home isn't as violent as say intentionally destroying property knowing full well it won't do anything. As for the anti-vaxxers, they have their right to die from smallpox if they want. It's not like they will be strong enough to go outside and disrupt public order with how weak their immune system.

[Australian rePublic]

And what did setting things on fire achieve? Setting things on fire to oppose war is LITERALLY fighting fire with fire. But let's call your bluff. People are fighting for their right to survive. Fine. What about anti-vaxxers who are also fighting for their right to not be killed by government. They're incorrect, but they're fighting for the same cause that you claim to support- the right to survive, albeit being incorrect

As I said, peaceful protests are about as good as no protest. If a protest isn't gonna be violent, it won't get anything done. That is why BLM died quickly and Iraq suffered. The right to peaceful protest wasn't earned peacefully. Another thing to note is the definition of violent. Protesting outside of a judge's home isn't as violent as say intentionally destroying property knowing full well it won't do anything. As for the anti-vaxxers, they have their right to die from smallpox if they want. It's not like they will be strong enough to go outside and disrupt public order with how weak their immune system.

What are you talking about? BLM was extremely violent. Remember CHAZ? Looting? Rioting? All that horrible shit? Do you also the January 6 protestors who are fighting for their right to have Donald Trump as president of the USA? I mean, if you support BLM's right to destroy random people's properties, surely you support the right of the Jan 6 protestors to destroy the property of the people who are actually responsible? I mean, say what you want about the cause of the Jan 6 protestors, at least they actually attacked the people who were responsible and didn't go after innocent, uninvolved people. Surely you must support the Jan 6 protestors' right to protest, don't you? I mean, if someone has your full support when they damage an innocent person's property, surely you would support them for destroying the property of those who are actually perceived to be responsible

[The Aituia]

Blocking any only way of transportation is unnecessary. Why aren't stunts these days the good that they used to be? Why not just campaign it in television but not too widespread like political advertisements. I honestly don't accept these types of protests, or any of 21st century protests.

[The Aituia]

As I said, peaceful protests are about as good as no protest. If a protest isn't gonna be violent, it won't get anything done. That is why BLM died quickly and Iraq suffered. The right to peaceful protest wasn't earned peacefully. Another thing to note is the definition of violent. Protesting outside of a judge's home isn't as violent as say intentionally destroying property knowing full well it won't do anything. As for the anti-vaxxers, they have their right to die from smallpox if they want. It's not like they will be strong enough to go outside and disrupt public order with how weak their immune system.

What are you talking about? BLM was extremely violent. Remember CHAZ? Looting? Rioting? All that horrible shit? Do you also the January 6 protestors who are fighting for their right to have Donald Trump as president of the USA? I mean, if you support BLM's right to destroy random people's properties, surely you support the right of the Jan 6 protestors to destroy the property of the people who are actually responsible? I mean, say what you want about the cause of the Jan 6 protestors, at least they actually attacked the people who were responsible and didn't go after innocent, uninvolved people. Surely you must support the Jan 6 protestors' right to protest, don't you? I mean, if someone has your full support when they damage an innocent person's property, surely you would support them for destroying the property of those who are actually perceived to be responsible

There really is just a way to racism, and we just don't know it. We just need to stop making that word ever relevant, and not letting it getting used in that racist sense.
Edited to clarify: I almost forgot to add 3 words, underlined now just to let you know.

[El Lazaro]

And what did setting things on fire achieve? Setting things on fire to oppose war is LITERALLY fighting fire with fire. But let's call your bluff. People are fighting for their right to survive. Fine. What about anti-vaxxers who are also fighting for their right to not be killed by government. They're incorrect, but they're fighting for the same cause that you claim to support- the right to survive, albeit being incorrect

As I said, peaceful protests are about as good as no protest. If a protest isn't gonna be violent, it won't get anything done. That is why BLM died quickly and Iraq suffered. The right to peaceful protest wasn't earned peacefully. Another thing to note is the definition of violent. Protesting outside of a judge's home isn't as violent as say intentionally destroying property knowing full well it won't do anything. As for the anti-vaxxers, they have their right to die from smallpox if they want. It's not like they will be strong enough to go outside and disrupt public order with how weak their immune system.

Killing black people = bad
Having democratic elections = good

Hope that cleared things up for you

[Ifreann]

What I like here is that just a bit up-thread, you were arguing that it's totally different for police to block streets and be a public nuisance than for protesters to do it. So you already justify some disruptions to public life based on why they're being done. So you would have absolutely no grounds for calling anyone a hypocrite if they thought that trying to disrupt a Mardi Gras parade was stupid. In fact, you would be a hypocrite if you insisted that we must either support all disruptive protesters or none while you do not hold the same absolutist stance about public disruptions.

I don't support Lidia Thorpe's disruption of the Mardi Gras parade and never claimed to. I've always thought that Lidia Thorpe was a nut, even before this. Lidia Thorpe is just an other far left nut job. I just find it ironic now that a left-winger has disrupted a left-winged causing the apologists who think that the left can do no wrong to see which cause they will stand behind. Lidia Thorpe is a nut and I do not support her

But you do think it's fine for the police to block streets, you said as much in an earlier post. So you would have no grounds to call anyone a hypocrite for thinking that some disruptions to public life are okay but not others.

---

Is it important for any of these causes that you think positively about them?

Um, yes, drawing people to your cause is part of the purpose of a protest

Not every protest is trying to win the support of every member of the public.

[Khardsland]

What are you talking about? BLM was extremely violent.

Bro, what in heaven's vault are you talking about? We literally have evidence to prove your claim false. Even Harvard says the same.

Remember CHAZ?

From all info I could find, SPD security forces were being the violent ones, not the protestors. In fact, one of the shootings was confirmed to not even be related to the protests.

Looting? Rioting? All that horrible shit?

Last I checked, the Proud Boys and Jake Paul didn't support Black Lives Matter.

I mean, if you support BLM's right to destroy random people's properties, surely you support the right of the Jan 6 protestors to destroy the property of the people who are actually responsible? I mean, say what you want about the cause of the Jan 6 protestors, at least they actually attacked the people who were responsible and didn't go after innocent, uninvolved people. Surely you must support the Jan 6 protestors' right to protest, don't you? I mean, if someone has your full support when they damage an innocent person's property, surely you would support them for destroying the property of those who are actually perceived to be responsible

Black Lives Matter was revived after a black man was killed for a crime he didn't commit. 6/1 was caused by a president you thought that the liberal elite lizard people control the world (he is partially right except for the liberal part, American politics is only ultraconservative and ultraconservative but with rainbows and weed). As for the property damage part, the property damaged during the Black Lives Matter protests came from people who opposed it. In fact, even in cases where BLM members did go crazy, the owners didn't suddenly become white supremacists.

Another thing I see from your posts is how you shorten Black Lives Matter to just BLM. Why are you so pissed with the Bureau of Land Management? What wrong did they do? Also, funny that you say Jan 6 fully instead of 6/1 (or 1/6 if you aren't an American). Secret sympathy much? Finally, I find it quite funny that you associate not wanting the earth to be set on fire with some parents thinking vaccines cause autism (even though 789456846721 studies have been made proving them otherwise). I detect a little false correlation.

[Australian rePublic]

As I said, peaceful protests are about as good as no protest. If a protest isn't gonna be violent, it won't get anything done. That is why BLM died quickly and Iraq suffered. The right to peaceful protest wasn't earned peacefully. Another thing to note is the definition of violent. Protesting outside of a judge's home isn't as violent as say intentionally destroying property knowing full well it won't do anything. As for the anti-vaxxers, they have their right to die from smallpox if they want. It's not like they will be strong enough to go outside and disrupt public order with how weak their immune system.

Killing black people = bad
Having democratic elections = good

Hope that cleared things up for you

Missed my fucking point about you not being the arbiter of what is and good is a good cause. By The Way, the 6 Jan protestors THOUGHT that they were protecting democratic elections. They are very, very wrong, but they thought it nonetheless

Bro, what in heaven's vault are you talking about? We literally have evidence to prove your claim false. Even Harvard says the same.


From all info I could find, SPD security forces were being the violent ones, not the protestors. In fact, one of the shootings was confirmed to not even be related to the protests.

Fine

Last I checked, the Proud Boys and Jake Paul didn't support Black Lives Matter.

Right, because as a non-American, it's my duty to have an encyclopaedic knowledge of every protest which has happened in the USA since the country's inception

Black Lives Matter was revived after a black man was killed for a crime he didn't commit. 6/1 was caused by a president you thought that the liberal elite lizard people control the world (he is partially right except for the liberal part, American politics is only ultraconservative and ultraconservative but with rainbows and weed).

So, no matter how stupid they are, they were still fighting for something genuine. I mean, don't get me wrong, they are complete idiots, but my point still stands. So by your logic, if the prime minister passes a law that we both oppose, I am justified in smashing YOUR window as a form of protest, where as if the prime minister passes a law that I oppose but you support, it's NOT justifiable for me to smash HIS window. The only difference here is your opinion on the matter. (For any idiot reading this thinking that I am advocating for violence, I am NOT advocating for violence, I abhor this kind of violence, I am merely using hypothetical examples)

As for the property damage part, the property damaged during the Black Lives Matter protests came from people who opposed it. In fact, even in cases where BLM members did go crazy, the owners didn't suddenly become white supremacists.

[/quote]
That is the worst justification I have ever heard for violence

Another thing I see from your posts is how you shorten Black Lives Matter to just BLM. Why are you so pissed with the Bureau of Land Management? What wrong did they do? Also, funny that you say Jan 6 fully instead of 6/1 (or 1/6 if you aren't an American). Secret sympathy much?'

Or maybe, and I know this sounds crazy, but maybe, just maybe, I am not privy to the intricate details of the semantics relating to an event that happened half around the world and had no impact on my life nor my country whatsoever. Like, I know it's a stretch, but you know, maybe it's possible

Finally, I find it quite funny that you associate not wanting the earth to be set on fire with some parents thinking vaccines cause autism (even though 789456846721 studies have been made proving them otherwise). I detect a little false correlation.

No, I am not comparing anti-vaxxers to climate change activists. Anti-Vax is one of the dumbest movements out there. I don't know many people who are much stupider than anti-vaxxers, you really can't get stupider than that. However, that's not the fucking point. My point is that you are not the arbiter of what is and isn't a good cause. Why is that so fucking hard to understand? Or are you deliberately misinterpreting me?

[El Lazaro]

Killing black people = bad
Having democratic elections = good

Hope that cleared things up for you

Missed my fucking point about you not being the arbiter of what is and good is a good cause. By The Way, the 6 Jan protestors THOUGHT that they were protecting democratic elections. They are very, very wrong, but they thought it nonetheless

Fine


So, no matter how stupid they are, they were still fighting for something genuine. I mean, don't get me wrong, they are complete idiots, but my point still stands. So by your logic, if the prime minister passes a law that we both oppose, I am justified in smashing YOUR window as a form of protest, where as if the prime minister passes a law that I oppose but you support, it's NOT justifiable for me to smash HIS window. The only difference here is your opinion on the matter. (For any idiot reading this thinking that I am advocating for violence, I am NOT advocating for violence, I abhor this kind of violence, I am merely using hypothetical examples)

That is the worst justification I have ever heard for violence

Or maybe, and I know this sounds crazy, but maybe, just maybe, I am not privy to the intricate details of the semantics relating to an event that happened half around the world and had no impact on my life nor my country whatsoever. Like, I know it's a stretch, but you know, maybe it's possible

No, I am not comparing anti-vaxxers to climate change activists. Anti-Vax is one of the dumbest movements out there. I don't know many people who are much stupider than anti-vaxxers, you really can't get stupider than that. However, that's not the fucking point. My point is that you are not the arbiter of what is and isn't a good cause. Why is that so fucking hard to understand? Or are you deliberately misinterpreting me?

I am the arbiter of right and wrong. Autocracy is wrong, and if you support it, you are wrong.

[Australian rePublic]

Missed my fucking point about you not being the arbiter of what is and good is a good cause. By The Way, the 6 Jan protestors THOUGHT that they were protecting democratic elections. They are very, very wrong, but they thought it nonetheless


That is the worst justification I have ever heard for violence


No, I am not comparing anti-vaxxers to climate change activists. Anti-Vax is one of the dumbest movements out there. I don't know many people who are much stupider than anti-vaxxers, you really can't get stupider than that. However, that's not the fucking point. My point is that you are not the arbiter of what is and isn't a good cause. Why is that so fucking hard to understand? Or are you deliberately misinterpreting me?

I am the arbiter of right and wrong. Autocracy is wrong, and if you support it, you are wrong.

Except, none of the causes I posted as example support autocracy. No matter how stupid or misguided they are, they are fighting against autocracy. I am not supporting the rights of people like NAZIs to protest. Their movement is INTENTIONALLY hostile and hateful. The other movements I mentioned here are fighting for freedom, albeit misguidedly. As misguided and stupid as they are, anti-vaxxers are genuinely fighting for freedom and genuinely fighting against autocracy, albeit misguidedly. You can talk day and night about how stupid anti-vaxxers are, and you would be correct, but you can't argue that they weren't fighting for freedom

[Australian rePublic]

Missed my fucking point about you not being the arbiter of what is and good is a good cause. By The Way, the 6 Jan protestors THOUGHT that they were protecting democratic elections. They are very, very wrong, but they thought it nonetheless


That is the worst justification I have ever heard for violence


No, I am not comparing anti-vaxxers to climate change activists. Anti-Vax is one of the dumbest movements out there. I don't know many people who are much stupider than anti-vaxxers, you really can't get stupider than that. However, that's not the fucking point. My point is that you are not the arbiter of what is and isn't a good cause. Why is that so fucking hard to understand? Or are you deliberately misinterpreting me?

I am the arbiter of right and wrong. Autocracy is wrong, and if you support it, you are wrong.

Olay, let's call your bluff here. What about everyone who protested against Donald Trump being president? By opposing the result of a democratic election, they were supporting autocracy. Were those who opposed Donald Trump's presidency wrong to protest? If so, how is that different to 6/1 (aside from the violence, which, by your own logic, is a non-factor)?

[El Lazaro]

I am the arbiter of right and wrong. Autocracy is wrong, and if you support it, you are wrong.

Except, none of the causes I posted as example support autocracy. No matter how stupid or misguided they are, they are fighting against autocracy. I am not supporting the rights of people like NAZIs to protest. Their movement is INTENTIONALLY hostile and hateful. The other movements I mentioned here are fighting for freedom, albeit misguidedly. As misguided and stupid as they are, anti-vaxxers are genuinely fighting for freedom and genuinely fighting against autocracy, albeit misguidedly. You can talk day and night about how stupid anti-vaxxers are, and you would be correct, but you can't argue that they weren't fighting for freedom

Nazis have a right to protest. Treason is a capital crime.

[Australian rePublic]

Except, none of the causes I posted as example support autocracy. No matter how stupid or misguided they are, they are fighting against autocracy. I am not supporting the rights of people like NAZIs to protest. Their movement is INTENTIONALLY hostile and hateful. The other movements I mentioned here are fighting for freedom, albeit misguidedly. As misguided and stupid as they are, anti-vaxxers are genuinely fighting for freedom and genuinely fighting against autocracy, albeit misguidedly. You can talk day and night about how stupid anti-vaxxers are, and you would be correct, but you can't argue that they weren't fighting for freedom

Nazis have a right to protest. Treason is a capital crime.

So if the prime minister passes a law of which I disagree and I smash YOUR window, that's fine, but if I smash HIS window, then that's treason? Also, if, according to you, a country's crimes are so bad that they require violence to solve them, the why would treason, according to your logic, be a bigger crime than arson and vandalism of innocent people? If the country is at fault, isn't it less bad to commit a crime against the country, whose at fault, rather than innocent people who aren't fault. Why is attacking the very entity whose responsible more of a crime than attacking innocent people who have nothing to do with it? Treason is a crime, yea, so is vandalism and arson. Why are vandalism and arson more justifiable in your eyes than treason? If you're going to cherry pick which violent crimes are acceptable, at least try to have some logical consistency

[Alcala-Cordel]

Is it important for any of these causes that you think positively about them?

Um, yes, drawing people to your cause is part of the purpose of a protest

That's usually part of it, but protests can also be about direct change. Shutting things down creates pressure, and the civil rights protests actually resulted in some anti-brutality legislation (like this). The protests drew attention to the murder of George Floyd, making it impossible for the department to sweep it under the rug. Derek Chauvin got a very light sentence (that was shortened), but he still would've been a cop if it weren't for the protests.

Except, none of the causes I posted as example support autocracy. No matter how stupid or misguided they are, they are fighting against autocracy. I am not supporting the rights of people like NAZIs to protest. Their movement is INTENTIONALLY hostile and hateful. The other movements I mentioned here are fighting for freedom, albeit misguidedly. As misguided and stupid as they are, anti-vaxxers are genuinely fighting for freedom and genuinely fighting against autocracy, albeit misguidedly. You can talk day and night about how stupid anti-vaxxers are, and you would be correct, but you can't argue that they weren't fighting for freedom

Nazis have a right to protest. Treason is a capital crime.

Most everyone should have the right to protest, and not just where it's convenient for the state. Nazis are an exception and shouldn't even be allowed to publicly support Nazism.

[El Lazaro]

Nazis have a right to protest. Treason is a capital crime.

So if the prime minister passes a law of which I disagree and I smash YOUR window, that's fine, but if I smash HIS window, then that's treason? Also, if, according to you, a country's crimes are so bad that they require violence to solve them, the why would treason, according to your logic, be a bigger crime than arson and vandalism of innocent people? If the country is at fault, isn't it less bad to commit a crime against the country, whose at fault, rather than innocent people who aren't fault. Why is attacking the very entity whose responsible more of a crime than attacking innocent people who have nothing to do with it? Treason is a crime, yea, so is vandalism and arson. Why are vandalism and arson more justifiable in your eyes than treason? If you're going to cherry pick which violent crimes are acceptable, at least try to have some logical consistency

What are you even talking about? America has a presidential system, and it would be quite unreasonable to blame us for something a foreigner did.

Democracy is not a crime, and anyone who views it as one and tries to violently destroy it is much worse than any old petty criminal.

[Australian rePublic]

So if the prime minister passes a law of which I disagree and I smash YOUR window, that's fine, but if I smash HIS window, then that's treason? Also, if, according to you, a country's crimes are so bad that they require violence to solve them, the why would treason, according to your logic, be a bigger crime than arson and vandalism of innocent people? If the country is at fault, isn't it less bad to commit a crime against the country, whose at fault, rather than innocent people who aren't fault. Why is attacking the very entity whose responsible more of a crime than attacking innocent people who have nothing to do with it? Treason is a crime, yea, so is vandalism and arson. Why are vandalism and arson more justifiable in your eyes than treason? If you're going to cherry pick which violent crimes are acceptable, at least try to have some logical consistency

What are you even talking about? America has a presidential system, and it would be quite unreasonable to blame us for something a foreigner did.

Democracy is not a crime, and anyone who views it as one and tries to violently destroy it is much worse than any old petty criminal.

Okay, let me rephrase that. Assuming that I lived in the United States of America. If I the president passed a law that I disagree with, and I smashed your window as a form of protest, that's democracy, but if I smashed the president's window as a form of protest, that's treason? Also, how the fuck are arson and vandalism petty crimes? Seriously, in what universe is arson a petty crime?