Let me see if I understand your point. You’re saying that - even if it is not my intention, even the opposite of my intention - purely by drawing an equivalence, if I can do so, means that other facets of the two groups which are not equivalent are somehow drawn into equivalence, too? Even when I outright say that I do not consider them equivalent on those other facets?
I didn’t claim the amount was similar. I claimed that the their being substantial cost was similar. I am, of course, entirely happy if presented with cost figures for the damage in Ferguson to draw a similarity in the costs or draw a difference.
No, it does not. My argument boils down to “all crimes are crimes”. I have not said that the crimes committed by protestors in Ferguson and the BTP guys were the same, other than both consisted of taking and destruction of property. I think both groups of criminals deserve to go through the justice system, too.
The reason for why the BTP was carried out, and the surgical precision, are not aspects of law and order. They are political aspects, planning aspects. As I’ve repeatedly said - on those issues the two groups show considerable differences.
On the aspect of committing the crimes of taking and destruction of property - the law and order part - they are similar. “Aside from the fact that they both committed crimes, their values of law and order were entirely different!” No. That’s the law and order part.
I agree with Velocity. I have no idea why rioters chose to punish innocent store owners, home owners, and their neighbors by burning down their own neighborhoods. What point did they make? That they’re too stupid to appreciate the fact that a community needs businesses to survive economically? What business model are these protestors and rioters using? The Detroit bankruptcy?
And while they were calmly and carefully not destroying property, they also went about destroying a substantial amount of property. The only damage, outside of the substantial amount of property that they destroyed, was to a lock which they replaced. They cleaned up after the mess that they had made destroying a substantial amount of property. And their grievance was the Tea Tax and the lack of representation in Parliament, which is why they targeted a third party’s property to destroy.
You’re correct, though. The colonists weren’t so stupid as to destroy their own neigbourhood to teach the government a lesson. Their crimes wisely targeted the property of others who had much less local relevance to them. Unless they liked tea, I guess. I applaud their smarts. But not their crimes.
Just to be clear, the people who are trying to make a point about police brutality are peaceful protestors. The rioters and looters are people from neighboring towns exploiting a chaotic situation in order to enrich themselves.
The “They’re burning their own communities!” chant is incorrect.
This is an important point that continues to be missed (or ignored).
I have not seen the numbers from the last couple of days, but in the first round of protests, 146 arrests were of people from outside Ferguson while only two were citizens of Ferguson.
= = =
I disagree with the OP: I think that rage might be a legitimate response to injustice, but I have never seen it to be a constructive response.
On the other hand, I also offer the following for those who want the current troubles to be an excuse to condemn any group for the riot:
The right of the people to assemble and petition for a redress of grievances. Fundamental, protected by law and tradition. (At least in theory.) The people who are legitimately exercising that right are not responsible for the actions of criminal assholes. Nor is it their job to police them, that is the job of the proper authorities, it doesn’t become the responsibility of legitimate protestors by default. That would be just one step shy of vigilantism.
Hey elucidator - I join Velocity in his lack of understanding. Enlighten me, along with the rest of the ignorant masses how burning down your neighbor’s store and destroying everything he has worked for, (even though he may be on your side), furthers the cause. Better yet, I’d love to have one of the looters explain it since that are probably clearer on their own thinking than you are.
Yes. You claiming to not wanting to draw an equivalence outside one of specific criterion and then repeatedly doing the opposite indicates that you may want to start a thread and argue against yourself. And let’s look at the reason you desire to draw any equivalence at all between the BTPs and the scumbags in Ferguson. What, pray tell is your reasons for this odd and useless comparison? Please do answer that.
We agree that both groups committed unlawful acts. Past that, you seek to draw them close as to shower the Ferguson scumbags with some air of righteousness. Please. There aren’t enough :rolleyes:
Sigh. tsk, tsk, tsk… As I indicated, I’d like to see a cite for the degree to which the the “substantial” aspect of the costs are similar.
How about you substantiate your own claims? Slippery as they be.
Finally, a paragraph that does not put forth nonsense. (Tautology aside. Because, it is my insightful observation that all tautologies are tautological.)
As you seem to grasp, the BTP was a political act. It was also an unlawful act, but if you remove the political aspect there would have been no unlawful act. That contrasts starkly with the scumbags in Ferguson. They wanted free shit, even if it hurt the political statement that their neighbors were making. There activity was simply unlawful. And low. And dumb. And unhelpful. And greedy. And opportunistic. And scumbaggish.
No. The BTPs had a view of law and order that civilized people of today, including those in Ferguson who lament the actions of the scumbags agree with. The values of the BTPs are laudable. The values of the Ferguson scumbags are the opposite.
The [del]idiots[/del] protesters blocked a major freeway into San Diego this morning making hundreds if not thousands of people late for work, appointments, plane boarding, etc. Stuff like this makes me turn a deaf ear to any legitimate issue they are protesting. Somehow they believe that screwing innocent people is fair payback for their cause? Hardly.
If you look back at the start of the thread, you’ll see PastTense’s post that I originally responded to. He suggested that the Ferguson protestors (just the protestors, in fact, rather than the criminals among them, now that I re-read) don’t share traditional American values on law and order. I recalled the Boston Tea Party, that it seems to be one of the big American Founding stories, and thought that pointing out that this event also involved people taking and destroying property would show that actually it’s not very far from traditional American values on law and order.
But I’ve repeatedly said that I do not. I’ve repeatedly pointed out that I hope that the criminals in Ferguson should be meet justice for their criminal behaviour. I’ve repeatedly said that there is nothing righteous about that criminal behaviour.
May I ask - based on this point, your argument seems to be not only that I am doing this, but that I am doing it deliberately. That is to say, you believe, despite my repeated words to the contrary, that I “seek to draw them close” to make the Ferguson criminals look righteous. Is this a correct reading?
In that they’re substantial. Don’t you think both are substantial? I would say that $1,700,00 is a substantial cost. You’ve said that you believe that costs due to the Ferguson criminals are higher - on that basis, it seems as though both are substantial to me.
My claim was that the Ferguson damages were substantial, and in that the two were similar. Assuming you accept that $1,700,000 is an accurate cite, then that’s half of it taken. And you already believe that the Ferguson amount is substantial -
[QUOTE=magellan01]
I don’t know the dollar figures involved, but between the businesses that were torched and vandalized, the cars that were torched, and the looting, the dollar cost of ferguson is not in the ballpark of the damage done by the BTPs.
[/QUOTE]
… so we would seem to agree on that point.
I’ve repeatedly said all parts of that paragraph previously. There’s nothing new there.
This is a little unclear - I assume you mean if the political aspect had not been there the act wouldn’t have taken place at all, not that if the aspect hadn’t been there the act wouldn’t have been unlawful.
That assumed; yes, that seems likely. The crimes followed the political situation.
How so? The equivalent to saying that if the political situation had not been as it was there would have been no crime at Boston seems to be saying that if the political situation had not been as it was there would have been no crime at Ferguson. That seems very likely to me, too.
The Boston Tea Party guy’s activity was simply unlawful. They broke the law. I don’t know that I’d call it low or greedy, but dumb, unhelpful, opportunistic and scumbaggish all seem to fit. That said, however, none of those details, similar or otherwise, are law and order issues. It isn’t against the law to be low, dumb, unhelpful, greedy, opportunistic or scumbaggish. It’s against the law to take and destroy other people’s property.
The values aside from law and order are one thing. The values on law and order are quite another. The BTPs took property that wasn’t theirs in a dispute with another group entirely and destroyed it. Their values in other areas may well be laudable. Their law and order values, which led them to destroy $1,700,000 of other people’s property, unlawfully, should be condemned.
Who opened fire first? If there was any uncertainty, the police should have just taken cover and pulled out their firearms until he opened fire.
American policemen have body armour and bulletproof car doors. Professional soldiers and sportshooters would struggle to make that shot. What is more likely? Deadshot jumping out of a comicbook or a child was playing in a playground.
