Sure, anyone can make such a claim. And if the claim is outside the norm of human experience, it can be justly disregarded.
Yet another fundamental error (and I thought you’d already gone through the whole set!) in what passes for your “argument” – conflating a moral consensus with an individual idiosyncrasy.
One example of the former: “Over 700 Million People Taking Steps to Avoid NSA Surveillance”. The distinction from the latter (which boils down to “nut does nutty thing”) is obvious.
Curses, ninja’d again…
One’s innate sense of justice is often at odds with another’s. In fact, genocide, revenge killings and wars are often the results of “innate sense of justice.”
And that’s why the latter is legal and the former is not. If society believes that certain kinds of protests are acceptable, then it won’t make laws against them. The existence of laws against certain kinds of protest proves that society does not find those kinds of protest acceptable. And that’s where your model falls apart, because you believe that your own personal notions of what’s right and wrong trump the democratic process.
You said the only way disrupting traffic was not terrorism was if they did so “peacefully and non-disruptively”:
Aside from not making grammatical sense, this doesn’t apply to any of the links I cited (meaning that you’re saying they are terrorists), and doesn’t include any discussion of demands.
You’re constantly changing your story and/or lying.
And once upon a time, “people should not be allowed to own other people” was “outside the norm of human experience”. Should it have been justly disregarded?
Most of the current protests are legal – in fact, most of the current protests are ‘more legal’ than the protests during the Civil Rights movements, which were more frequently confronted by serious violence by police and authorities.
By the Smapti measure, this means that the Civil Rights protests were closer to terrorism than the current protests.
Except that you explicitly cite a case where one of the actors intended to prevent the Kentucky Derby from taking place unless a fair housing act was passed.
You’re constantly changing your story and/or lying.
Not true. If the government is who you are protesting against, you can’t always trust they will give you the venue to do thta protest.
You think China and North Korea are thinking up ways to allow lawful protest?
Even here in the United States lawful protest is met with unlawful demand by law enforcement to disperse or to have those rights curtailed. It is an unjust request that deserves to be protested against. We have many opportunities for just protest that are used. But when the government agencies ARE the problem, the often the only avenue left is what is moral if unlawful.
He’s also conveniently avoided acknowledging his error in regards to the existence of innate morality.
…the Ferguson thugs got authorization from a federal judge to burn the bitch down? Garner’s fellow travelers got an Army escort while they blocked freeways?
China and North Korea are not democracies, and the way they make law and treat protestors is not germane to a discussion of how people in the civilized world are obligated to behave.
Oh, for fuck’s sake. Here - let me stipulate more precisely: the “norm” is of course specific to the time and place in question. We are not living in a time and place where acceptance of slavery is the moral norm. Other people in other times and places were.
Huh? Cite?
The point is that they are countries run according to your model of How Things Ought To Be.
There was no “demand” as you were using it – they were protesting in support of a bill. That’s not handing lists of demands to the government – all protests in the history of humanity had something they were in support of or opposed to.
But which is it? Were Hosea Williams, MLK Jr., and the SCLC terrorists, or weren’t they?
To wit:
No they aren’t.
I said “most of the current protests”, not all. The current protests have resulted in far less severe opposition from law enforcement than those in the 60s.
To the extent that they attempted to sabotage the Kentucky Derby, yes. In general, no.