I just don't respect any of the occupy movement. That's just a personal position, though. Probably doesn't affect your credibility with anyone else.
EXJWSOLIDARITY!!!!!
by Luther bertrand 32 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
-
Simon
The debate focuses on what is the relationship between peaceful protest and other types of activism.
No, it is specifically about his actions. They are wrong, can't be defended and shouldn't be condoned. Case closed.
The whole point of activism is to evoke a response, however, different people have different methods for doing this.
No, the point of activism should be to achieve some goal.People who think it's only about eliciting a response frequently don't achieve anything positive and fail in their objectives (if they have any beyond "get a response") because they don't understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy. Throwing eggs at someone evokes a response and is a tactic. How strategic is it? This misunderstanding of what activism is undermines many exJWs otherwise good intentions and is used by some to get support when their intentions are anything but "good".
As for breaking the law, do you feel Rosa Parks should not have sat at the front of the bus or do you feel that Ghandi should not have broken the law of British rule by making his own salt?
Completely different and nothing whatsoever to do with this. Don't try to imply he's doing something noble. He's not protesting any unjust law, he's breaking the law and harrassing people, interfering with their ability to go about their lawful business without fear.
Your diatribe about laws is irrelevant and nothing to do with the matter at hand unless you believe that laws to protect people from attack and harrassment are "wrong" and must be changed - if you do then I think you're an idiot.
The bottom line is: this is nothing whatsoever to do with civil disobedience, so please don't try to make it into something it's not.
Sticking labels on it like "activism" and "civil disobedience" doesn't alter the true nature of the deed which is about retaliation and retribution. Far less noble ambitions.
-
Luther bertrand
@simon Just three questions:
1. What exactly do you think Civil Disobedience is and have you ever read any books on the subject, if so which ones?
2. Could you site a historic example where a protest of any kind, whether construed as Civil Disobedience or not, did not cause people to feel uncomfortable?
3. Can you show me an example of any scholar that has studied the subject of activism who disagree's with the statement that fundamental to the purpose of protest is to evoke a response on the part of the demographic to whom you are trying to communicate a message?
-
Luther bertrand
@cappytan Your response about not respecting any of the Occupy movement is understandable given the bad press that it had for awhile. You should know that the Occupy movement did many things for a variety of opinions. I personally disagree with those who went about destroying properties and causing riots, many, if not most of the Occupy disagreed with that form of protest (the black bloc), unfortunately they got the most publicity.
-
Simon
1. What exactly do you think Civil Disobedience is and have you ever read any books on the subject, if so which ones?
Civil disobedience is intentional breaking of (hopefully) unjust laws in order to challenge them, most notable in recent history those involving segregation and voting rights. One thing to note is that the civil disobedience doesn't actually change anything, what actually brings about change is legislation through the democratic and legislative process - the civil disobedience is just to sway public opinion and tip it over the edge. Not all acts of civil disobedience are compelling or convincing though - look at the occupy losers in Oregon ... no one gives a shit about those jerks or their cause.
BTW: Some of us don't need to find right or wrong in any book.
2. Could you site a historic example where a protest of any kind, whether construed as Civil Disobedience or not, did not cause people to feel uncomfortable?
The implication being that it therefore justifies the "offence"? Your logic is wrong IMO. By your reasoning then any act, however anti-social, is "justified" if only someone slaps a label of "protest" on it.
Someone will always be offended by anything - I'm sure the WBC are offended when people "protest" their hatred with banners of love and tolerance. What's your point other than grasping at straws to justify something that doesn't warrant it?
3. Can you show me an example of any scholar that has studied the subject of activism who disagree's with the statement that fundamental to the purpose of protest is to evoke a response on the part of the demographic to whom you are trying to communicate a message?
What a load of mumbo jumbo.
Who cares what some scholar says about life, love and the pursuit of liberty?!?
And again, what has any of this to do with someone wanting to harass people in the street?
It's still not justified, however much you wave your arms, demand proof, quote books and try to appear clever.
In case you still don't "get it" (although I suspect it's intentional). You are confusing people intentionally disobeying laws in order to protest those same laws (civil disobedience) with someone who happens to break laws because they are intent on harming or harrassing some individual. They are a million miles apart in their difference. The only connection is "law broken". That's not a basis for equality.
Consider how you would escalate both things. With civil disobedience you get more people to take part and / or challenge more manifestations of the unjust rules.
If your agenda is simply to harass an individual then what's next? Assault them? Kill them? How do you "do more" for your cause?
There's a reason why some causes are not worthy of support. They have no moral basis.
-
Luther bertrand
@Simon Thanks for answering my questions and proving my points. -
Simon
You're hilarious. I think I just blew your lame argument so far out the water it's plastered on the side of a hill. I'll leave it to others to decide who "proved their point" the best.
Go back to occupying a broom cupboard or whatever it is you think is meaningful.
-
Luther bertrand
keep on replying like that ... its fantastic! -
OrphanCrow
I am going to jump in here, Luther, because I have a question for you.
You site Rosa Parks and Ghandi as examples of civil disobedience.
Their acts of civil disobedience were done as acts that challenged specific laws. They deliberately broke the laws that needed changing.
My question:
What specific law is being challenged by this person that you claim is acting in civil disobedience?
-
Luther bertrand
@OrphanCrow your question is: What specific law is being challenged by this person that you claim is acting in civil disobedience?
1. The first is the 2 witness policy for verification within the congregation. Though in this instance his tactic I admit would fall short.
2. The fact that there are no laws for mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse in a large swath of legal jurisdictions when confessed to "clergy", which needs to be changed. If mandatory reporting was a law and it was enforced, it would force elders to contact the police, otherwise they themselves could be legally culpable.
@Orphancrow As a side note, Even Geoffery Jackson agreed with this. Thanks for the question @Orphancrow and keeping me in check! Also, I would like to concede your observation that my example's were not entirely parallel. However, I would like to put forth that Henry David Thoreau, MLK, nor Ghandi restricted the idea of Civil disobedience to breaking a specific law to show its absurdity and that the idea of civil disobedience has a much wider context than a tit for tat violation of a specific law in order to change that specific law. As a result of your insightful question, perhaps I should have used another phrase such as "non-violent resistance" or something to that effect. I appreciate your response and question!