Ferguson/Cleveland

I’m a proponent of protestation, but what good does it do to protest if you’re only hurting those that are just as innocent in the case at hand as you are?

The same is true of Ferguson. Many people’s businesses, property, and lives were all either destroyed or put at risk by such protestors even though those particular victims were not the perpetrators of the actions that are at protest.

Such persons are protesting the actions of particular individuals while contradicting themselves in their own actions. But their actions are actually quite worse, because they’re indiscriminate in levying them out (they attack everybody, the innocent), even though their primary gripe is upon discrimination (and particular individuals)– do you see the logical disconnect here?

So their actions are analogous to saying, “I don’t like discriminatory violence, therefor, indiscriminate violence is the answer”. As well they’re saying, “I’m against discriminating against certain individuals–I have a gripe with certain individuals–so I’ll now take my gripes out upon indiscriminate individuals (i.e. everybody else that had nothing to do with it)”.

That is ridiculous

(I guess that the moral of this story is that the supposed “protestors” are no longer innocent. They’ve become criminals for a cause.No better–and probably worse–than that of which they’re protesting.)

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized

5 Comments on “Ferguson/Cleveland”

  1. gregmorin Says:

    Actually it’s quite consistent if you think about: they are protesting discrimination, therefore they refuse to engage in the thing they are protesting i.e discrimination. They do not discriminate against innocent or guilty – all are the same in theirs eyes, and thus all are worthy of being the target of the same behavior.
    😉


    • Whoa, that’s actually quite interesting, Greg. I never even thought to think about it in that way, but now that you mention it, I can see it quite clearly.

      But this also relays the problem of only thinking about discrimination in compressed points of thought. Discrimination itself exists and will never disappear (after all, any choice between A vs B must necessarily involve discrimination; as a rule). It is the point of what sort of discrimination that comes to the fore that is of focus that often throws people’s thought about.

      I use the term as it was historically known–choosing between two or more choices, and then deciding–but the race-baiters have essentially monopolized the term, such that it has become a derogative. Even though I recognize this truth, I still probably would never have thought of the term in the same way that you’ve described it here.

      Cheers for that!

  2. S.C. Says:

    They’re not really being inconsistent. People get outraged, protest, and sometimes they snap. Happens all the time. Nothing new. Nothing special. And to say property damage is worse (I’m not saying whether the cop murdered Brown or not) is more than a bit far fetched.


    • “They’re not really being inconsistent. People get outraged, protest, and sometimes they snap”

      Okay, what has that to do with whether or not they’re being logically inconsistent? You’re essentially saying that logical inconsistency is consistent with human behavior, that the ability to reason should not be held as a standard of logic, and that any sort of animalistic action is consistent.

      Whether people “snap” or not isn’t the question that I’m posing here. The question that I’m posing is whether it is logically consistent (i.e. whether their actions conform to their beliefs).

      “Nothing new”

      I agree, many people don’t think. However, I don’t think that that is justification to support non-thinking, or to otherwise disregard it. Nor is it a justification for the acts of the non-thinking.

      This is simply a very confused reasoning!

      “And to say property damage is worse (I’m not saying whether the cop murdered Brown or not) is more than a bit far fetched”

      There are more than a few points here that render this sentence of yours to be very confused.

      First off, all scarce resources are susceptible to property rights and ownership. So indeed, the act of harming you–even in the case of killing you–is real property damage of me against you (you are, after all, the rightful owner of your body; are you not?).

      Second, you state that you’re not saying whether “the cop murdered Brown or not”, yet your conclusion is dependent upon the belief that the cop *murdered* Brown for this sentence of yours to make any sense. If the damage to personal property is lesser than the damage to body-property, then we must certainly ascertain the conditions of which these things happened. Correct?

      Third (and to act as a followup to my second point), I was specifically contrasting *discriminate violence* vs *indiscriminate violence* in this post, nothing more. It goes without saying that some actions of discriminate violence can be entirely justified (such as the case of self-defense in response to an aggressor; one cannot identify the initial aggressor unless one discriminates between the initial aggressor and the responding aggressor), whereas indiscriminate violence itself is entirely unjustified (because of the fact that it is indiscriminate, it does not focus its attention against those of which it has a tort against, but rather those innocents of which have done nothing to harm them).

      So yes, in light of your comment I will *double-down* and say: indiscriminate violence isn’t just “probably” worse than discriminate violence. It is in fact MOST DEFINITELY worse!

  3. Michael Fetz Says:

    I think the underlying theme is if you show deadly prejudice, this happens.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: