Believer rally turns violent

[Schadenfroh]

I am not a denier that the world is warming up (the amount that human activity is contributing to it is a topic for another time), but it amazes me how worked up people get over the issue.... turning to violence and rioting.

http://www.reuters.com/article/homepageCrisis/idUSRB129543._CH_.2400

riot police detained between 600 and 800 people around the Danish capital after some black-clad demonstrators threw bottles and smashed windows.

Police said four cars were set on fire during the evening elsewhere in the city. One policeman was hurt by a stone.

Tossing stones at civilian police officers trying to keep the peace is not my idea of how to bring about change in climate policy.

Setting fires does wonders for the level of carbon in the atmosphere!

 

[Craig234]

You probably don't realize that the climate conference is being seen by some leftist protestors as an event for rekindling the protests - notalways peaceful - from some time ago about globalization etc.

The fires involved are of no significance to the global climate, you should be embarrassed to have said that. The issue with them obviously is about other things - such as their not doing any good.

They just invite the issue to change to one of civil security instead of the political issues they're trying to raise. Of course, there's the old issue that the media only seems to pay attention to violence.

 

[Schadenfroh]

The fires involved are of no significance to the global climate

Obviously the people flying to the conference in private jets and the fires set by rioters do not make any significant contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels. That was not my point. My point is that people concerned about the environment should not be starting fires, out of anger, while protesting lax environmental policies.

On a similar note, bank and automaker executives should not fly around begging for bailout funds in private jets either (for a different reason).

 

[Craig234]

Obviously the people flying to the conference in private jets and the fires set by rioters does not make any significant contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels. That was not my point. My point is that people concerned about the environment should not be starting fires out of anger while protesting lax environmental policies.

I think they find they political impact and visibility of their actions outwieighs the trivial CO2 increase.

If they knew of another way to get the same things without CO2 impact, maybe they'd do them.

It's a little like criticizing a group trying to defend forests for using paper to do so. Maybe they want to do something symbolic to reduce paper use, but they might decide the tradeoff is ok.

I'd say that people - and I'm not necessarily including you - who are wanting to argue against Al Gore shouldn't make their whole argument 'but he flies a lot and has a biig house'. There are real issues.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think they find they political impact and visibility of their actions outwieighs the trivial CO2 increase.

If they knew of another way to get the same things without CO2 impact, maybe they'd do them.

It's a little like criticizing a group trying to defend forests for using paper to do so. Maybe they want to do something symbolic to reduce paper use, but they might decide the tradeoff is ok.

I'd say that people - and I'm not necessarily including you - who are wanting to argue against Al Gore shouldn't make their whole argument 'but he flies a lot and has a biig house'. There are real issues.

So if it suits the agenda and one agrees with it, violence is a viable solution. If not then it's something else entirely.

Interesting.

 

[Rainsford]

Attacking the messenger isn't very good science...

 

[Craig234]

So if it suits the agenda and one agrees with it, violence is a viable solution. If not then it's something else entirely.

Interesting.

If I asked you to stop responding to my posts and misrepresenting what I say every time, would you?

 

[Rainsford]

So if it suits the agenda and one agrees with it, violence is a viable solution. If not then it's something else entirely.

Interesting.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but what's so wrong with that kind of logic? Almost every person on the planet (including you, I'd bet) supports violence as a solution in SOME situations. In a defensive war, for example...or defending yourself from an attacker. Context matters, I'm not sure why you're acting like that's some sort of hypocritical belief...

Of course I don't agree with violence in THIS situation...but your point is still silly.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but what's so wrong with that kind of logic? Almost every person on the planet (including you, I'd bet) supports violence as a solution in SOME situations. In a defensive war, for example...or defending yourself from an attacker. Context matters, I'm not sure why you're acting like that's some sort of hypocritical belief...

Of course I don't agree with violence in THIS situation...but your point is still silly.

I was too subtle it seems.

Here you go.

Suppose Rainsford (a fictitious name ) were to condemn a group because they used violence against others. Then Rainsford reads about a violent action done because of an agenda he agrees with and dismisses it, or at least doesn't condemn it equally (since it's the physical harm/threat which was important before).

As for me, I would consider that hypocritical. If you think that's silly, works for me.

 

[Red Dawn]

Are the "Believers" or Anarchists. Euro Anarchists like to riot at any Global summit it seems.

 

[sandorski]

Are the "Believers" or Anarchists. Euro Anarchists like to riot at any Global summit it seems.

This. Not just Euro Anarchists though, even here in North America they show up for G-x and other such International conferences all the time.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This. Not just Euro Anarchists though, even here in North America they show up for G-x and other such International conferences all the time.

It comes down to semantics. If they were Anarchists, then any opportunity to create chaos would be welcome. If they select this reason consistently and act as they do, then I think "believers" fits. They believe in the cause enough to use the same tactics. It's a matter of "the Cause" being the elimination of effective control, or an environmental agenda (in this case)

 

[sandorski]

It comes down to semantics. If they were Anarchists, then any opportunity to create chaos would be welcome. If they select this reason consistently and act as they do, then I think "believers" fits. They believe in the cause enough to use the same tactics. It's a matter of "the Cause" being the elimination of effective control, or an environmental agenda (in this case)

There are times when it's better just to post nothing. You missed this opportunity.

aka, What?

 

[monovillage]

In this particular situation Red Dawn has it right, it wasn't the AGW supporters or eco minded folks, it was a contingent of radical anarchists that show up at most summits and other venues to cause trouble.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

There are times when it's better just to post nothing. You missed this opportunity.

aka, What?

Lemme dumb it down

Me- "I subscribe to Anarchy and therefore I'll use whatever means is needed to subvert government/corporate control"

You- "They are ruining the world! We cannot allow (fill in the blank) to destroy (fill in the blank).

In the first case I am an Anarchist because I object to a central power exercising control over others.

In the second case you are a "Believer" because you believe (fill in the blank) is so important that you'll act like an Anarchist to achieve the goal of (fill in the blank).

Red posited the question, you responded with "this", but didn't elaborate just what you considered the difference to be.

You just needed a little help ()

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

In this particular situation Red Dawn has it right, it wasn't the AGW supporters or eco minded folks, it was a contingent of radical anarchists that show up at most summits and other venues to cause trouble.

I don't know who these people are. So they just go to pretty much anything and lob stuff at people?

 

[sandorski]

Lemme dumb it down

Me- "I subscribe to Anarchy and therefore I'll use whatever means is needed to subvert government/corporate control"

You- "They are ruining the world! We cannot allow (fill in the blank) to destroy (fill in the blank).

In the first case I am an Anarchist because I object to a central power exercising control over others.

In the second case you are a "Believer" because you believe (fill in the blank) is so important that you'll act like an Anarchist to achieve the goal of (fill in the blank).

Red posited the question, you responded with "this", but didn't elaborate just what you considered the difference to be.

You just needed a little help ()

The hole is only getting deeper. The thread is clearly about GW/CC supporters, not Anarchists. However, it is very likely that those being violent were Anarchists and not the GW/CC supporters the OP tried implying. Your attempt to move the Goal Posts of "Believers" is just ridiculous.

 

[Darwin333]

I assume that anarchists would be against global climate treaties as much as they are against other global treaties. Or it could nutjobs with another agenda or simply enviro-nutjobs... There are nutjobs in every group and are generally a small minority, hardly enough to judge the entire group.

 

[Steeplerot]

They are obviously comrade Anarchists.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The hole is only getting deeper. The thread is clearly about GW/CC supporters, not Anarchists. However, it is very likely that those being violent were Anarchists and not the GW/CC supporters the OP tried implying. Your attempt to move the Goal Posts of "Believers" is just ridiculous.

It seems to me I wasn't originally use the words "anarchists" or "believers". You did see fit to make commentary on this, and I tossed in an uncritical comment.

Now I can of course fall into the typical response pattern here, and tell you to STFU you ignorant slut, but that's hardly useful.



If everything was so clear, why did you bother to comment?

As far as I'm concerned this whole exchange about a distinction at all is pointless. If I kick your ass, does it really matter if I have a particular philosophical POV? Then again, I didn't bring it up, but neither did I get up someone's ass about using the terms.

Indeed the Rabbit Hole goes down far.

Jeebus have a fit over something important.

 

[sandorski]

It seems to me I wasn't originally use the words "anarchists" or "believers". You did see fit to make commentary on this, and I tossed in an uncritical comment.

Now I can of course fall into the typical response pattern here, and tell you to STFU you ignorant slut, but that's hardly useful.



If everything was so clear, why did you bother to comment?

As far as I'm concerned this whole exchange about a distinction at all is pointless. If I kick your ass, does it really matter if I have a particular philosophical POV? Then again, I didn't bring it up, but neither did I get up someone's ass about using the terms.

Indeed the Rabbit Hole goes down far.

Jeebus have a fit over something important.

sigh

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

sigh

I think we ought to have the option to settle our disagreements and misunderstandings with airsoft guns at ten paces

 

[BoberFett]

If I asked you to stop responding to my posts and misrepresenting what I say every time, would you?

I'd respond by saying I'm not surprised, because you do that to everyone who points out what a stupid jackass you are.

 

[Rainsford]

I was too subtle it seems.

Here you go.

Suppose Rainsford (a fictitious name ) were to condemn a group because they used violence against others. Then Rainsford reads about a violent action done because of an agenda he agrees with and dismisses it, or at least doesn't condemn it equally (since it's the physical harm/threat which was important before).

As for me, I would consider that hypocritical. If you think that's silly, works for me.

Ah, makes sense to me...I suppose. Assuming this "Rainsford" you speak of was foolish enough to actually use that argument as his justification for not liking a group.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

This old trick doesn't work on me anymore. Too bad it still does work on the masses.

SPP summit - quebec police admit going undercover at montebello protests
March Against Police Brutality
Greek Cops Caught on Video Posing as Anarchists

Video showing Greek police and agent provocateurs
Undercover Policemen accused of inciting violence at G20 protest in London