Quote:
Originally Posted by BoLevi
Fair request.
You indicated that a certain level of violence against innocent people or their property (ie rioting and looting) is justified because sometimes that is the cost of progress.
If that is true, then you have a difficult position claiming that a certain amount of violence against innocents is not justified to eliminate crime.
|
The major issue with your contention is it’s false premise that if you accept 1 of something undesirable that you then must intern accept every instance of that undesirable thing.
Just a few of the differences
1) The organizers of the police force are responsible for the training and behaviour and discipline of their members. The loose “organizers” if there are any so not have any control over who shows up to a protest. Therefore there is a direct line of accountability between the state authorization of force and dead innocent people in the case of police that just doesn’t exist for the property damage in protest
2) Dead innocent people is NOT a natural consequence of policing. Though this point might be debatable in certainly isn’t a natural consequence at the rate of current US policing. Whereas large public gatherings of angry or happy people on occasion turn into riots. If your argument is that innocent people dying and being shot in the back is a natural consequence of policing then maybe we need to have a conversation about the role police should play in society.
So I don’t accept your false premise that if I am for one activity which may have a predictable consequence of property damage by individuals I must condone all instances where an activity may lead to law breaking by an individual.