A thread about protesters

I have been to a few protests over the years and what pisses me off is that generally over 50% of the people there are just cunts who want confrontation.

I will defend anyone's right to protest as long as it is in a legal and socially responsible way, but I feel so sorry for the genuine protesters when these knobheads affiliate themselves to a cause and then demine it all.
 
BlueMoonday said:
Wow, it says a lot about you that you are happy for an innocent person to die in an ambulance because some middle class tosser who has probably clocked up more air miles than any of us with trips to Bali and India suddenly decides to care about the environment. Nice ethics.
Click to expand...
I am not a middle class tosser and if you had read my post properly instead of jumping to conclusions you would have seen i wrote if it was a cause I cared deeply about.

Your post could be lifted from the Daily Mail comment section. The brainwashing of society from the coal/oil lobby gathers pace. Very wealthy people fund think tanks on Tufton Street to push the kind of propaganda you spout and which can be seen regularly in the RW media. It is sensationalist bollocks designed to make you angry at people trying to save YOU and the planet. Even that crackpot Johnson has acknowledged it in his speech to the UN.
 
Last edited:
Fode N The Hole said:
The newspaper articles say that the cause of the crash hasn't been confirmed.
Click to expand...
You, along with the usual suspects are, as per usual, defending the indefensible. There are now numerous stories you are conveniently ignoring about many people experiencing severe distress and health issues caused by these idiots. Sooner than later, it’s obvious people will be killed as a result of these insane actions, then the silence on here will be deafening.
 
BobKowalski said:
I am posting ‘The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States’. They seceded to preserve the institution of slavery. We know this, and I can’t stress this enough, because the seceding States fucking said so. In writing.
Click to expand...
Another thing you are totally wrong about.
As explained to you by Blue Mist, many in the Northern states supported slavery at the time of the war, read Lincoln’s views of it. Yes, we all know that the South supported it, but the war was not initially conducted solely in defence of it. Lincoln repeatedly said it was to preserve the Union.
 
bluethrunthru said:
protests - strikes - etc are there to affect other people - if you remove that right people lose their right to effect change. Women would not have the vote when they did had they not been able to "blackmail" society
Click to expand...
No doubt you would feel very differently if you were driving a loved one to a cheamo apointment and they missed it because of the actions of these selfish individuals.

Their actions are not really comparable with the Suffragettes.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
No doubt you would feel very differently if you were driving a loved one to a cheamo apointment and they missed it because of the actions of these selfish individuals.

Their actions are not really comparable with the Suffragettes.
Click to expand...
It doesn't take long for the suffragette movement to be put up as a parallel, par for the course really.
 
Ancient Citizen said:
Another thing you are totally wrong about.
As explained to you by Blue Mist, many in the Northern states supported slavery at the time of the war, read Lincoln’s views of it. Yes, we all know that the South supported it, but the war was not initially conducted solely in defence of it. Lincoln repeatedly said it was to preserve the Union.
Click to expand...

The South fought a war to preserve the institution of slavery. We know this because they said so. In writing.

South Carolina...

‘We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States.

A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.’
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
very true. if you beleive in something strongly enough you can always justify ruining the lives of others.
Click to expand...
The justification part of the actions of these types is based on the same precept, you hear it from their head nutcase who's been berating everyone on telly. Everything is presented in the context of how they see the world, how right it is, and how, because of these self declared 'Facts' they have no choice but to do what they do.
So, following this skewed logic, a group can legitimately glue and chain itself in front of A&E, after destroying as much of it as they can, then justify it by stating 'I had no choice, it's the only way I can get anyone to address the dreadful plight of this, that, or the other.'
 
Last edited:
Churchlawtonblue said:
No doubt you would feel very differently if you were driving a loved one to a cheamo apointment and they missed it because of the actions of these selfish individuals.

Their actions are not really comparable with the Suffragettes.
Click to expand...

No. Suffragettes were much more militant and violent. Source British Library.

One of the most dangerous suffragette attacks occurred in Dublin in 1912. Mary Leigh, Gladys Evans, Lizzie Baker and Mabel Capper attempted to set fire to the Theatre Royal during a packed lunchtime matinee attended by Asquith. They left a canister of gunpowder close to the stage and threw petrol and lit matches into the projection booth which contained highly combustible film reels. Earlier in the day, Mary Leigh had hurled a hatchet towards Asquith, which narrowly missed him and instead cut the Irish MP John Redmond on the ear.

The newspapers soon began to carry weekly round-ups of the attacks, and reports of suffragette violence are evident across the country, with papers like the Gloucester Journal and Liverpool Echo running dedicated columns on the latest outrages.During 1913, a suffragette attacked the glass cabinets in the Jewel House at the Tower of London, while in Dundee, in Scotland, four postmen were severely injured by phosphorus chemicals left in post boxes.
 
Ancient Citizen said:
It doesn't take long for the suffragette movement to be put up as a parallel, par for the course really.
Click to expand...

‘If men use explosives and bombs for their own purpose they call it war,’ wrote Christabel Pankhurst in 1913, ‘and the throwing of a bomb that destroys other people is then described as a glorious and heroic deed. Why should a woman not make use of the same weapons as men. It is not only war we have declared. We are fighting for a revolution!’

Honestly, climate protestors are pussies in comparison.
 
The US Civil War introduction seems a bit odd to say the least: as I understand it, Republicans were elected on an anti-slavery platform with numbers in their favour; South seceded in consequence; the secession was rejected as it could be used by others; the outcome was the war.

A domestic protest to encourage government/societal action vs secession of a large section of the country is hardly like for like.
 
BobKowalski said:
The South fought a war to preserve the institution of slavery. We know this because they said so. In writing.
Click to expand...
It was one of the reasons, we know that, but the North did not invade the South at the start of the war with the sole intention of ending slavery. You are ignoring facts here, to support your stance, and you probably don't know anything about Lincoln, who, not long before the war said, ''I have not, nor have ever been, in any way, in favour of bringing about the social and political equality of the white and black races.''
You have a juvenile view of this time of history, which is in tandem with your support of statue toppling, transposing the mores and values of today's society onto past times.
 
BobKowalski said:
‘If men use explosives and bombs for their own purpose they call it war,’ wrote Christabel Pankhurst in 1913, ‘and the throwing of a bomb that destroys other people is then described as a glorious and heroic deed. Why should a woman not make use of the same weapons as men. It is not only war we have declared. We are fighting for a revolution!’

Honestly, climate protestors are pussies in comparison.
Click to expand...
I'm not comparing them, their cause gained traction and was
eventually accepted, you think that these idiots will achieve the same results, they won't.
 
Ancient Citizen said:
It was one of the reasons, we know that, but the North did not invade the South at the start of the war with the sole intention of ending slavery. You are ignoring facts here, to support your stance, and you probably don't know anything about Lincoln, who, not long before the war said, ''I have not, nor have ever been, in any way, in favour of bringing about the social and political equality of the white and black races.''
You have a juvenile view of this time of history, which is in tandem with your support of statue toppling, transposing the mores and values of today's society onto past times.
Click to expand...

If you know that, and given the seceding States explicitly gave it as their reasoning behind their actions, then why are you arguing?
 
Ancient Citizen said:
I'm not comparing them, their cause gained traction and was
eventually accepted, you think that these idiots will achieve the same results, they won't.
Click to expand...

The Insulate cause is, I believe, to ensure the homes and houses of Britain are properly insulated. A cause we can all get behind, unless you believe no homes should be properly insulated? Given the ruinous energy bills heading our way, I can imagine the Insulate cause will get a lot of traction. Not even sure why people are so against insulating homes.
 
Ancient Citizen said:
It was one of the reasons, we know that, but the North did not invade the South at the start of the war with the sole intention of ending slavery. You are ignoring facts here, to support your stance, and you probably don't know anything about Lincoln, who, not long before the war said, ''I have not, nor have ever been, in any way, in favour of bringing about the social and political equality of the white and black races.''
You have a juvenile view of this time of history, which is in tandem with your support of statue toppling, transposing the mores and values of today's society onto past times.
Click to expand...
The North didn't invade the South at the start of the war. The war was started by the South, and it was all about preserving slavery.
If this is a demonstration of your knowledge of history you really weren't paying much attention when you learnt it. Either that or you've been reading some revisionist nonsense written by some white supremacists.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
No doubt you would feel very differently if you were driving a loved one to a cheamo apointment and they missed it because of the actions of these selfish individuals.

Their actions are not really comparable with the Suffragettes.
Click to expand...

ahhhh the old chemo appointment defence eh? What they are highlighting is BIGGER than the suffragettes. Had women not got the vote there was no danger that our home planet would have become uninhabitable as a result. Thats what mankind faces. You can put up all sorts of facile arguments against protests but at the end of the day they are designed to cause inconvenience and make people think.
 
BobKowalski said:
If you know that, and given the seceding States explicitly gave it as their reasoning behind their actions, then why are you arguing?
Click to expand...
Because of this bullshit, that was countered by @Blue Mist
BobKowalski said:
The American Civil War was fought to preserve the institution of slavery.
Click to expand...
Plus, you repeatedly ignore the actual events, the reasons, and the facts, Lincoln did NOT invade the South proclaiming it was to repeal slavery, as you are inferring. You will flounder, then revert to changing the subject, and probably divert onto something else, so I'll leave you with your theories.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top