(02-12-2020 04:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 03:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 02:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 02:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Is there a difference between this driver and the one in Charlottesville?

Somebody has to take a stand

Pretty much the exact same. If he was attempting to hit the people at the tent, the exact same.

I think we can all agree that it takes a disturbed individual.

Not trying to be catty, lad, but with your response I am reminded of the more than one time you have indicted an entire gathering at charlottesville for the actions of the individual there.

In this situation, it sounds like there wasn't a protest or counter protest, or anything linking this terrorist with any other group. So I'm not sure why you bring this up.

Plus, we've rehashed all of our opinions on the quality of people at Charlottesville multiple times. Not sure we're gonna make any progress on it.

Just pointing out you have been in the past extremely quick to tag literally hundreds of people with the act of one shitbag. Glad you are not in this instance.

(02-12-2020 06:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 04:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 03:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 02:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 02:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Is there a difference between this driver and the one in Charlottesville?

Somebody has to take a stand

Pretty much the exact same. If he was attempting to hit the people at the tent, the exact same.

I think we can all agree that it takes a disturbed individual.

Not trying to be catty, lad, but with your response I am reminded of the more than one time you have indicted an entire gathering at charlottesville for the actions of the individual there.

In this situation, it sounds like there wasn't a protest or counter protest, or anything linking this terrorist with any other group. So I'm not sure why you bring this up.

Plus, we've rehashed all of our opinions on the quality of people at Charlottesville multiple times. Not sure we're gonna make any progress on it.

Just pointing out you have been in the past extremely quick to tag literally hundreds of people with the act of one shitbag. Glad you are not in this instance.

Those shitbags got tagged for more than the murder that was committed. And where are the hundreds of other people in this instance? Still missing how these are connected, outside of a car being used as a weapon.

(02-12-2020 06:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 06:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 04:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 03:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 02:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Pretty much the exact same. If he was attempting to hit the people at the tent, the exact same.

I think we can all agree that it takes a disturbed individual.

Not trying to be catty, lad, but with your response I am reminded of the more than one time you have indicted an entire gathering at charlottesville for the actions of the individual there.

In this situation, it sounds like there wasn't a protest or counter protest, or anything linking this terrorist with any other group. So I'm not sure why you bring this up.

Plus, we've rehashed all of our opinions on the quality of people at Charlottesville multiple times. Not sure we're gonna make any progress on it.

Just pointing out you have been in the past extremely quick to tag literally hundreds of people with the act of one shitbag. Glad you are not in this instance.

Those shitbags got tagged for more than the murder that was committed. And where are the hundreds of other people in this instance? Still missing how these are connected, outside of a car being used as a weapon.

"more" than the murder. Got it. Bad message == you are culpable in a murder by being somewhere in the vicinity. Glad to note your message hasnt changed one iota. Just had to make sure. Thanks for the confirmation.

(02-12-2020 05:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 02:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think you're reading into my posts if you think I said that one action is not OK. I said I thought there was a difference between the protests against CFA and picketing abortion centers.

I don't think I'm reading anything in...

You said abortion protesters and CFA protestors weren't the same because it wasn't as if abortion protesters are out there saying don't see Dr Bob, but instead see Dr Smith. But CFA protesters weren't saying 'don't eat CFA, eat KFC'... instead they were saying, don't eat CFA because the business supports values that you don't support. In my mind, that's more similar to what abortion protesters were saying as well.

It wasn't until a year or more later when Popeye's I think came out with a challenge to CFA's chicken sandwich to capitalize on it. They sure weren't promoting McDonald's chicken as being better or whatever else.... The Genesis of the picketing had nothing to do with the quality of the chicken sandwich whatsoever. It had to do with the 'values' being exhibited by the owners of the company.

Remember the guy in the drive-through that tried to shame the girl taking his order? That's an example of what I'm talking about. Legal, sure... but not 'free market'. Peaceful protests at CFA encouraging people to choose plant-based food or even KFC because they don't support social programs you disagree with? Free market. Peaceful protests at abortion clinics encouraging people to choose adoption because adoption centers don't support social programs (abortion) that you disagree with? Free market. Blocking doors, making customers uncomfortable, tying up traffic lines or the time of employees in an effort to depress business? Not free market.... regardless of whether the product is a chicken sandwich or a medical procedure.

assault in ANY form is a crime of some sort. Certainly bombs are far worse than throwing paint... but both are (or should be) illegal. This is where some PETA protesters came in because there were no CFA crimes that I'm aware of, but there has been PETA and certainly abortion crimes.

Ham, this response indicates you were definitely reading too far into my comment because I never once said that one of the types of protestors was not OK (even though you said I did), and you’re digging deeply into specific acts that basically make protests “free market” or assault.

I pretty much agree with your post about what makes a protest cross the line from protest to a crime. I disagree, though, with the classification of these protests being the exact same thing because of what the overall protests were focused on - the patronage of a specific business versus the medical procedure itself.

(02-12-2020 07:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 06:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 06:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 04:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 03:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I think we can all agree that it takes a disturbed individual.

Not trying to be catty, lad, but with your response I am reminded of the more than one time you have indicted an entire gathering at charlottesville for the actions of the individual there.

In this situation, it sounds like there wasn't a protest or counter protest, or anything linking this terrorist with any other group. So I'm not sure why you bring this up.

Plus, we've rehashed all of our opinions on the quality of people at Charlottesville multiple times. Not sure we're gonna make any progress on it.

Just pointing out you have been in the past extremely quick to tag literally hundreds of people with the act of one shitbag. Glad you are not in this instance.

Those shitbags got tagged for more than the murder that was committed. And where are the hundreds of other people in this instance? Still missing how these are connected, outside of a car being used as a weapon.

"more" than the murder. Got it. Bad message == you are culpable in a murder by being somewhere in the vicinity. Glad to note your message hasnt changed one iota. Just had to make sure. Thanks for the confirmation.

Huh? What a weird take from what I posted.

I’ll be more explicit - they were tagged as shitbags because they were part of a protest organized by Nazis and white supremacists.

(02-12-2020 07:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I’ll be more explicit - they were tagged as shitbags because they were part of a protest organized by Nazis and white supremacists.

And the Antifa? Were they shitbags or heroes?

(02-12-2020 10:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I’ll be more explicit - they were tagged as shitbags because they were part of a protest organized by Nazis and white supremacists.

And the Antifa? Were they shitbags or heroes?

As I told Tanq, we’ve been down this road before, and it’s pretty darn pointless to do it again.

(02-13-2020 06:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 10:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I’ll be more explicit - they were tagged as shitbags because they were part of a protest organized by Nazis and white supremacists.

And the Antifa? Were they shitbags or heroes?

As I told Tanq, we’ve been down this road before, and it’s pretty darn pointless to do it again.

Dodge. Have to maintain that double standard.

It appears that you are right. There are NOT good people on both sides. In fact, there is nobody but shitbags on both sides. No good people on either side.

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
"When I terminated John Kelly, which I couldn’t do fast enough, he knew full well that he was way over his head. Being Chief of Staff just wasn’t for him. He came in with a bang, went out with a whimper, but like so many X’s, he misses the action & just can’t keep his mouth shut,"

thanks for giving us nothing but the best people donny!!!

A rose by any other name...

...still smells.

What is next? Shall we replace "felon" with "former law abiding citizen"?

Illegal alien is a perfect description of an alien who is here illegally. Undocumented just sounds as though they left their wallet at home.

(02-13-2020 09:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-13-2020 06:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 10:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I’ll be more explicit - they were tagged as shitbags because they were part of a protest organized by Nazis and white supremacists.

And the Antifa? Were they shitbags or heroes?

As I told Tanq, we’ve been down this road before, and it’s pretty darn pointless to do it again.

Dodge. Have to maintain that double standard.

It appears that you are right. There are NOT good people on both sides. In fact, there is nobody but shitbags on both sides. No good people on either side.

If you happen to go to a group event, and someone is murdered at that event, then anyone and everyone connected with the event is culpable.

Lad-world ciphering.

(02-14-2020 10:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-13-2020 09:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-13-2020 06:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 10:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I’ll be more explicit - they were tagged as shitbags because they were part of a protest organized by Nazis and white supremacists.

And the Antifa? Were they shitbags or heroes?

As I told Tanq, we’ve been down this road before, and it’s pretty darn pointless to do it again.

Dodge. Have to maintain that double standard.

It appears that you are right. There are NOT good people on both sides. In fact, there is nobody but shitbags on both sides. No good people on either side.

If you happen to go to a group event, and someone is murdered at that event, then anyone and everyone connected with the event is culpable.

Lad-world ciphering.

Bingo. Exactly. You've hit the nail on the head!

(02-14-2020 10:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-14-2020 10:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-13-2020 09:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-13-2020 06:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 10:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  And the Antifa? Were they shitbags or heroes?

As I told Tanq, we’ve been down this road before, and it’s pretty darn pointless to do it again.

Dodge. Have to maintain that double standard.

It appears that you are right. There are NOT good people on both sides. In fact, there is nobody but shitbags on both sides. No good people on either side.

If you happen to go to a group event, and someone is murdered at that event, then anyone and everyone connected with the event is culpable.

Lad-world ciphering.

Bingo. Exactly. You've hit the nail on the head!

Thank you for elucidating fully the scope of your ignorance.

(02-14-2020 10:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-13-2020 09:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-13-2020 06:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 10:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I’ll be more explicit - they were tagged as shitbags because they were part of a protest organized by Nazis and white supremacists.

And the Antifa? Were they shitbags or heroes?

As I told Tanq, we’ve been down this road before, and it’s pretty darn pointless to do it again.

Dodge. Have to maintain that double standard.

It appears that you are right. There are NOT good people on both sides. In fact, there is nobody but shitbags on both sides. No good people on either side.

If you happen to go to a group event, and someone is murdered at that event, then anyone and everyone connected with the event is culpable.

Lad-world ciphering.

No, no, no, NO. That holds true only if the actual murderer is a right winger. Completely different standards apply for left wingers.

(02-12-2020 07:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 05:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 02:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think you're reading into my posts if you think I said that one action is not OK. I said I thought there was a difference between the protests against CFA and picketing abortion centers.

I don't think I'm reading anything in...

You said abortion protesters and CFA protestors weren't the same because it wasn't as if abortion protesters are out there saying don't see Dr Bob, but instead see Dr Smith. But CFA protesters weren't saying 'don't eat CFA, eat KFC'... instead they were saying, don't eat CFA because the business supports values that you don't support. In my mind, that's more similar to what abortion protesters were saying as well.

It wasn't until a year or more later when Popeye's I think came out with a challenge to CFA's chicken sandwich to capitalize on it. They sure weren't promoting McDonald's chicken as being better or whatever else.... The Genesis of the picketing had nothing to do with the quality of the chicken sandwich whatsoever. It had to do with the 'values' being exhibited by the owners of the company.

Remember the guy in the drive-through that tried to shame the girl taking his order? That's an example of what I'm talking about. Legal, sure... but not 'free market'. Peaceful protests at CFA encouraging people to choose plant-based food or even KFC because they don't support social programs you disagree with? Free market. Peaceful protests at abortion clinics encouraging people to choose adoption because adoption centers don't support social programs (abortion) that you disagree with? Free market. Blocking doors, making customers uncomfortable, tying up traffic lines or the time of employees in an effort to depress business? Not free market.... regardless of whether the product is a chicken sandwich or a medical procedure.

assault in ANY form is a crime of some sort. Certainly bombs are far worse than throwing paint... but both are (or should be) illegal. This is where some PETA protesters came in because there were no CFA crimes that I'm aware of, but there has been PETA and certainly abortion crimes.

Ham, this response indicates you were definitely reading too far into my comment because I never once said that one of the types of protestors was not OK (even though you said I did), and you’re digging deeply into specific acts that basically make protests “free market” or assault.

I pretty much agree with your post about what makes a protest cross the line from protest to a crime. I disagree, though, with the classification of these protests being the exact same thing because of what the overall protests were focused on - the patronage of a specific business versus the medical procedure itself.

Where did I say you said one was okay? I'm very serious. You're accusing me of reading something in, and it's you who seems to be doing so.

You're also once again using the 'exact same thing' sort of comment when I very clearly said 'more similar' which of course, by definition is NOT the exact same thing.

Abortion is a specific business, just like CFA. Clearly a different business, but a business nonetheless..... and by protesting at an entry point to that business, you are engaging in the same sort of 'denial of service' that someone protesting CFA would be.

If you were protesting the medical procedure (which absolutely is also done), you would more likely do so at a government or corporate office... the people who would impact and affect such a change. That's not usually an attempt to shame people into not frequenting that business.

I am differentiating between protesting government actions (like lawmakers making abortion or leather goods or not supporting LGBTQ+ illegal) versus protesting individual actions. Even with lawmakers, protesting outside their offices or at a speech vs while they are at dinner with friends.

I will ask this since you seem to be bringing it up....

You've said they're different... I assume you say that because you think the difference you see matters to the discussion. I say they're the more similar because while I obviously see differences, they don't impact my position. Do the differences you see impact yours? If not, why does the difference between 'more similar' and 'different' matter?

(02-12-2020 10:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I’ll be more explicit - they were tagged as shitbags because they were part of a protest organized by Nazis and white supremacists.

And the Antifa? Were they shitbags or heroes?

Obviously not culpable in any way shape or form; for *any* of their gatherings.

I will assume that the 'crowd gathered' that is culpable will have some very subjective issue in common, where pretty much any other violence by any other individual within a group gets a day pass from lad.

I am very glad to actually get lad to to explicitly state that he regards *anyone* who held or holds *any* form of racist thought whom had the temerity to even 'look in at' the fringes and even be around for any iota at Charlottesville as seemingly culpable in murder.

Seems grotesquely ignorant, to be blunt. I hope to hell I never get lad as juror anywhere.

'At the parade' === GUILTY.

(02-14-2020 02:24 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 05:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 02:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think you're reading into my posts if you think I said that one action is not OK. I said I thought there was a difference between the protests against CFA and picketing abortion centers.

I don't think I'm reading anything in...

You said abortion protesters and CFA protestors weren't the same because it wasn't as if abortion protesters are out there saying don't see Dr Bob, but instead see Dr Smith. But CFA protesters weren't saying 'don't eat CFA, eat KFC'... instead they were saying, don't eat CFA because the business supports values that you don't support. In my mind, that's more similar to what abortion protesters were saying as well.

It wasn't until a year or more later when Popeye's I think came out with a challenge to CFA's chicken sandwich to capitalize on it. They sure weren't promoting McDonald's chicken as being better or whatever else.... The Genesis of the picketing had nothing to do with the quality of the chicken sandwich whatsoever. It had to do with the 'values' being exhibited by the owners of the company.

Remember the guy in the drive-through that tried to shame the girl taking his order? That's an example of what I'm talking about. Legal, sure... but not 'free market'. Peaceful protests at CFA encouraging people to choose plant-based food or even KFC because they don't support social programs you disagree with? Free market. Peaceful protests at abortion clinics encouraging people to choose adoption because adoption centers don't support social programs (abortion) that you disagree with? Free market. Blocking doors, making customers uncomfortable, tying up traffic lines or the time of employees in an effort to depress business? Not free market.... regardless of whether the product is a chicken sandwich or a medical procedure.

assault in ANY form is a crime of some sort. Certainly bombs are far worse than throwing paint... but both are (or should be) illegal. This is where some PETA protesters came in because there were no CFA crimes that I'm aware of, but there has been PETA and certainly abortion crimes.

Ham, this response indicates you were definitely reading too far into my comment because I never once said that one of the types of protestors was not OK (even though you said I did), and you’re digging deeply into specific acts that basically make protests “free market” or assault.

I pretty much agree with your post about what makes a protest cross the line from protest to a crime. I disagree, though, with the classification of these protests being the exact same thing because of what the overall protests were focused on - the patronage of a specific business versus the medical procedure itself.

Where did I say you said one was okay? I'm very serious. You're accusing me of reading something in, and it's you who seems to be doing so.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-16...id16672368

Quote:You keep seemimgly trying to defend why one action is okay and the other isn't. If it didn't happen, then it's not part of the conversation. If it did, then it's wrong. PETA members certainly have literally assaulted people wearing fur etc.

See the text above.

Quote:You're also once again using the 'exact same thing' sort of comment when I very clearly said 'more similar' which of course, by definition is NOT the exact same thing.

Abortion is a specific business, just like CFA. Clearly a different business, but a business nonetheless..... and by protesting at an entry point to that business, you are engaging in the same sort of 'denial of service' that someone protesting CFA would be.

If you were protesting the medical procedure (which absolutely is also done), you would more likely do so at a government or corporate office... the people who would impact and affect such a change. That's not usually an attempt to shame people into not frequenting that business.

I am differentiating between protesting government actions (like lawmakers making abortion or leather goods or not supporting LGBTQ+ illegal) versus protesting individual actions. Even with lawmakers, protesting outside their offices or at a speech vs while they are at dinner with friends.

I will ask this since you seem to be bringing it up....

You've said they're different... I assume you say that because you think the difference you see matters to the discussion. I say they're the more similar because while I obviously see differences, they don't impact my position. Do the differences you see impact yours? If not, why does the difference between 'more similar' and 'different' matter?

I've tried to explain why I view them as different enough to draw a distinction already, and I'll try again.

With CFA, people were protesting the specific company, and people can find alternatives to what that company provides in the market place. For abortions, people are not protesting a specific company with the "abortion industry," but rather the industry itself. There are no alternatives open in the marketplace for someone to go to, that the protesters would be happy with the customer using.

Because there is an alternative available for CFA (other places sell chicken sandwiches and the protesters would be fine with that), it makes sense to me to view this as a free market in action. Due to the lack of alternative for abortions, I would categorize it differently - which isn't saying that it isn't OK.

I'm speaking strictly of peaceful protests, and once you start crossing the line of be verbally/physically abusive, you cross the line for either issue. But I don't think peacefully protesting near/at a business is a denial of service.

I do think we're pretty much on the same page.

(02-14-2020 03:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-14-2020 02:24 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Where did I say you said one was okay? I'm very serious. You're accusing me of reading something in, and it's you who seems to be doing so.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-16...id16672368

Quote:You keep seemimgly trying to defend why one action is okay and the other isn't. If it didn't happen, then it's not part of the conversation. If it did, then it's wrong. PETA members certainly have literally assaulted people wearing fur etc.

See the text above.

Words like 'seemingly' and 'if' have meaning. Yes, I think that you're going this way... and you've complained about me getting this impression, but done nothing to refute it other than say that you didn't literally say that. I klnow you didn't... if you had, I wouldn't use words like seemingly and if.

Quote:I've tried to explain why I view them as different enough to draw a distinction already, and I'll try again.

With CFA, people were protesting the specific company, and people can find alternatives to what that company provides in the market place. For abortions, people are not protesting a specific company with the "abortion industry," but rather the industry itself. There are no alternatives open in the marketplace for someone to go to, that the protesters would be happy with the customer using.

Because there is an alternative available for CFA (other places sell chicken sandwiches and the protesters would be fine with that), it makes sense to me to view this as a free market in action. Due to the lack of alternative for abortions, I would categorize it differently - which isn't saying that it isn't OK.

I'm speaking strictly of peaceful protests, and once you start crossing the line of be verbally/physically abusive, you cross the line for either issue. But I don't think peacefully protesting near/at a business is a denial of service.

I do think we're pretty much on the same page.

I completely understood this the first time you said it... I just disagree.

So whom is PETA protesting when they throw paint on people wearing fur? Whom can you buy animal skin from that they'd be okay with?

Adoption isn't an alternative to an abortion? It seems very much specifically the option that abortion protesters support... and just as you can get a different chicken sandwich, you can get a different medical procedure.

and yes, 'murder' to some is more important than being able to get their chicken sandwich of choice.

You're drawing distinctions that don't matter to those engaging in these protests. They (may) matter to YOU because you seem to support one (protesting a business) and not the other (protesting an industry, paraphrasing your words) ; but if you put yourself in the position of someone who doesn't support either, you will be able to justify your position, just as I have here. That's not my position above, but it's the position of those who think they're 'okay' in aggressively protesting (to the point of intimidation if not criminality) these events.

Yes, I think by positions we're not far apart... but I think you're missing the perspective from 'the other side'. Trust me that in your life, you will eventually find yourself on the wrong side of arguments that you once aggressively supported. This probably isn't it, but it will be because you didn't imagine that there would be a time when people thought very differently from how they do now. This is where the 'ok boomer' comment and attitude comes from. Many these days seem to be unconcerned with the idea that some day, they will be the 'out of touch' generation to a new group of priorities... and that laws will and must apply equally to everyone.

(02-14-2020 04:11 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-14-2020 03:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-14-2020 02:24 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Where did I say you said one was okay? I'm very serious. You're accusing me of reading something in, and it's you who seems to be doing so.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-16...id16672368

Quote:You keep seemimgly trying to defend why one action is okay and the other isn't. If it didn't happen, then it's not part of the conversation. If it did, then it's wrong. PETA members certainly have literally assaulted people wearing fur etc.

See the text above.

Words like 'seemingly' and 'if' have meaning. Yes, I think that you're going this way... and you've complained about me getting this impression, but done nothing to refute it other than say that you didn't literally say that. I klnow you didn't... if you had, I wouldn't use words like seemingly and if.

Quote:I've tried to explain why I view them as different enough to draw a distinction already, and I'll try again.

With CFA, people were protesting the specific company, and people can find alternatives to what that company provides in the market place. For abortions, people are not protesting a specific company with the "abortion industry," but rather the industry itself. There are no alternatives open in the marketplace for someone to go to, that the protesters would be happy with the customer using.

Because there is an alternative available for CFA (other places sell chicken sandwiches and the protesters would be fine with that), it makes sense to me to view this as a free market in action. Due to the lack of alternative for abortions, I would categorize it differently - which isn't saying that it isn't OK.

I'm speaking strictly of peaceful protests, and once you start crossing the line of be verbally/physically abusive, you cross the line for either issue. But I don't think peacefully protesting near/at a business is a denial of service.

I do think we're pretty much on the same page.

I completely understood this the first time you said it... I just disagree.

So whom is PETA protesting when they throw paint on people wearing fur? Whom can you buy animal skin from that they'd be okay with?

No one. I would consider PETA protesters to be akin to abortion protesters in that regard.

Quote:Adoption isn't an alternative to an abortion? It seems very much specifically the option that abortion protesters support... and just as you can get a different chicken sandwich, you can get a different medical procedure.

But it isn't about getting a different medical procedure, it's about not getting one. With CFA protests, people are saying don't eat here, not don't eat any products that CFA and any of its competitors make.

Quote:and yes, 'murder' to some is more important than being able to get their chicken sandwich of choice.

You're drawing distinctions that don't matter to those engaging in these protests. They (may) matter to YOU because you seem to support one (protesting a business) and not the other (protesting an industry, paraphrasing your words) ; but if you put yourself in the position of someone who doesn't support either, you will be able to justify your position, just as I have here. That's not my position above, but it's the position of those who think they're 'okay' in aggressively protesting (to the point of intimidation if not criminality) these events.

Ham, using the word "seem" is not a magical get out of jail free card to try and pin a belief on them. Again, I do not SEEM to be against the act of protesting abortion - I simply commented that it was in a different category from the CFA protesters. If anti-abortion advocates and PETA supporters want to protest peacefully and not hurl abusive language and paint at people, I support that right in the same way that I support CFA protestors to do the exact same thing.

I don't think CFA protesters who intimidated anyone were OK, and I have not said that I supported them. I've not SEEMED to support that, either.

[qupote] Yes, I think by positions we're not far apart... but I think you're missing the perspective from 'the other side'. Trust me that in your life, you will eventually find yourself on the wrong side of arguments that you once aggressively supported. This probably isn't it, but it will be because you didn't imagine that there would be a time when people thought very differently from how they do now. This is where the 'ok boomer' comment and attitude comes from. Many these days seem to be unconcerned with the idea that some day, they will be the 'out of touch' generation to a new group of priorities... and that laws will and must apply equally to everyone.
[/quote]

And I get what you're saying above, but I really don't understand how it is being applied to this conversation.

(02-14-2020 04:11 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-14-2020 03:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-14-2020 02:24 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Where did I say you said one was okay? I'm very serious. You're accusing me of reading something in, and it's you who seems to be doing so.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-16...id16672368

Quote:You keep seemimgly trying to defend why one action is okay and the other isn't. If it didn't happen, then it's not part of the conversation. If it did, then it's wrong. PETA members certainly have literally assaulted people wearing fur etc.

See the text above.

Words like 'seemingly' and 'if' have meaning. Yes, I think that you're going this way... and you've complained about me getting this impression, but done nothing to refute it other than say that you didn't literally say that. I klnow you didn't... if you had, I wouldn't use words like seemingly and if.

Quote:I've tried to explain why I view them as different enough to draw a distinction already, and I'll try again.

With CFA, people were protesting the specific company, and people can find alternatives to what that company provides in the market place. For abortions, people are not protesting a specific company with the "abortion industry," but rather the industry itself. There are no alternatives open in the marketplace for someone to go to, that the protesters would be happy with the customer using.

Because there is an alternative available for CFA (other places sell chicken sandwiches and the protesters would be fine with that), it makes sense to me to view this as a free market in action. Due to the lack of alternative for abortions, I would categorize it differently - which isn't saying that it isn't OK.

I'm speaking strictly of peaceful protests, and once you start crossing the line of be verbally/physically abusive, you cross the line for either issue. But I don't think peacefully protesting near/at a business is a denial of service.

I do think we're pretty much on the same page.

I completely understood this the first time you said it... I just disagree.

So whom is PETA protesting when they throw paint on people wearing fur? Whom can you buy animal skin from that they'd be okay with?

Adoption isn't an alternative to an abortion? It seems very much specifically the option that abortion protesters support... and just as you can get a different chicken sandwich, you can get a different medical procedure.

and yes, 'murder' to some is more important than being able to get their chicken sandwich of choice.

You're drawing distinctions that don't matter to those engaging in these protests. They (may) matter to YOU because you seem to support one (protesting a business) and not the other (protesting an industry, paraphrasing your words) ; but if you put yourself in the position of someone who doesn't support either, you will be able to justify your position, just as I have here. That's not my position above, but it's the position of those who think they're 'okay' in aggressively protesting (to the point of intimidation if not criminality) these events.

Yes, I think by positions we're not far apart... but I think you're missing the perspective from 'the other side'. Trust me that in your life, you will eventually find yourself on the wrong side of arguments that you once aggressively supported. This probably isn't it, but it will be because you didn't imagine that there would be a time when people thought very differently from how they do now. This is where the 'ok boomer' comment and attitude comes from. Many these days seem to be unconcerned with the idea that some day, they will be the 'out of touch' generation to a new group of priorities... and that laws will and must apply equally to everyone.

This reminds me of a discussion I was in a while ago regarding Colin Kaepernick's National Anthem protests. The view which everyone was expected to agree with is that his protests are good, and opposition to them is bad because it necessarily means opposition to protecting people from police brutality. I pointed out that one can reasonably believe that the National Anthem should never be used to call attention to one's pet cause, regardless of the merits of that cause; and that to someone who holds such a belief, the argument that "but this particular cause is a really good one" does not carry much weight. For this I was called sexist, racist, gas-lighting, and a few other things. I'm sure they would have thrown in "OK boomer" if it had been a thing at the time (even though most of the participants were older than me).

I made clear throughout that I was not arguing for or against Kaepernick's method of protest OR his underlying cause; I was simply pointing out that it is possible to have a completely content-neutral opposition to the method without opposing the underlying cause, and that responding to such opposition by re-iterating the underlying cause doesn't really work. To this day I don't know why this point was so hard to understand, or why stating it was considered so irredeemably offensive. But such are the times we live in.

To her credit, one individual who disagreed with me (and whom I had never met) took the time to talk with me by phone, and soon realized that we both support free speech and oppose police brutality. Since then we have seen each other at various professional events on quite friendly terms. So all in all, the end result was positive: without the disagreement we would not have had the phone call; and without the phone call, we might not have gotten to know each other. Quite a different experience from the way some others have acted in similar circumstances.