(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.