(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.