Video of Mizzou student protests at parade

[theIowaHawk]

I'm pretty sure under Tradition's definitions, sit ins are all "forceful" and "violent".

Sitting at the front of the bus (impeding someone from properly taking that spot) is also forceful and violent.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Yes. You don't have the right to impede the movement of others.

Good, I like that you've acknowledged they the message was ok, the people are ok, the topic ok, they should have just continued walking, or paused only as long as the other floats. Its progress.

In other news, it is also violently protesting to chain yourself to a tree in order to save it from being cut down.

Also, an illegal and violent protest:

 

[The Tradition]

I'm pretty sure under Tradition's definitions, sit ins are all "forceful" and "violent".

Sitting at the front of the bus (impeding someone from properly taking that spot) is also forceful and violent.

That's not impeding someone's movement. Telling Rosa Parks she couldn't sit in any unoccupied seat she wanted was impeding HER movement.

Try to be rational and really think about this. I know it's hard.

Start here: Your right to swing your fist around ends where my nose begins.

EVERYTHING about liberty can be evaluated with that simple test.

When you stand in front of a car to prevent it from moving, you've figuratively swung your fist into someone else's nose. You are taking someone else's liberty away.

 

[The Tradition]

As for the tree thing, I'd need to know more. Are they violating anyone's property rights?

 

[theIowaHawk]

As for the tree thing, I'd need to know more. Are they violating anyone's property rights?

Well, obviously, in your definition they are impeding the people trying to tear it down. You find it forceful and violent.....somehow.

 

[theIowaHawk]

That's not impeding someone's movement. Telling Rosa Parks she couldn't sit in any unoccupied seat she wanted was impeding HER movement.

Try to be rational and really think about this. I know it's hard.

Start here: Your right to swing your fist around ends where my nose begins.

EVERYTHING about liberty can be evaluated with that simple test.

When you stand in front of a car to prevent it from moving, you've figuratively swung your fist into someone else's nose. You are taking someone else's liberty away.

You obviously look at this too one-sided. Rosa Parks is impeded, but so is the person rightfully (legally) trying to occupy that space. That is directly comparable to your scenario here. A person is standing where they (legally, according to you) shouldn't, impeding that person from occupying that space.

Your "start here" is completely non-analogous, as no assault took place, and that would be textbook assault.

How have you "figuratively" swung your fist? You can't simply take a completely unrelated factual scenario (standing still) and add "figuratively" to try and change it. That isn't what figuratively means. There were, literally, no punches thrown. There were no swinging fists. There were people standing still (or, like Rosa, sitting still).

Seriously, analyze it.

 

[Tom Paris]

The bitch doesn't reply to emails, I can tell you that.

 

[The Tradition]

Well, obviously, in your definition they are impeding the people trying to tear it down. You find it forceful and violent.....somehow.

Idiotic argument. They're only stopping the guy from cutting down the tree. He's free to do whatever he wants except assault them so he can cut down the tree.

If the guy said "screw it" and attempted to leave, and then they surrounded his truck so he couldn't leave and required him to listen to the history of the tree, then that would be force.

 

[The Tradition]

You obviously look at this too one-sided. Rosa Parks is impeded, but so is the person rightfully (legally) trying to occupy that space. That is directly comparable to your scenario here. A person is standing where they (legally, according to you) shouldn't, impeding that person from occupying that space.

Bogus. You're suggesting that two people have the right to the same space (bogus), instead what happened, which was blocking someone's right to LEAVE a space and move on.

Goddamn it. THINK. Stop and think about what you're saying.

 

[theIowaHawk]

No, YOU are suggesting it. The protester had the space, you want them to be removed so that someone else can occupy it, someone you more agree with.

You are saying that sit-ins by definition are forceful. Tell me how you aren't, in fact, saying that?

 

[Tom Paris]

No one was detained. I have the right to get in your face. I have the right to shout. I have the right to protest. Why do you want to give up your freedoms?

You are smart to back away from the dogs. Keep backing up. You are on the wrong side of this issue.

You do NOT have the right to get in someone's face and scream. These asshats lost me when they bullied the Asian student reporter trying to take pictures on the quad. They are a large group of hypocrites. I was fine with what they were doing up until that moment.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Idiotic argument. They're only stopping the guy from cutting down the tree. He's free to do whatever he wants except assault them so he can cut down the tree.

If the guy said "screw it" and attempted to leave, and then they surrounded his truck so he couldn't leave and required him to listen to the history of the tree, then that would be force.

He has the option to drive over them, that is the point of passive resistance, putting the ball in the court of the other person. Largely it works, see the photo of the dog attacking the young black man, that you urged should happen again.

 

[theIowaHawk]

You do NOT have the right to get in someone's face and scream. These asshats lost me when they bullied the Asian student reporter trying to take pictures on the quad. They are a large group of hypocrites. I was fine with what they were doing up until that moment.

The first part of this I agree with, and they didn't appear to be doing that in the video of the OP. Yes, they do appear to be hypocrites.

 

[theIowaHawk]

One thing I find encouraging, apparently at next years 4th of July parade when the young, terrible kid dancers stop the entire parade to do their terrible kid dance....I can come here and complain about their violent, forceful, and illegal impeding of my inherent civil liberties.

 

[The Tradition]

He has the option to drive over them, that is the point of passive resistance, putting the ball in the court of the other person. Largely it works, see the photo of the dog attacking the young black man, that you urged should happen again.

Okay, so if the KKK wants to stand in your way and prevent you from leaving the area until you've heard them read a manifesto to you, you have the option to punch your way out of the situation and that's what freedom looks like? You really don't feel that they're not forcing you to do anything because you could ramp up the violence if you chose to do so?

You are absolutely irrational and your thoughts on freedom are corrupted.

Should pro-life protesters be able to block women from entering an abortion clinic? Non-violently, of course. They won't actually hit her. They'll just physically keep her from walking in the door. You on board with that?

 

[Tom Paris]

The first part of this I agree with, and they didn't appear to be doing that in the video of the OP. Yes, they do appear to be hypocrites.

I didn't watch the video in this thread...I assume it is about the parade. My blood pressure was going up watching the treatment of the student reporters at the Quad, posted in a video yesterday. That kid didn't deserve that treatment. When the main women started walking the group into him to back him down the sidewalk...well, I really loathed that woman at that moment.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Like Natural said in the other thread, you are factually altering the scenario to try and make your point, but I'll play. Passivity is standing somewhere. In your scenario you say that "punching your way out" is the only remaining option, which implies that someone would physically force me to remain. As in, I walk up to them and try to walk past, and they put their hands on me.

There, you've got your "force"! Well done, I knew you'd figure it out!

 

[theIowaHawk]

I didn't watch the video in this thread...I assume it is about the parade. My blood pressure was going up watching the treatment of the student reporters at the Quad, posted in a video yesterday. That kid didn't deserve that treatment. When the main women started walking the group into him to back him down the sidewalk...well, I really loathed that woman at that moment.

Ok, so question for you then on that topic. Do you believe that "reporters" have the right to be wherever they choose? Can they be restricted at all? As long as it is newsworthy they must be unimpeded?

Not looking at what specifically happened in yesterday's video, but at a similar event.

 

[The Tradition]

Like Natural said in the other thread, you are factually altering the scenario to try and make your point, but I'll play. Passivity is standing somewhere. In your scenario you say that "punching your way out" is the only remaining option, which implies that someone would physically force me to remain. As in, I walk up to them and try to walk past, and they put their hands on me.

There, you've got your "force"! Well done, I knew you'd figure it out!

You suggested the car could just run them down.

So, write your reply again with you in a car and running down the KKK protesters standing in the way.

I'll wait.

 

[The Tradition]

Ok, so question for you then on that topic. Do you believe that "reporters" have the right to be wherever they choose? Can they be restricted at all? As long as it is newsworthy they must be unimpeded?

Not looking at what specifically happened in yesterday's video, but at a similar event.

You have a right to take pictures in public, whether you're a member of the press or not.

 

[theIowaHawk]

You have a right to take pictures in public, whether you're a member of the press or not.

I don't need to get in this one with you, your points aren't interesting. The question isn't whether you have a "right to take pictures" it is whether you have a right to do so anywhere you choose at any time.

Which is IRONIC considering your stance on impeding other people...

 

[The Tradition]

I wonder what these thugs would have done if the President had tried to get out of the car and finish the parade route on foot?

 

[theIowaHawk]

You suggested the car could just run them down.

So, write your reply again with you in a car and running down the KKK protesters standing in the way.

I'll wait.

You really, really don't get it. And that is fine. You want law enforcement to physically remove protesters so that a parade (for the protestor's school) can continue without interruption.

And you are the one crying freedom....

 

[theIowaHawk]

I wonder what these thugs would have done if the President had tried to get out of the car and finish the parade route on foot?

There it is. I don't know how many posts it took, but there. it. is.

 

[The Tradition]

I don't need to get in this one with you, your points aren't interesting. The question isn't whether you have a "right to take pictures" it is whether you have a right to do so anywhere you choose at any time.

Which is IRONIC considering your stance on impeding other people...

Well obviously, I'm restricted from taking pictures at a military base or a nuclear power plant, but that's not "in public."

So yes, I have the right to take pictures in public places at any time.

 

[Tom Paris]

Ok, so question for you then on that topic. Do you believe that "reporters" have the right to be wherever they choose? Can they be restricted at all? As long as it is newsworthy they must be unimpeded?

Not looking at what specifically happened in yesterday's video, but at a similar event.

Not 100% sure. If people have created a perimeter, like what was done on the Quad, I do not believe that student reporter had the right to make contact with a person to move past them. That's asking for trouble. From what I could see, he was outside the group and they didn't like him taking pictures past them. Even though he had, as a UM student, every right to be there as they did, it was in his best interest not to force his way past.

However, many members of the group confronted him, bullied him, and repeatedly made contact with him. I find their actions disgusting. Especially the loud mouth female. If she was also an educator, like the redhead at the end, Associate Professor Click, they were doing a piss poor job in a teaching moment, imho.

 

[The Tradition]

You really, really don't get it. And that is fine. You want law enforcement to physically remove protesters so that a parade (for the protestor's school) can continue without interruption.

And you are the one crying freedom....

Again, they could stand on the sidewalk and chant all day. When you infringe on the liberties of others, you've crossed the line.

Not sure why this is so difficult a concept for you.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Well, apparently, they can't stand on the sidewalk because it would impede the very rights of our freedom-loving citizens. I do find it telling that you haven't commented on the freedom riders (is that their name?) nor on sit ins, and their forceful, violent nature.

 

[The Tradition]

There it is. I don't know how many posts it took, but there. it. is.

They would have continued to try and block his movement and force him to listen to the history lesson.

He probably should have done it, been assaulted, and then he'd still have his job.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Not 100% sure. If people have created a perimeter, like what was done on the Quad, I do not believe that student reporter had the right to make contact with a person to move past them. That's asking for trouble. From what I could see, he was outside the group and they didn't like him taking pictures past them. Even though he had, as a UM student, every right to be there as they did, it was in his best interest not to force his way past.

However, many members of the group confronted him, bullied him, and repeatedly made contact with him. I find their actions disgusting. Especially the loud mouth female. If she was also an educator, like the redhead at the end, Associate Professor Click, they were doing a piss poor job in a teaching moment, imho.

Ok.

 

[The Tradition]

Well, apparently, they can't stand on the sidewalk because it would impede the very rights of our freedom-loving citizens. I do find it telling that you haven't commented on the freedom riders (is that their name?) nor on sit ins, and their forceful, violent nature.

Standing on the sidewalk and not forcing anyone from leaving doesn't infringe on anyone's rights. Try to keep up.

Freedom riders? I know nothing about them. Did you slip in a post I didn't see in your meth-fueled blast of posts?

Sit ins. Not violent unless you're blocking the factory gates. If you're just sitting somewhere and not infringing on anyone else's liberties, that's fine. If you're stopping someone from going to work, or going to class, or going to the library, then your protest has crossed the line.

 

[unIowa]

Well that was a hot mess.

View embedded media

Think about it....^^^^^....was all about drunken foolishness and it was way worse!

Oh...i thought that was bc someone shut the water off.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Standing on the sidewalk and not forcing anyone from leaving doesn't infringe on anyone's rights. Try to keep up.

Freedom riders? I know nothing about them. Did you slip in a post I didn't see in your meth-fueled blast of posts?

Sit ins. Not violent unless you're blocking the factory gates. If you're just sitting somewhere and not infringing on anyone else's liberties, that's fine. If you're stopping someone from going to work, or going to class, or going to the library, then your protest has crossed the line.

Anyone surprised this guy doesn't know what a sit in is?

 

[naturalmwa]

Try to be rational and really think about this. I know it's hard.

.

OMG please do this. Standing in your path is not punching you. You would have gunned down Gandhi and MLK too. Your views are freakishly, dangerously, horribly wrong. Repent.

 

[naturalmwa]

Bogus. You're suggesting that two people have the right to the same space (bogus), instead what happened, which was blocking someone's right to LEAVE a space and move on.

Goddamn it. THINK. Stop and think about what you're saying.

That didn't happen either. You keep making up facts.

 

[naturalmwa]

You do NOT have the right to get in someone's face and scream. These asshats lost me when they bullied the Asian student reporter trying to take pictures on the quad. They are a large group of hypocrites. I was fine with what they were doing up until that moment.

Sure you do.

 

[The Tradition]

OMG please do this. Standing in your path is not punching you. You would have gunned down Gandhi and MLK too. Your views are freakishly, dangerously, horribly wrong. Repent.

Refusing to let me leave by standing my my way has one of two outcomes: either I am forced to stop trying to leave, or I have to use greater force to get you out of my way.

The crime of "assault" does not require "violence" the way you idiots are trying to define it. Simple unwanted touching (e.g., sticking your chest in my chest so that I can't get past you) is assault. Even knocking my hat off my head without actually touching me is assault. You're wrong.

 

[86Hawkeye]

Okay, so if the KKK wants to stand in your way and prevent you from leaving the area until you've heard them read a manifesto to you, you have the option to punch your way out of the situation and that's what freedom looks like? You really don't feel that they're not forcing you to do anything because you could ramp up the violence if you chose to do so?

You are absolutely irrational and your thoughts on freedom are corrupted.

Should pro-life protesters be able to block women from entering an abortion clinic? Non-violently, of course. They won't actually hit her. They'll just physically keep her from walking in the door. You on board with that?

Well done.

 

[The Tradition]

That didn't happen either. You keep making up facts.

I WAS RESPONDING TO HIS STUPID SUGGESTION THAT ROSA PARKS WAS OCCUPYING SOMEONE ELSE'S LAWFUL SPACE.

The facts of what you replied to is the difference between attempting to leave someplace vs. trying to claim someplace and preventing others from using that space.

 

[theIowaHawk]

She was, by law, occupying someone else's lawful space. How can you say otherwise?