Video of Mizzou student protests at parade
- Thread starter MidMOhawk
- Start date
Sorry, wrong. I'm saying if the Selma marchers had the same permits and whatever it takes to use the road, as Mizzou's stupid homecoming parade presumably had permits, than a group of rednecks would have NO RIGHT to clasp arms together and block the march.
I don't think Selma itself was wrong. It was important to protest injustice. It was wrong of the police to attack those people. It's sad it went down the way it did.
All the tension and violence could be avoided if everyone respected each other's liberties.
On the second march redneck private protesters did block the path and even killed a protester. But that brings up another issue. In both Selma and Missouri, the citizens are protesting the government. They are using the public infrastructure to impede the actions of officials. The rednecks in Selma and the examples with the religious folks protesting gays and abortions are private people protesting against private people. It's fairly important to recognize these examples are not the same.
Bingo! The ends don't justify the means. I'm all about William Lloyd Garrison and "That which is not just, is not law". But someone is going to have to show me why the protestors at Mizzou couldn't have accomplished the same goal without interfering in the rights of others.
I wouldn't even be surprised if they couldn't have arranged to join the parade!!! Or get a permit to have their own...oh, but then those nasty band members from Mizzou might have blocked THEIR way!!!!
I'm sorry but I'm not going to keep excusing your ignorance on this example you brought up. You are in fact arguing Selma was wrong. That you don't know that's the result of your argument isn't an excuse.
Oh don't run from your position. You are arging the impeding of traffic by the marchers was wrong.
You realize their protesting a government official. They don't have a right not to be impeded by their bosses.
I don't care. Other people read this and it's them I'm thinking of......you can call me ignorant all you want but you aren't going to fool anyone by claiming that I ever suggested Selma was wrong.
You got it messed up. If you are the judge, I'm not worried about your verdict........it's the crowd that sees your verdict that I am speaking to.
If they stick to the side of the road so cars can get by there's no problem. People were "marching" from Jacksonville to Sanford for protests when the Trevon Martin mess was going on. No one had any problems. Peaceful, peaceful, peaceful.
Curious why a "permit" issued by the corrupt, evil, no-good, must be dismantled government should allow someone to impede your rights? Seems inapposite to many of you posters' beliefs.
So, if me and a bunch of my redneck friends did this to Obama's car to protest Obamacare, we should be allowed to do it?
We would be in an interrogation room faster than you can say individual mandate.
But you are also, necessarily, saying that without permits the officers could and SHOULD drag them out of there. That is the natural consequence of your statement.
Two things: I would absolutely applaud this.
Second, the video portrays young college kids, I presume your group would look like this
Pretty close. Let's be clear. I'm saying that there is one road and one group (presumably) applied for and received a permit to use it. Do you have a better way to allow that the road be used for other than everyday traffic?
Now. Once one group has procured that permit, I'm saying no other group has the right to arbitrarily halt the proceedings. And, IowaHawk, I don't care if the group with the permit is the Klan, or the Black Panthers. I don't even care if it's a freaking Homecoming parade!
As to officers dragging the protestors out of there. If you notice my earlier posts on the subject, my reaction was, "So what!?!?". I've got no real personal interest in why the protestors took about ten minutes to "disrupt" the proceedings. So no, I was not rooting to see them forcibly removed. I was a little annoyed at them, but it's called TOLERANCE. Something I brought up in regards to me putting up a Nativity scene on a courthouse lawn. Who does it really hurt?
But isn't it a shame, that tolerance only works these days when people agree with the cause? So, it's not ME expecting people get pushed around by laws. It's the intolerant dolts on the right and left that can't just deal with it. And this is what you get...those protestors were where they had no right to be and delayed a parade that had every right to be there! You folks with your feathers all ruffled up...blame yourselves that this becomes a big deal.
Now, ask me my opinion on Selma? Were that permits were required, but use of the road for special purposes was an actionable option? If the marches there were denied, but others afforded that right? OK, then I've got a problem and a little civil disobedience is in order. In that case, yes, "That which is not just is not law."
If folks can't see the difference...there's nothing I can say.
Dan: off topic, but I think relevant.
Why does a "permit" issued by the government allow you to "impede" my rights that you (according to you) wouldn't be able to do otherwise?
Why does a "permit" issued by the government allow you to "impede" my rights that you (according to you) wouldn't be able to do otherwise?
Just want to point out the obvious here, because I'm sure Tradition missed it when he liked your post. This means you are allowing that with which you agree (unjust) and declining that with which you don't (just). You are simply picking/choosing winners/loser. Now we knew that back on page 1, but you don't seem to readily acknowledge it.
Also, good for you separating yourself, appropriately, from the loons (Tradition).
First, more irony that you are now trying to cite to MLKjr, but no, that is not what my post said at all you buffoon. You are attributing something to MLKjr that he would, likely, be offended by. MLK wouldn't believe that all civil disobedience/passive resistance of just laws should be outlawed, he would urge all sorts of civil disobedience. That statement, in connection with mine, appears to be well above your head.
He was saying that Rosa Parks didn't have to give up her seat, because it was an unjust law.
As for who gets to decide whether a law or a rule or an institution is unjust, the people do that. Protesters try to raise awareness and things change (civil right), or the protesters are ignored (occupy Wall Street). A protest is just a form of speech. It doesn't mean the speech is calling for something just.
How you are trying to justify that with your redundant posts in these threads, I have no idea.
I have nothing against speech. Chant and sing and come up with clever "hey ho" nonsense until you're blue in the face. Maybe people will come around to your cause. But when you force people to listen to what you say, that's crossing the line. No one is the boss of me.
Not off topic at all. What if two opposing groups want to use the same road? There has to be some way to make it work and that is pretty much the ONLY reason to have permits in the first place. First to apply, gets the permit. That gives them the right to use the road. That's what happened in Mizzou (I'm presuming, leaving the door open for anyone to show that the Homecoming Parade hadn't taken the legal steps to procure legal use...which if so changes the whole dynamic.)
Now, why do you suppose the protestors showed up? (Consider this in bold letters) They knew the Homecoming Parade was happening and they intended to disrupt it! They can't do that!!!! Now, in my little world of "who cares", I'd suggest putting up with a ten minute or so disruption and carry on. All done, assholic but no big deal. But I have a feeling that if the reverse were true, the protestors had procured permits for the road and some rogue portion of the Mizzou band showed up and refused passage...some folks would be screaming for the State Guard to open fire.
And there's the problem. Ideologues on the right and left have lost their minds. They think the cause is the justice. No! It doesn't work like that. That leads to no freedoms at all. Bad idea.
You mean because I agree with the abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison? "That which is not just is not law." Or as Tradition pointed out, King said, "An unjust law is no law at all." You're going to have to explain how they could identify a just law from an unjust law and I can't. I believe I have the ability to identify right from wrong. And in fact, as I've pointed out, that is far more than the far left believes I have a right to enjoy. Natural makes clear he considers my opinions unworthy. I am, again, in the eyes of the left a "rag proletariat". A peon. A peasant. Unworthy of thinking for myself...only because I don't agree with them.
Of course that is why they showed up, I posted multiple times on that same thing. By simply "allowing" them to exercise their sacred, important First rights some of the very gracious posters on here want a pat on the back for telling them to do it someplace no one is bothered.....and no one is watching. That is why these types of protests, the ones that make it, let's say, uncomfortable are the important ones.
The end of your second paragraph is the issue, and it may be true, true for the people who are EXACTLY LIKE Tradition, just with an opposing viewpoint. They are both the problem, equally.
The funny part about going 7 pages on THIS SPECIFIC VIDEO is that it appeared to work out just fine for everyone involved, and yet, some (again, Tradition) still want authoritarian discipline invoked at all costs! Hell, look at his rhetoric, calling it a "violent" and "forceful" protest. Come on!
But I like you Dan, you are sensible.
The end of your second paragraph is the issue, and it may be true, true for the people who are EXACTLY LIKE Tradition, just with an opposing viewpoint. They are both the problem, equally.
The funny part about going 7 pages on THIS SPECIFIC VIDEO is that it appeared to work out just fine for everyone involved, and yet, some (again, Tradition) still want authoritarian discipline invoked at all costs! Hell, look at his rhetoric, calling it a "violent" and "forceful" protest. Come on!
But I like you Dan, you are sensible.
No, you misunderstand. You and I agree with those quotes, and likely agree for all situations. I'm not saying an unjust law is law, or just. I'm saying that allowing civil disobedience ONLY for "unjust laws" requires one to pick and choose which ones are unjust.....and that is picking sides.
There have been many a leader who believed they could pick "right from wrong", how many of us regular folk agreed with them? King was saying that an unjust law can't, in fact, be law. He was not saying that ONLY the protesters protesting what he agreed with should be allowed to do so. MLKjr would have been on board with all sorts of civil disobedience, even when he didn't agree with their message, and their message is the "just/unjust" part.
To link it specifically to the OP. The unjust law might be not allowing them to march, regardless of a "permit" (see: many marches in segregationist south), but if you believe that law is otherwise just, than you would have to stop them. If unjust, than it is ok.
My point is that civil disobedience is the best way for a group of people to voice their displeasure. Not just the best as in most effective, but the best for all of us. Tradition wants, needs it to be violent, bloody, and ugly.
I don't know about sensible. I'm trying to wrap my head around "Occupy Wall street", a movement I was rooting for (must admit haven't heard anything for a long time.) and I thought the way their protests were broken up was a cruddy deal. Gathering in parks where it seems no particular rules were really effected. In one case it was that tents were set up? Oh no! Tents!
When I equate that to Mizzou my sense of justice is really tested. But, then I think that what if another group were there first? Sensible? It's sometimes a tough call.
What the hell? I want everybody to respect each other's rights. Nothing more.
Tradition? Do you really think the result of about a dozen people blocking a homecoming parade should have been violent, bloody and ugly?
Personally, I think it would have been cool if somebody in the parade had said, "Hey, march with us and after we'll set up a place where you can do your organized shout thing. Or maybe you can walk ahead of us and shout along the way?"
Never mind...you already answered. Thanks.
Personally, I think it would have been cool if somebody in the parade had said, "Hey, march with us and after we'll set up a place where you can do your organized shout thing. Or maybe you can walk ahead of us and shout along the way?"
Never mind...you already answered. Thanks.
Am I mischaracterizing what Tradition wanted? He wanted them forcibly removed by authorities, right? By any means necessary, including sic'ing the dogs? Wasn't that his prior posts?
If he doesn't want that, why else characterize their protest, wrongly, as violent and forceful?
If he doesn't want that, why else characterize their protest, wrongly, as violent and forceful?
Last edited:
Occupy is a good example, but it usually just pisses off the usual posters around here. Tradition, apparently, would be one of the ones screaming about Occupy protesting on the Capitol grounds impeding people....and he apparently would be ok with where they were forced to move.....a park a mile away.
And that is precisely the problem, most/a lot of people are ok with protest .... as long as it is done in a park a mile away where no one has to pay attention.
Let's let Tradition speak for himself. It sounds to me like his issue was with the illegality of the protest.
Tradition. Do you think those protestors should be afforded the same opportunity to use that street for a parade? Not at the same time of course, but as legally permitted as the parade was?
Tradition. Do you think those protestors should be afforded the same opportunity to use that street for a parade? Not at the same time of course, but as legally permitted as the parade was?
Well than, you ask him something!!! (I'm laughing out of a combination of silliness and amazement.) I'll bet you'll be shocked. I'll bet you both agree on more than you think.
Did you have to work hard to learn how to be such a jerk or is it a natural talent?
Bingo! Let's all go have a beer. (I don't drink...but one every year or so isn't bad.)
Like anything, much of it was natural, but hard work and persistence goes a long way.
