4 ms·

So people not liking the head of the country talking about having people shot by the military is "taking themselves way too seriously"? Only one side is bringi

So people not liking the head of the country talking about having people shot by the military is "taking themselves way too seriously"? Only one side is bringing death and lethal action into the discussion, not sure why you mentioned "both sides".

mantas 6y ago
What should police do to stop looting? Loot looters' homes to stay at equal level of violence?
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  The police should not, if possible, kill people to stop them from looting, even if they are destroying property. This is fundamental to civilization.
  - mantas 6y ago
    But it's not fundamental to keep up public order? What if my house is looted? If looter doesn't leave when asked nicely, should I just wait for him to take what he wants?
    - happytoexplain 6y ago
      It is also fundamental to keep up public order. That's not even close to being mutually exclusive to my statement. Nor is the obvious answer to your second question. You're engaging in hostile, bad-faith argument.
      - mantas 6y ago
        My argument is that looter, who is willingly committing a crime, shouldn't expect people on the other side to stand by. If it's bad faith to keep up public order and guard private property, then so be it. If looters know that if they don't obey to orders nobody will punish them, that's flat-out enabling such behaviour. People who are willing to loot don't care about niceties, they're just looking for opportunities. The main problem is that "loot/shoot" could be abused by shooting peaceful protesters and we need safeguards to clearly separate protesters from looters. However, IMO it's on protesters to single out looters, stop them and, ideally, give them to police. In my country, it's usual for protest organisers (legal or not) to make a point that any bad behaviour will be reported to police and they'll do whatever they can to help out police. Thus police is more relaxed and thugs don't have as many opportunities. If the crowd would be defending thugs.. Well, now that is "glorifying violence" :/
        x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
        Kind of telling how you insist that protestors "maintain order" of their flock to protect property, when we see the police do no such thing concerning their own when they kill a citizen.
        mantas 6y ago
        Looks like a simple way to take high moral ground. "Look, we even protest in a nice way, don't be animals killing us like animals".

mantas 6y ago

What should police do to stop looting? Loot looters' homes to stay at equal level of violence?

happytoexplain 6y ago
The police should not, if possible, kill people to stop them from looting, even if they are destroying property. This is fundamental to civilization.
- mantas 6y ago
  But it's not fundamental to keep up public order? What if my house is looted? If looter doesn't leave when asked nicely, should I just wait for him to take what he wants?
  - happytoexplain 6y ago
    It is also fundamental to keep up public order. That's not even close to being mutually exclusive to my statement. Nor is the obvious answer to your second question. You're engaging in hostile, bad-faith argument.
    - mantas 6y ago
      My argument is that looter, who is willingly committing a crime, shouldn't expect people on the other side to stand by. If it's bad faith to keep up public order and guard private property, then so be it. If looters know that if they don't obey to orders nobody will punish them, that's flat-out enabling such behaviour. People who are willing to loot don't care about niceties, they're just looking for opportunities. The main problem is that "loot/shoot" could be abused by shooting peaceful protesters and we need safeguards to clearly separate protesters from looters. However, IMO it's on protesters to single out looters, stop them and, ideally, give them to police. In my country, it's usual for protest organisers (legal or not) to make a point that any bad behaviour will be reported to police and they'll do whatever they can to help out police. Thus police is more relaxed and thugs don't have as many opportunities. If the crowd would be defending thugs.. Well, now that is "glorifying violence" :/
      - x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
        Kind of telling how you insist that protestors "maintain order" of their flock to protect property, when we see the police do no such thing concerning their own when they kill a citizen.
        mantas 6y ago
        Looks like a simple way to take high moral ground. "Look, we even protest in a nice way, don't be animals killing us like animals".