4 ms·
So basically: disregard the law, perform potentially dangerous actions and justify those by invoking "the greater good" because of course your political view ar
by IMTDb 5y ago
So basically: disregard the law, perform potentially dangerous actions and justify those by invoking "the greater good" because of course your political view are obviously aligned with everyone else best interest.
I do believe that we need to close coal powered plants. I do not believe that taking private, unannounced, disorganised and illegal initiatives is the way to do it.
- karkaliku 5y agoNot all views are political, my friend. If I'm a person who lost all my property and dear ones in a forest fire, would you also say my view on closing the coal plants is political?
- IMTDb 5y agoAbsolutely: your views regarding the policies governing the future of coal plants are political. You are entitled to hold those views based on your past experience. You are entitled to voice your opinion and vote accordingly. You are not entitled to enforce those views by force outside of the legal framework if the world does not suit your preferences.
- PoignardAzur 5y agoI'm tempted to consider the logistics of the idea. The rule of law, and the expectation that society's problems won't be solved through violence, are important pillars of our civilizations and shouldn't be discarded lightly. On the other hand, there's a very real possibility that climate change will destroy our civilization. When the greater good is "avoid the death of billions"... then yeah, private illegal action is starting to look good. Not that good. If you look at the fact that associations like Greenpeace that were built on doing what OP suggests have probably offset the development of nuclear power by decades, and gotten us that much closer to global disaster, you realize that direct activism can have bad consequences too. But good enough I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand.