4 ms·

Interesting way to put it. If it did solve problems, you would be ok with it happening?

by samrus 6mo ago

__MatrixMan__ 6mo ago
Not gp, but if they were exceptionally large problems... Yeah.
- locao 6mo ago
  Violence is never but sometimes the answer.
drivingmenuts 6mo ago
If it did solve a problem, it's possible it would be legal.
- WarOnPrivacy 6mo ago
  > If it did solve a problem, it's possible it would be legal. FL crafted a law to help safeguard someone who gets sued for running over a protestor. I think this illustrates how a law can protect problems rather than solving them.
  - ratrace 6mo ago
    [dead]
  - ivewonyoung 6mo ago
    [flagged]
    - treetalker 6mo ago
      The truth is somewhere in the middle. Overview: https://eu.tallahassee.com/story/news/politics/2025/06/13/florida-gov-ron-desantis-oks-running-over-no-kings-protesters-fleeing/84182693007/ https://eu.tallahassee.com/story/news/politics/2025/06/13/fl...
    - WarOnPrivacy 6mo ago
      >> FL crafted a law to help safeguard someone who gets sued for running over a protestor > Source? the defendant in the lawsuit can use the plaintiff’s participation in a "riot," as defined by the 2021 law, as "an affirmative defense." This means that the person being sued can argue in court that their action was justified by the riot. https://api.politifact.com/article/2025/jun/13/can-florida-drivers-run-over-protesters/ https://api.politifact.com/article/2025/jun/13/can-florida-d... >> FL crafted a law to help safeguard someone who gets sued for running over a protestor > Not true. This last bit seems like a pretty firm assertion. What is your source for it?
      - ivewonyoung 6mo ago
        For starters, the headline of your link disproves your assertion. Second, a rioter is not the same as a protestor. Third, someone must have been in threat from a rioter to use that defense successfully.
furyofantares 6mo ago
They're just speaking to a hypothetical person who thinks this will solve a problem. In no way does their post imply they'd be ok with it if it solved some problem. A little wild to me that so many of the replies don't understand that.
- samrus 6mo ago
  No no i do get that of course, and i agree. Its just that the thing that struck me about the phrasing was that its a bit revealing. We are reviled by violance but we do allow its use in society everyday. But what violance and for what utility is acceptable seems to be a matter of debate. The line doesnt seem to be universally agreed on given the passion seen in this thread

Interesting way to put it. If it did solve problems, you would be ok with it happening?

by samrus 6mo ago

Interesting way to put it. If it did solve problems, you would be ok with it happening?

__MatrixMan__ 6mo ago

Not gp, but if they were exceptionally large problems... Yeah.

locao 6mo ago
Violence is never but sometimes the answer.

drivingmenuts 6mo ago

If it did solve a problem, it's possible it would be legal.

WarOnPrivacy 6mo ago
> If it did solve a problem, it's possible it would be legal. FL crafted a law to help safeguard someone who gets sued for running over a protestor. I think this illustrates how a law can protect problems rather than solving them.
- ratrace 6mo ago
  [dead]
- ivewonyoung 6mo ago
  [flagged]
  - treetalker 6mo ago
    The truth is somewhere in the middle. Overview: https://eu.tallahassee.com/story/news/politics/2025/06/13/florida-gov-ron-desantis-oks-running-over-no-kings-protesters-fleeing/84182693007/ https://eu.tallahassee.com/story/news/politics/2025/06/13/fl...
  - WarOnPrivacy 6mo ago
    >> FL crafted a law to help safeguard someone who gets sued for running over a protestor > Source? the defendant in the lawsuit can use the plaintiff’s participation in a "riot," as defined by the 2021 law, as "an affirmative defense." This means that the person being sued can argue in court that their action was justified by the riot. https://api.politifact.com/article/2025/jun/13/can-florida-drivers-run-over-protesters/ https://api.politifact.com/article/2025/jun/13/can-florida-d... >> FL crafted a law to help safeguard someone who gets sued for running over a protestor > Not true. This last bit seems like a pretty firm assertion. What is your source for it?
    - ivewonyoung 6mo ago
      For starters, the headline of your link disproves your assertion. Second, a rioter is not the same as a protestor. Third, someone must have been in threat from a rioter to use that defense successfully.

furyofantares 6mo ago

They're just speaking to a hypothetical person who thinks this will solve a problem. In no way does their post imply they'd be ok with it if it solved some problem. A little wild to me that so many of the replies don't understand that.

samrus 6mo ago
No no i do get that of course, and i agree. Its just that the thing that struck me about the phrasing was that its a bit revealing. We are reviled by violance but we do allow its use in society everyday. But what violance and for what utility is acceptable seems to be a matter of debate. The line doesnt seem to be universally agreed on given the passion seen in this thread