Here is the link to video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ePH-1B2-gc
Lain: Civil disobedience can be justifiable at times, but nobody has the right to do it at the expense of others. The protesters have no right to forcibly (through refusal to move) occupy public or private property. They were blocking public side...walks, and they deserved to be sprayed. There's a difference between freedom to speak and freedom to act; they aren't a package-deal. They took an anti-conceptual approach, and chose their bodies, rather than their minds. They chose to sit and complain, rather than stand and exchange ideas as rational humans. The whole hypocrisy of the thing lies in the fact that they want "rights" but are willing to violate the rights of others by blocking public property.
Darius: Even though you justify what the protestors did as wrong. What the cops did isn't any better. They call america a democracy, but that's not what it is.
Lain: No, it's a Republic. Democracy would never work because of irrational morons like those protesters. Why, if you could elaborate, was it wrong? Sure, reason ends where force begins, but who truly initiated force first? The occupiers, by bloc...king the sidewalk and refusing to move. That is a form of force, and the police actions were taken in order to mediate that. What else should be done? They obviously aren't intelligent enough to present an intelligent argument, or they would be doing just that, instead of sitting around and rabbling "Shame on you!" As if that is how intelligent people get things done...
Darius: I'm not looking at it in a political view. Honestly, I could care less about politics. And maybe you do have a point, but don't you think they could've went straight to the hancuffing rather than poising their lungs with that crap?
Cato: What else were they supposed to do? They have no right to block public property.
Darius: They could have just went straight to handcuffing. And aren't they considered the public?
Lain: It's not a political view, you made it that by referring to a "democracy." It's a moral issue. Should the police try and handcuff an angry mob? Think about how that would work out? No, the police tried to peacefully get them to move, but they showed aggressive defiance; the police did their job. And, there is no such entity as "the public;" It's merely a collection of individuals, with individual rights. There are no "collective rights." Individual rights were violated by their occupations.
Darius: They went to handcuffing and arrest anyway. But okaay.. Maybe you have a point. Im not gunna put down your opinion. as you can see its mad some people upset on both sides. So either way there's no justice on both parts(towards the officers and/or towards the protestors).
Cato: They were purposely blocking the police. The police would never have arrested anyone for simply "peacefully protesting," however the students did not allow the police to move through. That was a public roadway they hindered. There was no other way the police could have possibly handled that peacefully.
Darius: There are plenty of other ways.
Lain: Name one.
Cato: Name one.
Darius: Woah^^
I already have.. THEY COULD HAVE WENT TO ARRESSTING RIGHT AWAY. they did it anyway.
What if they lost their vision or it tampered with their lungs as there was permanent damage? Are you saying that wouldn't matter?
Xerxes: IT WAS THE QUAD IN THE UC DAVID EAST CAMPUS. Not a public roadway....
Lain: They won't have permanent damage. That's an outrageous claim. The mob was acting aggressive. Should a few police officers contend with the what, fifty angry protesters, who have not only demonstrated an unwillingness to follow the law, but have also shown increasing aggression at each attempt to move them? It's a danger to the officers.
Lain: It's a public school, i.e, public property.
Xerxes: It was the quad in the UC David campus. Not a public roadway.... People sit there everyday.
Lain: Clear evasion of the argument. Never forget words have an exact meaning: "Public." They are blocking public property. Don't get into linguistics with me. It's absurd to debate whether it's a "roadway" or a "quad;" It is still public property.
Cato: This debate is just ridiculous. Everyone believes that the right party is the one who suffers when they don't consider that maybe the "victimized" party was the one who broke the law in the first place. Once again the police would never demonstrate violence or attempts at arrest if the protesters were truly "peaceful" however it couldn't be any clearer that the protesters were blocking public property. All they had to do was move and nobody would have been hurt. The students were completely wrong and there's no way handcuffing a huge angry mob was ever gonna do the trick
Darius: okay.. Sorry for stating what I believed to be right. But you never know.. What if the protestors had asthma or something. Who are you to say that's an outrageous claim? And you kept saying they were on public property. Are they not the public? Are they not citizens? All I'm saying is that the freaking pepper spray was completely uncalled for. I'm not going into the law I'm not going into political factors.
Lain: It's not the responsibility of the police to know whether or not the person has asthma...As far as the "public," clearly my last argument didn't resonate with you. My apologies. Let me quote someone much more intelligent than me. The public "is an undefined and undefinable concept; there is no such entity as "the public"; the public or society is only a number of individuals." Essentially, you are arguing that "that the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals." (Ayn Rand)
Xerxes: The protest was as peaceful as possible it was 20 kids sitting down. They weren't yelling or throwing anything. It was a sit down on an area on campus where people sit everyday. The area is public property and those students pay nearly 20k a year in fees to that school. They have the right to have a peaceful sit in. The pepper spray was over the top and not necessary.
Lain: No rights may be gained by the violation of the rights of others.
Darius: They were standing up for what they believed was right, they didn't want raised tuition prices. THATS ALL. Give me proof stating students ATTENDING THIS SCHOOL are not allowed to sit in the quad. By saying CITIZENS are not allowed to sit in... public areas is just dehuminizing. Your definition of public is far different from the literal meaning. It's they're school. They sit in the quad everyday. Do you not believe in natural rights? WHAT RIGHTS OF OTHERS. the only ones complaining were the cops. I'm pretty sure no one else going to public schools would like the prices
To be raised.
Cato: Stop changing the argument. They blocked a police vehicle. All they had to do was move and everything would have ended well. Of course you're allowed to sit in a public area. You certainly aren't allowed to block it though. The transgression falls upon the students for BLOCKING a PUBLIC area. I'm done with this debate.
Darius: THEY DIDN'T BLOCK ANYTHIG. the police went there to remove them. for no reason. I'm not changing the argument.
Lain: They were sitting down for what they believed was right, without ever justifying why it was "right." Do you know what natural rights are? They rest on the premise that a person has the right to pursue their own happiness, as long as it is not at the expense of others. You are continuously avoiding the argument. Stop evading. Don't throw out cliche terms like "natural rights" and "dehumanizing" without justifying what they mean. Do you not understand that the "public" is an arbitrary concept; it has no grounds.
Darius: Your being rude :(
Lain: Reason hurts.
I have to cut off the debate here, both because of the length, and because the other side simply began insulting Cato and me. Who do you think was right?
- L.C.
No comments:
Post a Comment