Quite ok, actually. Nobody was killed. There were no "minutemen of the patriotic revolution" in fatigues and with automatic weapons. There were fantastic, peaceful protests such as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeXRmurPTRI
Yeah, there was property damage. So what?
Also, I'm not quite sure what you're actually trying to say? Are you suggesting the protests would have been /better/ if protesters had had automatic weapons?
> Are you aware that some property damage and or arson in protests is a tradition in Europe, and we don't consider it the end of the world?
I am European, and I am not aware of any such tradition. Regardless, (1) "tradition" doesn't make something morally right, and (2) a protest involving arson and hundreds of injured people cannot be called peaceful, period.
> Sometimes, we even behead our kings and burn down their palaces.
That is, in my opinion, romantic nonsense. Neither of those things happened here, by any stretch of imagination. No kings were beheaded, and the only thing that was burned down were the houses and carriages of random peasants.
>I am European, and I am not aware of any such tradition.
Well, there's a 40+ year history of such demonstrations, going back to before May '68 -- in France, Italy, Germany, Netherlands, Greece, Spain, etc, that's been recorded historically, and many consider an important tool against a passive democracy were people merely vote every 4 years.
>Regardless, (1) "tradition" doesn't make something morally right, and (2) a protest involving arson and hundreds of injured people cannot be called peaceful, period.
(1) In practice tradition is the strongest force that makes something morally right: one finds "morally right" what their era considers as morally right, which in turn is what it has been passed on and taught as morally right (aka tradition).
Apart from that, there are some kind of universal principles we all more or less agree to (no killing etc), but you'd be surprised how many people would consider those things morally OK to violate when their era finds it OK for political, patriotic etc reasons.
But I didn't say it's "morally right" -- but that it's a tradition, and it has been proven fruitful in the past in keeping those in power at check, at least somewhat.
(2) Sure, but it's not like only peaceful protests are OK. Some of the more effective protests, like the May 68 rights that forever changed the ethics of modern Europe, were not "peaceful" in that sense.
(1) With regards to the moral argument , I agree in the case that a tradition enjoys wide-spread use and is universally accepted by a given society as being morally right.
I now see that you in fact did not make the case that this tradition involving property damage is morally right (in the above sense). I must have read too much into your comment. Apologies.
(2) OK, then we are in agreement here. However, the only reason I brought up the arson in the first place was because the original parent specifically characterized the protests as "peaceful".
>(2) OK, then we are in agreement here. However, the only reason I brought up the arson in the first place was because the original parent specifically characterized the protests as "peaceful".
Often there are peaceful parts and non peaceful parts (blocks?) of a demonstration (including people who just go there to break things).
Police has also been known to instigate violent acts, usually with being overly pushy and provocative, but sometimes also by having fake-protesters lead others to such things.
Citizens burning the property of other citizens is an effective deterrent to tyranny? Your second statement mentions beheading the king and burning palaces, which would be more akin to the citizenry marching on the house of government and setting it ablaze with the politicians inside.
I think it would be fair to say that the public is concerned with both, but more actively threatened by the fact that their house might have its windows smashed in because a protest happened to occur near to them. Like it or not, we tend to be more frightened of things that affect us personally.
People don't have their windows smashed. Even in Hamburg, the most violent protests in the last decade, only upscale stores and expensive cars were targeted, all of which were insured.
That's not to excuse those actions–personally, I think they're counterproductive to whatever the cause may be. But people really aren't afraid of these protests. I was actually in Hamburg at that time, and even though I was walking around in a suit & tie, I freely walked right through the protest hotspots without even a hint of aggression directed at me.
FWIW also in most cases where there are antifa "riots" in Germany, it's usually known beforehand where they will happen so most people know better than to park their expensive cars there.
Of course that doesn't make vandalism okay, especially when it harms private citizens (even with insurance the damage can be a financial drain for shop owners) but it puts the extent into perspective when you compare it to neo-nazis who actively try to harm human beings or entirely destroy their (already quite modest) livelihoods.
With respect, this is a crucial point if one desires to be taken seriously by gun owners when talking about guns, because confusing it reveals a lack of basic knowledge of the subject.
Apart from some property damage and a few minor injuries it worked out pretty well. Nobody got killed and over the weekend only a single gunshot was fired (in the air).
I dont want to imagine what would happen if a protest like the g20 one would clash with the police when guns are involved on both sides...
