Rioting in Charlotte

You are making a few different points here Finn (and while Edgar isn't willing to engage you rationally.. I am).

1. I agree with you about the difference between peaceful protest and looting. This does matter (and it hurts the message of people who have a message they want to express peacefully). Indeed

You point out that looting stores, vandalism and violence gains absolutely nothing. I agree completely with you.

2. I don't know what you are getting at with "rebellion". The word "rebellion" can be used in many ways from defying laws to organized armed insurgency. I don't know what point you are making here. I think the word "rioting" is sufficient unless there is a distinction you are trying to make that I don't understand.

I am making the point that there may be a legitimate reason for violence in the streets; when a government is so oppressive and so dangerous that citizens have no alternative but to suffer greatly or revolt/rebel. The riots in Charlotte were not a rebellion. The situation for African-Americans in the US doesn't call for rebellion, however IF a large group of them (or any other large group for that matter) felt they had no choice but violent rebellion, they couldn't at the same time demand their rights from the government against which they were rebelling. Well, of course they could, but it would be ridiculous.

My point is that people of all races, sex, religion etc suffer injustices in the US. We don't have a perfect system. There are a lot of repeat injustices within our systems. Yes, blacks have experienced more than any other group, and much worse in our early history, but are they in a position where the only logical choice is violent rebellion? Of course not, and, except perhaps for a few on the radical fringe, no African-American is calling for rebellion. This doesn't diminish the impact of the injustices they suffer, it's just that they are obviously not great enough to spark a rebellion. Slavery could and did and understandably so, this particular situation? No.

Since it's not rebellion (we agree here), there isn't even a remote reason to justify the rioting.

3. I think I disagree with you when you say "The legitimacy of one's demand for rights disappears when part of the demand involves depriving fellow citizens of their rights." We are always balancing competing rights which is a fact of life in a modern complex society.

I don't know exactly what you mean by this anyway. I think the rational argument of the protesters is that law enforcement should be fair and less lethal. These are the rights at stake.

The people who were actually demonstrating for a reason, the true protesters were not demanding that anyone's rights be violated or compromised. They certainly weren't, in their actions, violating or compromising anyone's rights.

The thugs and anarchists were violating and compromising the rights of others.

Balancing rights through the proper operation of our system is one thing. Ripping them from folks because you are "angry" is something else.

4. I agree with you about the facts of this case. It does seem that now every case where a Black man is shot will lead to protests regardless of the facts surrounding the case.

I understand why this happens, there is a lot of history and many legitimate cases where racist or simply incompetent police have killed innocent mainly Black men. But I agree that we, as a nation, need to get to the place where the facts can be discussed rationally.

More important is the discussion of where we go from here. Police have an important job. They need to be given the respect and resources to do their job safely. They do need to be able to ensure their own safety. This is balanced by the failure of police organizations and society in general to prevent abuses in African American communities.

This will take a rational discussion where competing legitimate interests need to find common ground.

I personally think that the peaceful protests are an important part of this needed discourse. The chant "Hands up Don't Shoot" is a very effective expression of the emotion of the African American community. I don't think that this is a a bad thing. I also agree with and support the Kaepernick protest (which is also peaceful and powerful).

I do think that on the other side, both sides (including the Black lives Matters activists) are going to need to engage in productive discourse that means looking at the actual facts.

For the most part we agree.

Every time something like this happens, we hear "We need to discuss" "We need a dialogue."

We do, but it has to be as truly honest as everyone says it should be.

Too often though, the people asking for honest discussion want to censor what the other person can say.

An "honest discussion" doesn't include knee-jerk accusations of racism or white privilege.

If you watched any of the coverage you would have seen multiple cases of "protesters" screaming at anyone who attempted to have a dialogue with them. Edgar can say he understands the anger that makes someone a screaming hothead with spittle on his or her mouth, but chances are they are not going to resolve anything with anyone.

My problem with "Hands Up! Don't Shoot!" is that it is based on a blatant lie. Michael Brown never uttered those words and he never attempted to stave off his violent end. He precipitated it. I don't care what the color of his skin is, he created the situation that led to his own demise. We can't have an honest discussion if one side's discussion is based on a falsehood.

Quote:

First, it is like physics: For every action there is an equal and opposed reaction

I don't know what you mean by this... but no, this is nothing like Physics. Fitting science into political ideology is a pet peeve of mine.

You understand what a "catalyst" is, and that metaphor is pretty good.

Your other two scientific metaphors show a lack of understanding of science.