Chris_Sleeps Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 the church [has] stated they have had to close because of the protesters. It is a fallacy. I'll use an analogy: Let us suppose that you and I live next door to each other, and I like to smoke cigars. If I went outside to smoke a cigar, and you didn't like the smell so closed your window, at no point has my action caused that window to close. I wouldn't be doing anything wrong, so thus I am not morally responsible for what you choose to do. At the point I do something wrong, I start blowing it at you on purpose for example, then I would be responsible. My actions have caused you to make a decision, but it is your dislike of the situation that has caused the outcome. The protesters have done nothing wrong, and thus they don't have to justify themselves. The Cathedral can open again very easily. The protesters should exercise their right to peaceful protest without infringing on the rights of other people to go about their business in piece. I specifically like this. Your argument is "the protesters should exercise their right to peaceful protest by not protesting". In context, inconvenience is not a reason to stop a protest. It would be easy to end all protest because they are by nature inconvenient. A march will close the roads for an hour, which interrupts people going about their business, so all marching must be ended. A protest outside a shop would stop the shop earning money and stop customers going about their business, thus all protests outside shops must be ended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted October 26, 2011 Author Share Posted October 26, 2011 It is a fallacy. I'll use an analogy: Let us suppose that you and I live next door to each other, and I like to smoke cigars. If I went outside to smoke a cigar, and you didn't like the smell so closed your window, at no point has my action caused that window to close. I wouldn't be doing anything wrong, so thus I am not morally responsible for what you choose to do. At the point I do something wrong, I start blowing it at you on purpose for example, then I would be responsible. My actions have caused you to make a decision, but it is your dislike of the situation that has caused the outcome. The protesters have done nothing wrong, and thus they don't have to justify themselves. The Cathedral can open again very easily. I specifically like this. Your argument is "the protesters should exercise their right to peaceful protest by not protesting". In context, inconvenience is not a reason to stop a protest. It would be easy to end all protest because they are by nature inconvenient. A march will close the roads for an hour, which interrupts people going about their business, so all marching must be ended. A protest outside a shop would stop the shop earning money and stop customers going about their business, thus all protests outside shops must be ended. I could find them plenty of places to protest without infringing on other people’s rights, no point arguing that someone as a right to protest but ignoring the fact the other people have a right to go about their business. We all have rights which the protesters seem to be ignoring, which makes them inconsiderate and not worth supporting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy Jnr Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 I could find them plenty of places to protest without infringing on other people’s rights, no point arguing that someone as a right to protest but ignoring the fact the other people have a right to go about their business. We all have rights which the protesters seem to be ignoring, which makes them inconsiderate and not worth supporting. The whole idea of protesting like striking, is to cause inconvenience however great or slight it might be. There would be little point in setting up camp out of the way as it poses no problem, it would just be a campsite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Orange Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 I could find them plenty of places to protest without infringing on other people’s rights, no point arguing that someone as a right to protest but ignoring the fact the other people have a right to go about their business. We all have rights which the protesters seem to be ignoring, which makes them inconsiderate and not worth supporting. Exactly and it seems public opinion is already turning against them. Not only that, recent news reports seem to report on the group's refusal to leave, rather than the reason of protest. They are scoring a massive publicity own goal as this is detracting from the real reason of the protest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 It is a fallacy. I'll use an analogy: Let us suppose that you and I live next door to each other, and I like to smoke cigars. If I went outside to smoke a cigar, and you didn't like the smell so closed your window, at no point has my action caused that window to close. I wouldn't be doing anything wrong, so thus I am not morally responsible for what you choose to do. At the point I do something wrong, I start blowing it at you on purpose for example, then I would be responsible. My actions have caused you to make a decision, but it is your dislike of the situation that has caused the outcome. The protesters have done nothing wrong, and thus they don't have to justify themselves. The Cathedral can open again very easily. I specifically like this. Your argument is "the protesters should exercise their right to peaceful protest by not protesting". In context, inconvenience is not a reason to stop a protest. It would be easy to end all protest because they are by nature inconvenient. A march will close the roads for an hour, which interrupts people going about their business, so all marching must be ended. A protest outside a shop would stop the shop earning money and stop customers going about their business, thus all protests outside shops must be ended. You're analogy isn't quite the same..in it you're on your own property..If I understand correctly the protesters are on Church property... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shane39 Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 If you leave a bag unattended at train stations,airports etc: under the terrorism act they can be removed and destroyed.Why cant this be applied to tents that are unoccupied through the night? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 I could find them plenty of places to protest without infringing on other people’s rights The Shetland Isles? If we're going to argue down the route of Civic Rights then let us do so. Where do we have the 'Right to go about our business without being inconvenienced'? We don't. It is a weak argument. I could ignore a police road traffic accident because "I have the right to get home and eat me tea" using your logic. The exact second that the protesters lose their right to protest is when they break the law. Even in the past this hasn't been exactly true, because Martin Luther King and Ghandi ignored laws they found immoral, but I'd say Britain is a little more tolerant at the minute. I'll consider it a little more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted October 26, 2011 Author Share Posted October 26, 2011 The Shetland Isles? If we're going to argue down the route of Civic Rights then let us do so. Where do we have the 'Right to go about our business without being inconvenienced'? We don't. It is a weak argument. I could ignore a police road traffic accident because "I have the right to get home and eat me tea" using your logic. The exact second that the protesters lose their right to protest is when they break the law. Even in the past this hasn't been exactly true, because Martin Luther King and Ghandi ignored laws they found immoral, but I'd say Britain is a little more tolerant at the minute. I'll consider it a little more. The peaceful enjoyment of your property is in the human rights act, it’s the churches property and they can’t use it peacefully. A business usually operates from its property and anything that infringes on their business is likely to be infringing on the peaceful enjoyment of their property. The minuet the church takes legal action, the protesters will be moved, and the law is on the side of the church. But the protesters are abusing the churches good will and know the church probably won’t take legal action. They have been asked to move and they won’t because they don’t give at toss about anyone but themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 I've probably missed this bit somewhere but if they are protesting aginst the Stock Exchange/Banks etc then why are they outside St Paul's and not in the City somewhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 But the protesters are abusing the churches good will and know the church probably won’t take legal action. The church are perfectly entitled to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.