Turn on thread page Beta

Why don't they shoot anarchists with rubber bullets?? watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanNorth)
    Look what happened when the last guy got killed in these protests. You add lethal weapons (Which rubber bullets can be) to the list and you kill someone with them or badly injure someone. - Then the headlines will be filled with bad press and trust me the cops don't like worsening their already bad image.
    Theirs a big difference between protesting against cuts and smashing a few windows and being a traitor and attacking the queen..they'd shoot you on the spot for that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Great_One)
    Theirs a big difference between protesting against cuts and smashing a few windows and being a traitor and attacking the queen..they'd shoot you on the spot for that.
    The Queen wasn't attacked by any protesters.

    But clarify why you gave this response to my post? :confused:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanNorth)
    The Queen wasn't attacked by any protesters.

    But clarify why you gave this response to my post? :confused:
    Just fealt like it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
    Although, I do hate police brutality with a passion. People that have the power to violate my liberty using violence and oppression, all in the name of the law. But who makes the law and to whom does it serve?
    I agree that they have the power to do so and that it is intolerable. But you are implying that the law condones it, which I don't think it does.

    As for who makes the law, and who it serves, that is a very difficult question indeed. Living in America, I would say it is made by politicians who are out of touch with the general population and want to redistribute the wealth from the hard-working to the non-working. That's just my little rant
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by london12)
    They know they're going to be there, why didnt they just shoot them with rubber bullets??

    It wouldnt take much effort, you could hit them from far away and they wouldnt do it again..... :confused:
    It's because when you hurt protesters (even violent ones) the public tends to start siding with those protesters. It changes from a story of 'people smashing stuff' into a story of 'people fighting government oppression'.

    The measured response from the government is strategic - it's about controlling the public perception of the unrest.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mjeezy)
    I agree that they have the power to do so and that it is intolerable. But you are implying that the law condones it, which I don't think it does.

    As for who makes the law, and who it serves, that is a very difficult question indeed. Living in America, I would say it is made by politicians who are out of touch with the general population and want to redistribute the wealth from the hard-working to the non-working. That's just my little rant
    The law does condone many forms of oppression in the name of the law. I agree with you when you say politicians are out of touch. It's my view that once a person is given power they will no longer represent the people, because of the vested interest to stay in power and preserve hierarchy. That's why I'm an anarchist!

    Although I believe firmly that nobody should be born into inherent wealth and that capitalism creates the illusion that people can escape poverty, but it's like running the 100m in mountain boots.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
    The law does condone many forms of oppression in the name of the law. I agree with you when you say politicians are out of touch. It's my view that once a person is given power they will no longer represent the people, because of the vested interest to stay in power and preserve hierarchy. That's why I'm an anarchist!

    Although I believe firmly that nobody should be born into inherent wealth and that capitalism creates the illusion that people can escape poverty, but it's like running the 100m in mountain boots.
    Could you tell me the forms of oppression that the law condones?

    I see where you're coming from about people that get power, but can't see that as being true for everyone. The logical conclusion from this is that no one should be in power. The end product of that would be pure communism, which isn't bad in theory, but is in practice. You say you are an anarchist? That seems really interesting, could you tell me more about what you do as one?

    I have to disagree with you about people being born into wealth. Their parents (or whoever before them) earned that wealth, and it is their choice who that money goes to. Now I will say that philanthropy definitely is lacking in today's society. Maybe if the government would stop forcing us to give through taxes (and we all know how well government spends money), then people would give more. You also say that capitalism "creates the illusion that people can escape poverty." If that is the case, then what economic system would you suggest for this end?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    We're meant to trust the police and not be scared. So yeah, not much we can really do.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mjeezy)
    Could you tell me the forms of oppression that the law condones?
    State policing is oppression. People given the power to take away my liberty by means of violence (on occasion) in order to protect laws. Laws created by people with a vested interest to preserve hierarchy and not to represent the people. And laws that aren’t created to serve my best interests.

    (Original post by mjeezy)
    I see where you're coming from about people that get power, but can't see that as being true for everyone. The logical conclusion from this is that no one should be in power. The end product of that would be pure communism, which isn't bad in theory, but is in practice. You say you are an anarchist? That seems really interesting, could you tell me more about what you do as one?
    The end product isn't communism, it’s anarchism: A society within which individuals freely co-operate together as equals. This doesn’t imply chaos, natural selection or any other common misconception.

    I suppose anarchists do whatever most people do! The core to all anarchists’ belief is the opposition to hierarchal control, as it is harmful to the individual and their individuality as well as unnecessary.


    (Original post by mjeezy)
    I have to disagree with you about people being born into wealth. Their parents (or whoever before them) earned that wealth, and it is their choice who that money goes to. Now I will say that philanthropy definitely is lacking in today's society. Maybe if the government would stop forcing us to give through taxes (and we all know how well government spends money), then people would give more. You also say that capitalism "creates the illusion that people can escape poverty." If that is the case, then what economic system would you suggest for this end?
    The political system I’m suggesting is anarchism, so it’s difficult to talk about things such as the redistribution of wealth and taxes, when such things are products of the capitalist hierarchy.

    However, I can speak about the ideology. In a capitalist state, wealth is not distributed fairly. Just because you work hard doesn’t mean you’ll gain the most, poverty and poor education ensures that people aren’t as well equipped to ‘give back to society’ as others born into rich families. People are born as equals; nobody is ‘worth’ more than anyone else just because their family happens to be rich. Capitalism ensures that the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor.

    Anarchism ensures people are rewarded in accordance to their work. Since there are no employers to take an unfair amount of value from an employee’s produce, people get back what they put in.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Mad Dog)
    Do you think it's okay that these protesters threw paint off police and some even attacked police.
    And what did some of the police do to some innocent protesters? just because someone wears a black mask, doesnt mean they're about to attack you, or smash something up.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by london12)
    They know they're going to be there, why didnt they just shoot them with rubber bullets??

    It wouldnt take much effort, you could hit them from far away and they wouldnt do it again..... :confused:
    Because rubber bullets can kill...http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/violen...sticbullet.htm

    Edit: Apparentlyl, in retaliation for Fortnum and Mason, a mob of old Etonians vandalised a Lidl in Slough!:eek:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Because hollow-point rounds would do a better job.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.