• JimmyMcGill@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Great examples. Because blocking roads and mildly inconveniencing people that can demand change is almost the same as killing animals and children. Yes the line has to be drawn somewhere, and it’s between those two things and very close to one of them.

    But again, what way that hasn’t been tried would be ok in your book? Asking people nicely?

    Read the top comment in this post again.

    • Bandananaan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Blocking roads can literally kill people, by stopping emergency vehicles etc from getting to where they need to go

      • JimmyMcGill@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        So does climate change…

        Also car accidents block roads as well. Should we forbid people from using their cars?

        • Pelicanen@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          So does burning orphanages, so apparently they are kind of equal then with your logic?

          Plus, orphanages can catch fire from issues with electrical wiring, therefore we should forbid orphanages from using electricity, right?

    • Nefyedardu@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why the snark? I literally used the term “comically heinous” myself to describe the examples. I am aware they are extreme, it was to demonstrate my point…

      So we disagree on where that line should be drawn. And it comes down to the fact that you think blocking traffic is “mildly inconveniencing”. I would say: how the fuck do you know? You don’t know what’s going on in the lives of those people.

      • Maybe someone got a call from the hospital that their father is dying and they should come in to see them one last time.
      • Maybe a food insecure parent is working hard to support their children and if they are late one more time they could get axed and put their children in danger.
      • Maybe someone chopped their finger off and are rushing to the hospital to get it reattached.

      Or any number of scenarios. If YOU were in any of these situations, what would you think of the people blocking the road? Somehow I don’t think you would be so understanding when it happens to you personally.

      But again, what way that hasn’t been tried would be ok in your book? Asking people nicely?

      I think my position is clear. I’m OK with any form of protest that actually advances the cause behind the protest and I am not OK with any form of protest that is counter-productive against the cause of the protest. I started out my comments by saying what standing in a road accomplishes, and so far all you’ve really said is “uh, well nothing else has worked so why not?”. That really isn’t good enough.

      • JimmyMcGill@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        And exactly what kind of protest is that? Again you still haven’t answered my question and more and more it seems that there is no such protest so we will all live miserable lives in the future but hey, at least people weren’t bothered those few times.

        Also you can block roads and let emergency vehicles through. Accidents happen, roads get blocked for a variety of reasons on a daily basis. If people used cars less they would be less congestioned, do you also use that argument there?

        Finally, people do die of climate change. Everyday and it’s not a small amount. Consider that on the other side of the equation whenever you make one.

        Either way I’m calling this convo. Have a nice day and weekend. Hope it’s not too hot wherever you are.

        • Nefyedardu@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Again you still haven’t answered my question

          lol I posted first! You responded to me. I was the one posing the question: What is the benefit of blocking the road? Any discussion outside of that scope is moving the goalpost and I won’t entertain it. So far I’ve seen you propose a grand total of zero benefits so I’m just going to assume there are none.

          • JimmyMcGill@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            My first comment literally responds to the purpose/benefit of blocking a road. But for that you’d need to know how to read.

            But I agree, let’s end it here

        • AnalogyAddict@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Because the people you are “inconveniencing” don’t make the decisions. They are mostly people just doing what they have to to survive. Find a way to inconvenience the decision-makers, and it will have everyone’s support.

          • JimmyMcGill@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            They vote. That’s not nothing and better than hoping that the people destroying the planet will suddenly become good people and stop doing that.

            But again, all this complaining and no one is suggesting alternatives… very telling.