renard_ruse
Break up Amazon
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2007
- Posts
- 16,094
Apparently its now forbidden as "uncivil" to suggest that authorities may in certain cases be justified in using physical force to dispurse a mob that will not peacefully dispurse:
Sorry, this is not a question of civility but of philosophy. I for one have always believed that if a mob will not dispurse it eventually poses a threat to civil order, public safety, and the rights of the rest of society that are not involved in the mob. Mobs down through history have caused many evils. A mob that seeks to bring down a government, as in the Middle East, or a mob that seizes physical control of government buildings, are frankly engaging in terrorism or treason or both.
It is not a question of "incivility" to suggest that police forces (not individuals or paramilitary groups) should perhaps consider if and when they might need to use force to dispurse a mob. It is a question of public policy, and one that legitimally can and should be allowed to be discussed.
Sorry, this is not a question of civility but of philosophy. I for one have always believed that if a mob will not dispurse it eventually poses a threat to civil order, public safety, and the rights of the rest of society that are not involved in the mob. Mobs down through history have caused many evils. A mob that seeks to bring down a government, as in the Middle East, or a mob that seizes physical control of government buildings, are frankly engaging in terrorism or treason or both.
It is not a question of "incivility" to suggest that police forces (not individuals or paramilitary groups) should perhaps consider if and when they might need to use force to dispurse a mob. It is a question of public policy, and one that legitimally can and should be allowed to be discussed.
