Thanks for the summary, unfortunately I must correct some inaccuracies on the provided bullet points
Number 1: The threat of Jail is only for those protesters who incur on Blocking Public roads and or depriving other citizens of their right to freely transit, which has always been against the law, which makes them Criminals. The threat of Jail is only for criminals. And the claim of shooting protesters is from someone NOT in the government, in fact they are opposition so it’s not attributable to the government in any way.
Hope this helps to make a clearer vision of what they have/are actually doing, would you please be so kind to update the list so we can see how many fascist things they are doing with that clarified?
Not out in the woods necessarily, but it certainly wouldnt make a horrible protest place either.
They just have to do it like how Argentines protested against The Minister of Economy ot the Previous Government (Milei’s opponent in the presidential elections) where they manifested, called and paid by no one (unlike these “Piqueteros” the article talks about), on a Sunday and blocked no streets or pathways. Simple as that!
I literally just said a peaceful manifestation without violation of the other’s right is possible and has been done not even too far back.
And also, these “Piquetes” aren’t peaceful at all. It is violent to stop workers from going to work, threatening their income necessary to sustain their life, it’s a crime under the hood of enforcing a right and that’s why they should be repressed. Those who don’t incur on the people’s freedom to go to work and live peacefully shouldn’t be of course.
It was a genuine question, Im at a Loss of what are you trying to say or imply
I’ll stand by my claim that a peaceful protest that doesnt violate anyone else’s rights is not only possible, but should be the norm where these “Social” Organizations have only done the contrary in Argentina thus far.
Im asking for a clarification or otherwise rewording of the meaning you tried to give with a dubious quote from a Past Era because It’s not clear how it interjects with the topic at all
If you’re not willing to provide that, I guess this convo is over
Thanks for the summary, unfortunately I must correct some inaccuracies on the provided bullet points
Number 1: The threat of Jail is only for those protesters who incur on Blocking Public roads and or depriving other citizens of their right to freely transit, which has always been against the law, which makes them Criminals. The threat of Jail is only for criminals. And the claim of shooting protesters is from someone NOT in the government, in fact they are opposition so it’s not attributable to the government in any way.
Hope this helps to make a clearer vision of what they have/are actually doing, would you please be so kind to update the list so we can see how many fascist things they are doing with that clarified?
Exactly, they should only protest out in the woods where nobody will be inconvenienced.
Not out in the woods necessarily, but it certainly wouldnt make a horrible protest place either.
They just have to do it like how Argentines protested against The Minister of Economy ot the Previous Government (Milei’s opponent in the presidential elections) where they manifested, called and paid by no one (unlike these “Piqueteros” the article talks about), on a Sunday and blocked no streets or pathways. Simple as that!
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
Are you… advocating violence?..
I literally just said a peaceful manifestation without violation of the other’s right is possible and has been done not even too far back.
And also, these “Piquetes” aren’t peaceful at all. It is violent to stop workers from going to work, threatening their income necessary to sustain their life, it’s a crime under the hood of enforcing a right and that’s why they should be repressed. Those who don’t incur on the people’s freedom to go to work and live peacefully shouldn’t be of course.
Was John F Kennedy advocating for violence when he said it in 1962? Or do people have a right to violent rebellion when they are opressed?
It was a genuine question, Im at a Loss of what are you trying to say or imply
I’ll stand by my claim that a peaceful protest that doesnt violate anyone else’s rights is not only possible, but should be the norm where these “Social” Organizations have only done the contrary in Argentina thus far.
I’m sorry if my very clear comments have confused you. Try reading through the chain again.
Im asking for a clarification or otherwise rewording of the meaning you tried to give with a dubious quote from a Past Era because It’s not clear how it interjects with the topic at all
If you’re not willing to provide that, I guess this convo is over