What Do I Do If I Get This Job?
Jobs & Education1 min ago
Stonehenge Just Stop Oil
there point in vandalising an ancient monument is, let alone portraits buildings etc, if its to get media attention, then people are are not going to listen to there doomsday message let alone care, id bang them up.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by fender62. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
I thought at first the small amount coverage by the press & media was demonstrating a lack of concern, but I have changed my mind on that and see in fact they are acting responsibly by not giving unnecessary coverage to these people.
The perpetrators have been apprehended and the law must take its course. I do hope the punishment fits the crime for once though.
-- answer removed --
their goal is not to win over people who disagree with their cause andy. their goal is to get people who agree in principle with their ideas to do something. the idea is that if enough direct action takes place then it is possible to influence the state and that this is morally acceptable so long as it is non-violent. you don't need too many people to do such a thing.
https:/
you may disagree with the "3.5%" principle but it is a key idea for JSO and many other activist organisations. the way that they see it is that people just ignore conventional protests and that the only way to actually get any influence is to do this kind of (harmless) thing.
the other thing to point out is that these paint attacks expose hypocrisy. people will get very angry about a bit of cornstarch on stonehenge but shrug their shoulders at a massive tunnel being dug under it. painting taylor swift's private jet draws attention to the fact that she uses one and should not be.
private jets are extremely high pollution and there is no reason that a person who is not a head of state or government minister should be allowed to use them. should we just allow everyone "who can afford it" to have a private army as well? what about fighter planes or nukes? same principal applies to private jets.
kim kardashian recently revealed that she took a private jet from LA to Paris and back again on the same day because she had a craving for a slice of cheesecake made at a particular hotel.
this is obscene. it is not something that a civilised society should allow. anybody who does this needs to be shamed out of it.
Untitled - // their goal is not to win over people who disagree with their cause andy. their goal is to get people who agree in principle with their ideas to do something. the idea is that if enough direct action takes place then it is possible to influence the state and that this is morally acceptable so long as it is non-violent. you don't need too many people to do such a thing. //
Thank you for your explanation.
But would you not agree that the amount of people joining their 'direct action' nonsense, is a fraction of the remainder of society who condemn their stunts as mindless vandalism?
// the way that they see it is that people just ignore conventional protests and that the only way to actually get any influence is to do this kind of (harmless) thing. //
Then clearly they are misguided, on the one hand because there is no 'influence', except hostility to be gained by this kind of behaviour, and secondly, the record of 'direct action' has proved to be anything but 'harmless', either in terms of destruction of property, or inconvenience and distresss to members of the public going about their daily lives.
// the other thing to point out is that these paint attacks expose hypocrisy. people will get very angry about a bit of cornstarch on stonehenge but shrug their shoulders at a massive tunnel being dug under it. //
If you seriously believe that the vandalism of Stonehenge highlights what you perceive to the the damage of the tunnel under it, then you are as misguided as the activists carrying out this ludicrous campaign of damage and destruction.
// painting taylor swift's private jet draws attention to the fact that she uses one and should not be. //
Says who?
Again, you will find that if Ms Swift chooses to minimse the cost of commercial aircraft travel by funding her own transport, that is her right in a free society.
The decision by a tiny majority that she is 'wrong' does not entitle them to vandalise anything.
And once again, if you seriously imagine that Ms Swift will be adjusting her travel arrangements because a few loopy foreigners don't approve, then again, you are utterly misguided.
You may argue that other forms of protest have failed, but clearly, so is this, which is bringing nothing but anger and condemnation to the attention-seeking pompous arrogant buffoons who demand their way, at the expense of others.
