UC Davis from another perspective

[South]

Can I just say that most of these issues have not changed since the other thread, and because this a new thread automatically it seems that we are again going over the issues.

"is the OWS justified in itself"

"is the law that is CLEARLY aimed to prevent OWS just"

"is the use of force on non violent students ever justified"

These seem to be the main ones. The first question is mostly argued on stereotypes of students being this or that, or that OWS is a joke. Really easily discredited as I can present you 15 concrete demands all based on precedents.

The second question seems to be about the students breaking the law. Which is true they are, but it has to be known that these laws are NEW and in response to OWS. Not only in Davis, but Toronto, Newyork, LA, etc etc...keep in mind these are the ones that are just reported. Now if these laws can be proven that there is a motivation aimed specifically at targeting this movement, then violation of the right of thought is being committed. Very hard to prove motive, but I hope people understand the common sense that these laws are targeting these groups. Freedom of association, well this violation is more clearly seen. Cops come in and get rid of them using whatever force necessary. Freedom of movement again a bit more clear on its violations. But you get the jist that laws preventing OWS movement violate other more important laws. And the new laws being violated are tort laws, not under criminal jurisdiction and probably the least serious?

The third question is morally based really. Takes precedent form the paths to peace paradigms, notably the non violent and conflict resolution ones. In essence though precedent in of itself has shown that peace can be achieved only through negotiation between party's. Again 1940s India I have mentioned briefly. I feel like I should be talking about each of these in much more depth, but each issue can be of itself a different thread. Hence the problem of social sciences and trying to create a holistic arguement.

[South]

Originally Posted by calegrant

You intercept a statement made specifically about one member's post history just so you can respond to it as thought it had been directed towards you, even after it's clearly a quotation of another member? Argue that misunderstanding of yours more plz.

Can you please quote or point out which particular response I hijacked believing it was directed towards me. Again I do not feel anything directed towards me. I respond to anything pertaining to the issues being discussed. If using someones else's information which I might not have to further my argument, then I will "hijack" it too. I don't know the context so again please point out which post I intercepted.

EDIT: nvm found it. And it was sirex's post you quoted where he defending my tact or whatever. Thanks I guess I don't think I am being very tact, quite opposite in my insults. But yeah I had every right to quote what you said

"actually he is quite tactful. look who started call people fools/names first."
you responded
"No one expects this to be a competition of who can be the most polite, but every reply he puts up is littered with insults. It's childish but I don't think anyone expect any better any more. Disagreeing with someone and openly looking down on their views are one thing, flat out insults and saying they're the load their mother should've swallowed earn an ass kicking at meets....but that would require one to have a car actually worth bringing out to a meet.

So far you've said my views are a joke and that I'm a troll, tact is not something which you posses nor an understanding of it's definition. 282 of the 295 threads you've contributed to this forum have been made in the OT forum, and I'm the troll? New school keyboard warrior generation, gotta love it. "

Obviously referring to me and that last bit about your a joke and the amount of OT posts is true about me too hehe. This is the post I hijacked right? or is there another one? Did I do good boss? huh boss? arguing my "misunderstanding more plz" boss? I hear the only place you're ever invited is outside.

[SickFinga]

Pepper spay is intended for self-defense not for spraying people for no reason. If you break a law, you should be arrested not pepper sprayed for no reason. This was clearly a case of excessive force and there is no point in arguing.

[bmdbley'sBro]

Mayor Bloomberg "I Have My Own Army In The NYPD Which Is The Seventh Biggest Army In The World!"



-
Scott Olsen "Occupation Has Turn Into Something About Rights & Freedoms We Were Told We Once Had"


^now he has trouble speaking

[canuckder]

I like bmws. There so awesome,

Wait, am I on the wrong forum again?