as i said - most people are sensible enough to vote rather than form violent mobs to protest - that is why mobs need to be paid to do something nonsensicalI’m not encouraging violence, I just don’t understand this strange idea that half the country are supposedly furiously angry when it suits, but at the same time they supposedly can’t find a handful of people to protest unless they’re paid to do so. The women’s march in 2017 had between 3.3-5.6 million attendees, and we’re quibbling over 200 protesters? Really?
How can one know for sure that they aren't paid protestors?
Exactly. There's no way we can no for sure that they aren't witches. Uh, I mean lizard people conspiring to overthrow the government. No wait, I mean paid protesters. Yeah, that's a less outlandish way to try and ignore what is actually going on.How can one know for sure that they aren't paid protestors?
amen - this is trueWhy does it matter if they're paid or unpaid? Do protesters convince anyone of anything? Does anyone finding people standing outside with signs and chanting slogs to be persuasive? And the more unruly the group, the less I find them convincing and the more I find that I want to just oppose an unruly group.
Then they are being paid to sway opinion--the same as an ad agency making political commercials just for the money. On the other hand, they could be people who seriously support the cause but could not, without financial support, afford to travel to and remain at the protest site.amen - this is true
but as to why does it matter if they are paid or not? - it goes to the veracity of the protest -
if they were paid then they could just be mercenaries - meaning they are not necessarily in agreement with what they are doing - they are only doing it for money
true - it could be that they believe in what they are doing and can't pay their way - many have wondered at their youthfulness and availability - thinking perhaps they are unemployed - which means they are not contributing members in societyThen they are being paid to sway opinion--the same as an ad agency making political commercials just for the money. On the other hand, they could be people who seriously support the cause but could not, without financial support, afford to travel to and remain at the protest site.
you are saying that paying mercenaries to pretend they are upset by issues and acting as a violent enraged mob is an ethical and valid form of political advertising?Then they are being paid to sway opinion--the same as an ad agency making political commercials just for the money.
If the protesters are violent (intentionally causing bodily injury or property damage) then the protest is illegal whether the protesters are paid or not.you are saying that paying mercenaries to pretend they are upset by issues and acting as a violent enraged mob is an ethical and valid form of political advertising?
i would say it is more like false advertising
true - i perhaps should have said volatile/aggressive/threatening/harassing/bullying - or something that describes getting in a person's face - blocking their way - shouting - screaming - pounding on doors - trespassing on property - swearing - threatening - etcIf the protesters are violent (intentionally causing bodily injury or property damage) then the protest is illegal whether the protesters are paid or not.
Why didn't the loving Jesus defend the Smyrnans (Revelation 2:10)?
Also, why do you allow babies to be murdered in abortion clinics?
-
Also, we should not try to employ the human "legality" of abortion as the reason for our pacifism toward the slaughter of innocents in abortion clinics. For if we believe that God expects us to employ violence to protect our innocent families, no matter what man-made law might someday forbid that, then how can we claim that God does not expect us to also employ violence to protect innocent babies in abortion clinics, no matter what man-made laws forbid that?
That is, imagine that San Francisco (an extremely liberal city) passes an ordinance which forbids the civilian firing of a gun, or the civilian employment of any other form of violence against anyone at anytime, even in self-defense. And imagine that you and your family are staying at a hotel there when an armed man breaks through your hotel-room door to attack your family. Are you going to say: "Oh, gee, I know that God expects me to defend my family with violence, but I have to be a pacifist now, so I that don't break the city law"? Or are you going to say: "I don't care what any stupid, man-made law says, I must obey God and protect my family with violence".
And if you would say the latter, then on what basis would you decline to say, regarding abortion: "I don't care what any stupid, man-made law says. I must obey God and defend these little babies with violence"?
And if you would reply with something like: "God only expects me to protect my family, not the babies of strangers", then imagine that you see the baby of a stranger in a stroller on the sidewalk outside of an abortion clinic, about to be killed by a crazy homeless man with a knife. Are you going to pass by as a pacifist, because: "God only expects me to protect my own family, not the babies of strangers"? Or are you going to employ violence to save the baby? And if the latter, then what God-supported reason do you have not to rush in and also save the babies inside the clinic, who are about to be knifed by abortion doctors?
Or, imagine that your daughter gets pregnant by her boyfriend, and lets the baby grow in her womb for about six months. You think that she is okay with becoming a mom, but then one day someone tips you off that she is down at the abortion clinic about to be operated on. Are you going to go down there and employ violence to save your own little grandson or granddaughter in her womb from being cut to shreds, to fulfill your God-mandated duty to protect your family with violence? Or are you going to say: "No, I have to let this family member be cut to shreds, no matter what God says, because of the man-made law allowing abortion"?
All of this is said not to in any way encourage violence against abortion clinics, but to show that pacifism is the only consistent, Biblical response to all of the awful evil in the world, just as Jesus Christ taught us:
Matthew 5:39 . . . I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
amen - this is true
but as to why does it matter if they are paid or not? - it goes to the veracity of the protest -
if they were paid then they could just be mercenaries - meaning they are not necessarily in agreement with what they are doing - they are only doing it for money - they are actors/pretenders making a short movie - it's all make-believe
Given the turnouts for various marches in the past few years, I'd say yes. Unless you're saying millions of people have been paid to march. Then I'd want evidence.This is such a POWERFUL point. Would all these folks be protesting and causing a disturbance if they weren't paid?
And to find out how to get in on some of that money.Given the turnouts for various marches in the past few years, I'd say yes. Unless you're saying millions of people have been paid to march. Then I'd want evidence.
yes - i also have great doubts about this whole event too -This is such a POWERFUL point. Would all these folks be protesting and causing a disturbance if they weren't paid? Just exactly how many would show up if there was no money involved? There is no way of knowing of course, but it does make you wonder. The paid folks are just mercenary. They are quite worthless when it comes to determining the mood of the country and the number of folks who really care about the issue.
the paid protests where people behave really badly - are smaller - like around 200 - soros has more than enough money to pay each person $100 or more - strange that he reneged on that promise - i heard that it was because the protesters went too far and spoiled the effect - iow the desired effect was not achievedGiven the turnouts for various marches in the past few years, I'd say yes. Unless you're saying millions of people have been paid to march. Then I'd want evidence.
the paid protests where people behave really badly - are smaller - like around 200
So I think we have our answer - no, most people aren't being paid to protest.
both are easily done - the 200 paid protestors against kavanaugh were for the photo op to stir up the anger of socialist democrats against the american way of life -
the latest poll says 33% of young people are preferring socialist democrats like bernie over the old style democrats - that is how you find 10's of million vs paid protestors
What makes you think that "socialist democrats" are not part of the "American way of life?" Maybe your definition of the American way of life is just too partisan and self-serving.both are easily done - the 200 paid protestors against kavanaugh were for the photo op to stir up the anger of socialist democrats against the american way of life -
That doesn't change the fact that many of these protestors are being paid.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?