Cartoons and common sense

Good morning crashfrog.Protests and or rallies are often advertised by means of flyers, or sometimes even an ad in a relevant publication. sometimes even tv and radio publicity can alert you to an event happening. A misunderstanding maybe, but from what I read you seemed to be suggesting that is was reasonable to reach a conclusion on the nature of the protest based on a cursory look. (Your photo for example)if it was a question... my answer is NO, I do not feel it is reasonable to conclude this. you are making conclusion based upon incomplete evidence. (i.e. seeing some hardliners attending a protest and thus assuming that everyone attending that protest agrees with their hardline stance)
(that's twice I've answered your questions when asked... care to do the same?)
I'll try again for the 5th (or is it 6th?) time now... unless you answer the questions I have asked of you several times now there is no point in continuing this. that is possible and I don't dispute that there are elements who are there only for the violence, but it is also possible that you would keep going back to ensure that your peaceful message gets out, the the world sees (if they choose to) that not eveyone at this protest is a hooligan, that there is a real, valid, peaceful message that people are trying to get across.
otherwise what are you doing? letting the hooligans take over completely, and getting in the news for all the wrong reasons.It's seems we disagree on these issues,This message has been edited by Creavolution, 02-10-2006 11:19 AM

Are you going to show everyone where I have been constantly calling you names? or are you going to withdraw that particular accusation?as you're so keen on quoting the rules...Rule Number 8:
Avoid any form of misrepresentation.

Please show me where you answered these questions...
they require a simple yes or no answer, they are the basis for my argument perhaps then you should refrain from making glib assumtions as to the intentions of the protestors based on a what could simply be hardline minority? so what makes you reach the conclusion that it is a "kill bush protest?" some tv footage of some people with some signs? what about the other hundreds or thousands of people with different signs? why do you not let them influence your decision? ok... I think you are in error, I think you should read a little more into the situation before making this assumption. this is where we disagree. apparently so.

read the question again... I am attending the protest... I have seen the posters/flyers telling me there will be an 'anti war ' protest. I make my anti war placard, someone else in that crowd has a "kill bush" placard. does this mean I support the assination of the president? nope. Just that you should refrain from making a sweeping generalisation based upon what you can see (which I don't think would be the entire crowd)
yes ... that seems resonable to me. far more reasonable than spotting the hardlners and extrapolating their beliefs onto everyone else in the crowd. so.. you see a "kill bush" sign and a "stop war" sign... you immediately chose the hardline stance and assume everybody holds that opinion?
this is where we will not agree... I think this is wrong. is it not?... have you looked for it? agreed...'equally likely', but not a foregone conclusion as you seem to be suggesting. all the more reason to remain part of that protest to ensure that your sane, pacifist, non violent voice is heard. walking away from that protest would simply leave the hooligans to it, giveing your cause a bad reputation and taking from the message you were trying to convey. what was that you said about name calling?This message has been edited by Creavolution, 02-10-2006 01:52 PM

Thank you.But you seem to suggest that: what? have you been reading my posts? you've answered exactly how this could be different above when you answered: I am trying to get across that it is wrong... just plain wrong... to indentify the the message of a mass protest by simply looking at the most hardline stance and attributing that opinion to EVERYBODY there.
I'm not trying to tell you how to identify hardliners... i am saying that you should look a little deeper, for instance... who called this rally?... why did they call it? what evidence do you have of their intentions? before you brand everyone there as a hardliner based on what could be simply a minority representation attempting to piggy back on the back of an otherwise peaceful, respectful protest. how about if you are staying to continue your peaceful protest as best you can, so the authorities realise that not everyone there is a hooligan. if you leave you are effectively handing over control of your otherwise peaceful protest to the hooligans.

Apologies if my quoting isn't clear... I'm working with limited time, sometimes I submit without properly reading first.
The general point of my last post was that you agreed that my being at the same protest as someone who encourages violence, does not mean that I encourage violence.
But it seems to me you thought it reasonable to assume that the crowd held and agreed with both points of view. I felt you were contradicting yourself with this point It need not necessarily be a hardline stance... It may be just a minority view point. (in our context it is the hardline stance of the 'death to europe, death to the USA types)
My point being that the minority viewpoint does not represent the majority simply because they are at the same rally/protestIt is wrong to take what could possibly be a minority viewpoint as representative of the majority without good evidence to support this.
Fair enough.. if you have a crowd of 2000 people attending a march, and the majority are shouting "death to..." well then, you can assume that that is the thrust and the message of that particular crowd.I suggested you should find out the reason for the march.
you said: that is a good question... I have suggested how, these things are organised, someone decided there would be a march, that person told the people about it somehow. (possibly using method Holmes and I listed before). I would say that if you cannot find that out to a degree of certainty, you should not jump to conclusions about what the message/reason for being of this group/march/rally is. I wouldn't suggest you take on single person's view and make a conclusion based on that. rather try to make a better informed opinion of the crowd, the motives behind the rally, the beliefs of the organisers.
this may be difficult to do... but unless you make some attempt at this you have no right to decide what the reason for the protest is.
(especislly not based upon what might be a minority of attendees) So if i stay at the protest while a few nutballs decide to kick off, but I, and others stay there peacefully protesting... am I 'part' of this riot? I am not rioting, I am not being Violent, I am continuing my peaceful protest.I feel this is at the point where it is going absolutely nowhere, you have your views, I have mine. neither will change.
we are wasting bandwith.
I feel I am repeating points over and over again (as I'm sure you do too) so unless there is a breakthrough point to be made I will unlikely post in this topic again.
thanks for the banter though(edit....Awwww crap.. I replied to my own message!)This message has been edited by Creavolution, 02-10-2006 06:31 PM

You're not reading what I'm putting in my posts, you are moving the issue from one of making a sweeping generalisation about the motives of a crowd based upon limited evidence. to something else entirely.I am not going to repeat myself any more as you don't seem to pay any attention anyway.time to let this one go.