Just Stop Oil

okay-----the cause of that kind of stuff is that irrational malcontents and deranged and disturbed people latch onto some "libbberall" cause of sorts and become rebels, so they can somehow justify their antisocial behaviors. Pure and simple. All there is to it. Okay--so there's plenty of money out there to pay contractors to scrub the paint off the stones and build barriers around it so it's restricted for everyone('cause we've got to be "fair"), so that's their solution. Prison is "unfair" to the vandals, 'cause it impinges on their freedom of expression. Yup. Ha--even though it's England. Ha. hope that helps you kids, even though you've blocked littlebittymee and of course I blocked every one of you kids as a payback. How do you like that? Thankk mee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore

No world heritage site was destroyed, the stonehenge stuff is not different than the traffic (I don't mean a literal car driving on it, although hey there is a road planned nearby so maybe I do) stonehenge has often gotten. But if you can not really damage anything and have stories made up that you are (which is basically what happened), maybe you may as well just actually destroy stuff. Because most of the protests including those involving art are actually designed to not causing any actual damage, which doesn't preclude the possibility of things not working out that way of course.

---

There was no apparent permanent damage, but Bobby has it right, there was a clean up at the expense of the tax payer and whatever disruptions they caused to visitors wanting the experience of visiting the site. I also believe there are people in England, like maybe some sort of druids, who consider the structure sacred. The charges against the protesters include various forms of damage. My punishment would be spending a lot of hours public service cleaning graffiti, but that's probably unlikely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore

No world heritage site was destroyed, the stonehenge stuff is not different than the traffic (I don't mean a literal car driving on it, although hey there is a road planned nearby so maybe I do) stonehenge has often gotten. But if you can not really damage anything and have stories made up that you are (which is basically what happened), maybe you may as well just actually destroy stuff. Because most of the protests including those involving art are actually designed to not causing any actual damage, which doesn't preclude the possibility of things not working out that way of course.

---

micro damage was done to Stonehenge.

you may not consider it important, but I do.

A Micro layer stone came off when the paint cleaning occured.

Again, I am not in favor of Stonehenge being damaged. I've been there, and I certainly was taken by the historical significance of it. But what about the coral reefs that are deadening? Micro damage was done to Stoneheange. Macro damage is being done to the coral reefs. Macro damage is being done to the topsoil that we depend on to grow food in the most efficient way unless we want to eat petri dish food. Macro damage is being done to the water and air--damage which will certainly intensify if Trump gets back in office.

Personally, I would never damage historical artifacts, but I wonder if someday we will wish that we had done less damage to the basic elements of our survival. Someday will we wax nostalgic over cod, or food grown in real soil, or water that doesn't need sophisticated filtration systems?

Great Catherine, so tell me how damaging Stonehenge helps coral reefs and etc.

what these idiots are doing makes not ONE iota of difference

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iris lilies

Great Catherine, so tell me how damaging Stonehenge helps coral reefs and etc.

what these idiots are doing makes not ONE iota of difference

---

It's counterproductive.

If they wanted to destroy something to help their cause, something related to the actual production of CO2 might be more ethical and useful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jp1

Are you also as assured of that opinion when one commits an attempt to overthrow the government to stay in power? From all your previous posts you seem reticent about committing to that so I'm curious if you've finally accepted that this matters or if you are still hesitating?

---

As riots go, I like that there were hundreds of arrests and convictions. We didn’t see the like for the deadly riots that preceded it. Nor did we hear the mealy-mouthed talk of “mostly peaceful protests” or “violence is the voice of the unheard”.

Do I think Trump’s behavior disqualifies him from the presidency? Yes. But I never considered him qualified in the first place. I think where we part company is your apparent belief that this obligates me to support any ridiculous alternative offered up in opposition.

If you don’t see the difference between random protests and an attempt to overthrow the government I don’t know what to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jp1

If you don’t see the difference between random protests and an attempt to overthrow the government I don’t know what to say.

---

I doubt anyone looking at his burnt out family business would call it a “random protest” rather than a riot.

To my mind, any riot is an attack on government. It is also a violent tantrum, and no amount of excuse-making or media pixie dust will convince me otherwise. I see 10/7 as just another such violent tantrum rather than an organized coup attempt representing some kind of pivotal moment in history. I’m no supporter of Trump, but that does not mean I must blindly support anything some of his opposition feels I must. That would simply be elevating one brand of idiocy over another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDAHL

I doubt anyone looking at his burnt out family business would call it a “random protest” rather than a riot.

To my mind, any riot is an attack on government. It is also a violent tantrum, and no amount of excuse-making or media pixie dust will convince me otherwise. I see 10/7 as just another such violent tantrum rather than an organized coup attempt representing some kind of pivotal moment in history. I’m no supporter of Trump, but that does not mean I must blindly support anything some of his opposition feels I must. That would simply be elevating one brand of idiocy over another.

---

Got it. So you truly don’t see a difference between trump’s month’s long, multi-pronged attempt to overthrow the government and random riots.