Is it OK to Probably Injure Traffic Blocking Protester to Possibly Save Life?
Let's be explicit so everyone is on the same page. This is unfortunately not a purely hypothetical question except for the preciseness I am hypothesizing.
You are driving your mother to the hospital along a route that you have every reason to believe is clear. But it's not, because of a protest. A protest that would not legally be allowed to totally block traffic as they are doing. Because of cars stopped behind you, the protest adds 20% to the probability your mother will die. If you slowly plow through the protest, there is an 80% chance that you will injure someone fairly seriously but no chance you will kill somebody. Are you wrong to do that? Should it be illegal? Does it matter what the protest is about?
(I think most of you will say it's OK. To those that did, what if the mother death probability went up by only 5%, the protester death probability went from zero to 70% and the policy being protested was clearly bad?)
In fact, from seeing the book reviews, I don't believe you 100%. Imagine thinking that limping with kk is +EV in a 1/2 game. Lolums.
If, for a car crash, I'm inconvenienced in the slightest during a joyride across town, I'll often say, "Somebody better be dead."
And yeah, I know, "I get priced in by the raisers behind" - D. Sklansky.
Does the "D" stand for "degenerate" by any chance?
David is pro John brown
Jesus Christ wrong thread. 1/2 is a terrible game. It doesn’t matter if someone can beat it or not
I am surprised more people haven't taken matters into their own hands in these situations. I have no doubt we will see someone plow through these criminals. This would bring a lot of pleasure to a lot of people. This nonsense just makes people want Israel to blow Gaza up even more. It certainly is not helping their cause.
Plow through? I have a lot of doubt, aside from the possibility of a rogue lunatic like the one in Charlottesville.
That's a very, very sad thought.
As is this. Hopefully there aren't a lot of people who have lost all sense of perspective like you seem to have.
That's probably true. But that doesn't mean someone should "plow through" them, nor should such an action bring a lot of pleasure to anyone, and protests shouldn't make people want Israel to blow up Gaza even more.
Hopefully this is just some weird hyperbole that is very typical of social media, and not something you actually mean.
Let's be explicit so everyone is on the same page. This is unfortunately not a purely hypothetical question except for the preciseness I am hypothesizing.
You are driving your mother to the hospital along a route that you have every reason to believe is clear. But it's not, because of a protest. A protest that would not legally be allowed to totally block traffic as they are doing. Because of cars stopped behind you, the protest adds 20% to the probability your mother will die. If you slowly plow
I think there should be official government vehicles to push these guys out of the way and laws specifying that anyone who deliberately blocks public roads has given up all rights, including the right to be taken to a hospital.
Just to make myself clear. The civil rights protestors in the South were justified in their actions in spite. of the tiny chance that they would cause a medical death because their protests actrually did good. Nat Turner was right to murder slaveholders but not their children. Traffic blocking protest that will do nothing and might even hurt their cause are both wrong for medical reasons and stupid. Why is any of the above debatable?
In case it was unclear, Nat Turner did murder the children of slaveholders and was obviously wrong to do that. in spite of being right to kill their parents. (Israelis who claim that it's OK to kill children because they are being used as shields by people who deserve to die, because they also kill children, are wrong to claim that. They are supposed to reluctantly let the shields work in the short run. None of this should be hard.)
Ranger ran over protestors at Burning Man. yikes. The feds don't mess around with hippies.
This is awesome! Every single comment (at least in the first few pages) is mocking the protestors and saying they got what they deserved.
I think there should be official government vehicles to push these guys out of the way and laws specifying that anyone who deliberately blocks public roads has given up all rights, including the right to be taken to a hospital.
The first part of what you wrote is actually a great idea. The vehicle should have padding all around it and no space to allow someone to slide under it.
So let's change it to something less complicated. It's ambulance drivers and they know their patient will die if she doesn't get to the hospital quickly. Their only way to accomplish this will probably hurt some protesters. Should they do it? Does it matter if there was an alternate way to protest? Does it matter if there is good reason to believe that without this protest more than one innocent person will probably die? Does it matter if the protest was for a good cause but was technically ill
Ambulance driver is a better hypothetical than driving your own mother. People aren't going to offer the Spock-like answer that you are looking for if the driver is acting to materially increase the odds of survival for himself or a close family member. (As an aside, if Spock-like answers were what you were looking for, I'm surprised you didn't include information about the age and general health of the mother as compared to the protesters. This is the point that Luckbox was making.)
I also don't think statistical illiteracy is the problem. A fourth grader would understand the basic math in your original hypothetical. It is a thought experiment, however, because in the real world, you will never be able to calibrate the percentages (or the extent of the injuries you cause) as finely as your original proposal implied. In most real world examples, you will be doing little more than guessing as to the ultimate consequences of your actions.
I think that it is relatively obvious that things like availability of alternative forms of protest, justness of the cause, etc., should affect the answer to the question. That's easy to see if you take an extreme case. For example, suppose that 30,000 Proud Boys surround NYU Hospital for the purpose of preventing entry or egress into the hospital. They state that they will not leave until the 19th Amendment (which provided for women's suffrage) is repealed. In that case, the cause is ridiculous, the harm is significant, and there is no particular connection between the form of the protest and the cause. I'm sure that most people would agree that force should be used if necessary to access the hospital in that absurd hypothetical.
protests shouldn't be allowed to block roads. Disturbing other people property rights should be treated like disturbing other people bodies: never allowed, full stop, unlimited violence fully justified to interrupt the violent upheaval of property rights.
The lives of protesters violating property rights have no value, killing them should be rewarded by the state. I would pay some taxes to set up huge rewards to anyone who kills someone who is violating public property rights making public proper
As usual, Luciom is coming in with juvenile, one-size-fits-all, solutions to nuanced questions. According to the logic of the bolded, I should get a reward from the state if I intentionally run over teenagers who are throwing a ball back and forth in a lightly travelled public alley.
I think people simply should not be allowed to stop traffic, no matter the reason of their protests.
They can protest online or at their home or in any place the owner agrees to give them to protest.
There is no right to abuse public property for protests or any other private use.
Luciom,
As you surely are aware, strikes by public railway workers has been a relatively common occurrence in Italy over the decades. Such strikes obviously are a form of protest, obviously impact travel, and potentially could have serious consequences for people who rely on the trains.
Should Italy have a law that rewards citizens for acting violently against public railways workers who are on strike?
Getting rid of protests is the most fascist **** ever
Luciom,
As you surely are aware, strikes by public railway workers has been a relatively common occurrence in Italy over the decades. Such strikes obviously are a form of protest, obviously impact travel, and potentially could have serious consequences for people who rely on the trains.
Should Italy have a law that rewards citizens for acting violently against public railways workers who are on strike?
lol, you're asking a fascist if he wants the trains to run on time?
hes like the most extreme fascist and has been all over the forum advocating for mass murder if anyone who disagrees with him. I think we all know where he is gonna fall on this one.
So let's change it to something less complicated. It's ambulance drivers and they know their patient will die if she doesn't get to the hospital quickly. Their only way to accomplish this will probably hurt some protesters. Should they do it? Does it matter if there was an alternate way to protest? Does it matter if there is good reason to believe that without this protest more than one innocent person will probably die? Does it matter if the protest was for a good cause but was technically ill
Stopping traffic is illegal and whether some protest “is a good cause” is a more interesting topic than this thread
Luciom,
As you surely are aware, strikes by public railway workers has been a relatively common occurrence in Italy over the decades. Such strikes obviously are a form of protest, obviously impact travel, and potentially could have serious consequences for people who rely on the trains.
Should Italy have a law that rewards citizens for acting violently against public railways workers who are on strike?
you know they need approval from the state, and have to guarantee basic services anyway right? ie it's not a violence over public property, rather a right which is legislated ?
As usual, Luciom is coming in with juvenile, one-size-fits-all, solutions to nuanced questions. According to the logic of the bolded, I should get a reward from the state if I intentionally run over teenagers who are throwing a ball back and forth in a lightly travelled public alley.
we are talking blocking traffic in highways where people can't walk to begin with
