Andrey (azangru) wrote,
Andrey
azangru

(C)opied from Twitter

How is it that the society and the government tolerates the blocking of the roads? Those who object to these practices usually employ a variation of the "won't somebody think of the children" argument (what's its proper name in rhetoric by the way?), which becomes "what if there is an ambulance or a fire engine stuck in the traffic". I find it excessive and disingenuous. You don't need the moral backing of a potential emergency to find this practice appalling. Why should someone's freedom of speech and the right to make a stink infringe on someone else's freedom to get to wherever they are going? That miserable driver, who thinks it's the police's job to keep the traffic going, seems to be in the wrong in this video. How come?



(source)

P.S.: When the British parliament tried to pass the law making it more costly for protesters to engage in disruptive behavior, there was a huge public outcry. Says a comedienne at the BBC question time: "The definition of a protest is to be noisy and annoying. And I can't afford to be criminalized; I can't afford to go to jail". Well, yeah, that's the point.
Subscribe

  • (no subject)

    On the dreadful state of the style of modern Russian communication. "There is no alternative", writes an author, and then immediately outlines an…

  • Via Twitter

    Via a tweet, but I thought I'd get my own copy. A beautiful illustration of how a caption totally misrepresents what's been captured in the photo.…

  • (no subject)

    Here's an extract from Uncle Bob's book Clean Agile. Although he has fallen out of grace with the champions of social justice, the sentiment…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic
    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments