Security Guard

[peacepete]

So if, say, McDonalds decided your squat would be a good place to set up a new drive thru', that would be OK then would it? People (and groups of people organised into companies and other bodies) have "owned" property since the dawn of time. It's what animal's do ... go watch some Attenborough ...

Now clearly that's nonsense. Can everyone on this thread start reading what each other is actually writing and critique someone other than just me

 

[detective-boy]

it alone doesn't give you the right to push people around.

It does actually, by the laws which the absolutely overwhelming) majority have agreed to live by. If you want to change the law, and the entire basis of our society, you're even more of a twat if you think shouting random abuse at some bloke doing his job in a lawful manner is going to change anything ...

 

[peacepete]

peacepete - How on earth will you attract respect and sympathy for your cause/s when you try to spin - in the best New Labour tradition - a perfectly reasonable response into being an act of "Nazisim".

Do you really think people are so naive to not recognise what it is they're looking at ?

Do you really think this is the way to convince people of the worth of your own agenda ?

I don't think it was an act of Nazism.

I feel like you might not have tried to understand what I think about this.

 

[detective-boy]

Now clearly that's nonsense.

Why?

You seem to think that it would be cool if everyone was entitrely at liberty to do whatever they want with whichever piece of God's earth they want to at any time. Property is theft, man!

So WHY would my suggestion be nonsense when you are suggesting random punks should be entirely at liberty to invade a lawful private place of business at any time and not face any risk of removal?

 

[peacepete]

It does actually, by the laws which the absolutely overwhelming) majority have agreed to live by. If you want to change the law, and the entire basis of our society, you're even more of a twat if you think shouting random abuse at some bloke doing his job in a lawful manner is going to change anything ...

ok...

I don't think I'm in a minority in not liking laws that protect private property, but that's another debate.

I completely dispute that laws are the basis of society - though we might have a different idea of what society is.

I don't think shouting abuse at someone is likely to change much.

 

[London_Calling]

I don't think it was an act of Nazism.

I feel like you might not have tried to understand what I think about this.

Really ? You don't think I maybe overstated the case and my post lost credibility becasue of that, do you ?

 

[Guineveretoo]

firstly, that youtube clip is great!

the security guard is trying to hassle a much younger and much smaller man, yet all the people on that board seem to think it's him that's being threatened.

in this case the job of the security guard is the proxy exposed to the antagonisms created by the institution he works for. police, mercenaries, security guards, soldiers all the same are paid to be the face of something when they don't even know what it is they represent.

if the guard feels discomfort in this position his real grievance should be towards his employer, yet the message board rails against the protestor with the camera and (senselessly) against the silent punk who is just sitting down.

it's plain sycophantism that sides with property in a situation like this and whilst sympathy with the guard is understandable it seems crazy that anyone should seriously criticise the protestors who at least are maintaining a logical position.

I believe this was your first contribution to this thread?

In it, I read you saying that the security guard is doing the hassling, and that it is wrong for people to state that, in fact, he is being hassled.

I don't think you know the meaning of the word sycophantic, because it doesn't really make sense to use it there, by the way.

You then go on to say that it is "crazy" to criticise the "protesters", which I certainly read to mean the guy behind the camera, since the only one we can see is the one sitting down, and he is just one.

Did I misread that?

 

[Guineveretoo]

I don't think it was an act of Nazism.

I feel like you might not have tried to understand what I think about this.

I don't think you are explaining yourself well or consistently!

 

[peacepete]

Why?

You seem to think that it would be cool if everyone was entitrely at liberty to do whatever they want with whichever piece of God's earth they want to at any time. Property is theft, man!

So WHY would my suggestion be nonsense when you are suggesting random punks should be entirely at liberty to invade a lawful private place of business at any time and not face any risk of removal?

your attenborough reference i scan read and assumed that you'd said animals owned property. this is probably because attenborough isn't an anthropologist. what you actually said was that people have owned property since the dawn of time. this isn't true, but is a common misunderstanding which didn't deserve the ridicule i gave it.

 

[Guineveretoo]

ok...

I don't think I'm in a minority in not liking laws that protect private property, but that's another debate.

I completely dispute that laws are the basis of society - though we might have a different idea of what society is.

I don't think shouting abuse at someone is likely to change much.

Actually, I think you are in a minority on that one. Sorry.

But if someone broke into my house, and stole my belongings, I would very much expect to be able to call upon the law to "protect" my "private property". As I think most people would.

If it is a different debate, why do you keep referring back to it?

 

[peacepete]

I believe this was your first contribution to this thread?

the last sentence in my first post is completely incoherent.

 

[peacepete]

Actually, I think you are in a minority on that one. Sorry.

But if someone broke into my house, and stole my belongings, I would very much expect to be able to call upon the law to "protect" my "private property". As I think most people would.

If it is a different debate, why do you keep referring back to it?

the debate as to how many people believe in private property would seem off topic. i was just highlighting that we're on different sides of it, which is important to understand if we're trying to decifer our different perspectives on this video.

 

[Guineveretoo]

the debate as to how many people believe in private property would seem off topic.

the current debate seems to be about whether i'm a twat or not.

Only if that is what you make it. No-one else has turned it into that debate.

 

[peacepete]

sorry, i edited that one out quite quickly i didn't think anyone would read it in time.

 

[peacepete]

Only if that is what you make it. No-one else has turned it into that debate.

however, that's blatantly not true. i didn't call myself a twat did I?

 

[Guineveretoo]

sorry, i edited that one out quite quickly i didn't think anyone would read it in time.

Ha!

Here, have another emoticon:

 

[peacepete]

i don't know why you're so smug. i don't think i even believe what you're arguing against.

 

[Guineveretoo]

the debate as to how many people believe in private property would seem off topic. i was just highlighting that we're on different sides of it, which is important to understand if we're trying to decifer our different perspectives on this video.

Why do you think we are on "different sides"?

Life is so clear cut to you, isn't it? If one disagrees with you, one is on a "different side"?

I was going on peace rallies and demonstrations before you were born, me laddo!

 

[Guineveretoo]

i don't know why you're so smug. i don't think i even believe what you're arguing against.

Now I am smug?

FFS, you really are an arrogant tosser, aren't you?

 

[Guineveretoo]

however, that's blatantly not true. i didn't call myself a twat did I?

No, but you are obsessing about it, and failing to debate the real issues, and changing your position constantly, and then intepreting what people are saying in different ways.

In fact, behaving like a twat, although that is not a word I generally use!

 

[peacepete]

my apology was for editing something, not for having written it in the first place. or whatever.....

anyway that was a fun random debate.

something about the thread format that really brings out the subtleties of a topic

 

[peacepete]

Now I am smug?

]

I associate that emoticon as a smug grin.... correct me if i'm wrong.

No, but you are obsessing about it, and failing to debate the real issues, and changing your position constantly, and then intepreting what people are saying in different ways.

In fact, behaving like a twat, although that is not a word I generally use!

I wasn't obsessing about it. that's bullshit. and i've written about the issue at great length - don't know whether i've debated or not though.

which post have i written interpreting other people's words in a way you dispute?

why have you started looking for round about ways of calling me a twat?

 

[peacepete]

p.s. why are you calling me an arrogant tosser?

 

[skunkboy69]

why exactly do you think they're being idiots? especially the one sitting down. i agree that some of what the guy shouting says seems out of order (but we don't know the atmosphere very well - except that the other picture i posted up in relation to the young one's reference appears to be from the same day).

what exactly is the guy sitting down doing wrong?

I think the guy behind the cam is an idiot for the drivel he's hurling at the guard.

The guy sitting down is on private property and the owners have the right to move him on.If you were sitting on my property and I wanted you to move then I'd move you because it's MY property.Once again,I can't see your argument over this.Is it you sitting there or hurling insults behind the camera?If it is then fair enough,I can see you have a point to prove.If it's not then I'm not seeing your point at all here.Sorry

 

[Deareg]

i have a lot of sympathy for the anti-capitalist protesters, and i dont think that going into and occupying a bank is the same as occupying someones house,

the banks and big business's are always stealing and occupying other peoples property, just because they have the law on thier side does'nt make it right

 

[lights.out.london]

if you watch the clip again with your pro-property blinkers off it'll all make a lot of sense.

the young person is sitting down. the older man wants to hassle him off but there's a camera there.

the now vocal youth are used to being pushed around and for once they have enough numbers to stand up for themselves.

It must be pretty dull in your part of the world if you think there is anything in that clip which is radical, exciting or even worth raising an eyebrow over. Just a big mouth gobbing off but using the cops to ensure the security guard doesn't have a go.

I'm all for direct action, but that was just uber-lame.

 

[peacepete]

I think the guy behind the cam is an idiot for the drivel he's hurling at the guard.

The guy sitting down is on private property and the owners have the right to move him on.If you were sitting on my property and I wanted you to move then I'd move you because it's MY property.Once again,I can't see your argument over this.Is it you sitting there or hurling insults behind the camera?If it is then fair enough,I can see you have a point to prove.If it's not then I'm not seeing your point at all here.Sorry

it isn't me. my relation to this topic was that i was the first person to reply to the post. i wrote what i thought on the topic, some of which wasn't very clear. i'm still trying to remember exactly how sychophantism fitted in...

 

[peacepete]

It must be pretty dull in your part of the world if you think there is anything in that clip which is radical, exciting or even worth raising an eyebrow over. Just a big mouth gobbing off but using the cops to ensure the security guard doesn't have a go.

I'm all for direct action, but that was just uber-lame.

i don't agree that it's as simple as you've laid it out. i think the clip is from the same day as the photo i posted up (a coincidence, as i just googled 'aussie cops baton') and if so the police were baton charging protestors that day, so not exactly on their side.

i'd say it was fair to say that the 'big mouth' was probably feeling buoyed my the number of people around.

 

[lights.out.london]

I guess we have different ideas of what 'direct action' or confrontation is, should be or could be.

Fair enough.

 

[detective-boy]

this isn't true

Not in the modern sense, maybe. But I would guess you'd find a few territorial disputes over caves and such like between the old Neanderthals - as I said, animals protect "their" territory (some extremely vigorously) and we are simply animals.