Quote from: VeryGnawty on March 23, 2015, 05:33:17 AM
But, it is violent.

If you say so. I see it as a peaceful, if obstructive, protest, though. Unless someone personally physically injures someone else, then it is not a violent protest by the very definition of the word.

Also, no crime is being committed. I still see no issue here.

Quote from: Eevee on March 23, 2015, 07:19:49 PM
If you say so. I see it as a peaceful, if obstructive, protest, though. Unless someone personally physically injures someone else, then it is not a violent protest by the very definition of the word.

Also, no crime is being committed. I still see no issue here.

Really?  Google "willfully obstructing traffic"  it's a crime in nearly every state. Open mouth, insert foot.

Hugs, Devlyn

Quote from: Devlyn Marie on March 23, 2015, 07:35:51 PM
Really?  Google "willfully obstructing traffic"  it's a crime in nearly every state. Open mouth, insert foot.

Hugs, Devlyn

Even if it is breaking a minor law, I repeat: I still see no problems here. Non-violent protests still have to go there sometimes. I'll be inserting exactly zero feet into my mouth today, but thank you.

Quote from: Eevee on March 23, 2015, 07:44:46 PM
Even if it is breaking a minor law, I repeat: I still see no problems here. Non-violent protests still have to go there sometimes. I'll be inserting exactly zero feet into my mouth today, but thank you.

May I ask this?

What if the black lives matters folks blocked traffic on Monday. Then Anti-rape folks did it on Tuesday. The occupy folks did it on Wednesday. The breast cancer people did it on Thursday. The advocates for the homeless, for abused children, and for world hunger, did it on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. And the next week, seven more worthy causes did it again.

Would you have a problem then?

Quote from: suzifrommd on March 23, 2015, 07:54:38 PM
May I ask this?

What if the black lives matters folks blocked traffic on Monday. Then Anti-rape folks did it on Tuesday. The occupy folks did it on Wednesday. The breast cancer people did it on Thursday. The advocates for the homeless, for abused children, and for world hunger, did it on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. And the next week, seven more worthy causes did it again.

Would you have a problem then?

I think a lot more might get done.

Quote from: Eevee on March 23, 2015, 07:44:46 PM
Even if it is breaking a minor law, I repeat: I still see no problems here. Non-violent protests still have to go there sometimes. I'll be inserting exactly zero feet into my mouth today, but thank you.

Those willing to sit in a cell for their principles can say that.

We are allowed in this country to peaceably demonstrate.  No one can decide that their cause is important enough to sidestep law and order without consequence.

Hugs, Devlyn

Quote from: Devlyn Marie on March 23, 2015, 07:56:03 PM
Those willing to sit in a cell for their principles can say that.

We are allowed in this country to peaceably demonstrate.  No one can decide that their cause is important enough to sidestep law and order without consequence.

Hugs, Devlyn

It has been done before for worthy causes, and only a few of us believe those protests weren't worth it. When people don't notice or care, then make them notice and care. Sometimes sitting in a cell is worth it if change happens.

Quote from: Eevee on March 23, 2015, 07:58:16 PM
It has been done before for worthy causes, and only a few of us believe those protests weren't worth it. When people don't notice or care, then make them notice and care. Sometimes sitting in a cell is worth it if change happens.

No, I'm sorry. Pray The Gay Away supporters would gladly sit in cells to have their way. Is that an acceptable solution? Again, you can't just decide you don't want to obey the law to change other laws.

Hugs, Devlyn

Quote from: Devlyn Marie on March 23, 2015, 08:08:03 PM
No, I'm sorry. Pray The Gay Away supporters would gladly sit in cells to have their way. Is that an acceptable solution? Again, you can't just decide you don't want to obey the law to change other laws.

Hugs, Devlyn

You may not be willing to sit in a jail cell, but others are. It's perfectly acceptable to them. And yes, anyone can decide to break the law. There are always consequences, but in some cases the potential benefits are worth the risk.

I'm done here.

Hugs, Devlyn

Quote5. The posting of messages on the chat or forums which are of a threatening tone; intended solely to communicate sarcasm, contempt, or derision; are intended to belittle or ridicule a person or group; to disgust the viewer; contain obscene or pornographic materials; which are intended to titillate; or which depicts/promotes illegal acts; will not be permitted

.

Ok people please read the quoted tos bit above. Especially the bits in red. We are getting really close to the line here.

Lets not cross it.

Quote from: Devlyn Marie on March 23, 2015, 08:08:03 PM
Again, you can't just decide you don't want to obey the law to change other laws.

So honest question: Do you oppose the Boston Tea Party, the actions of the Susan B Anthony and other woman's suffragists, the American Civil Rights movement of the 50's and 60's, Stonewall, and the actions that lead to the fall of the Berlin Wall? Because all of those movements were rooted in civil disobedience.

I will also give the same staff warning.

It's close to having issues I really do not wish to deal with.

Agree to disagree but not attack is a fine line to walk.

I am in no way promoting breaking the law.  But I will say that throughout history many protests have happened, that caused inconvenience to the general public, and by doing so, got a lot of coverage, and made some positive changes.  Trans Equality/Rights needs to get their heads out of the closest (no pun intended)

Just my two cents!

I side with the protesters, but at the same time, there has to be a more creative way of protest than causing another traffic jam in a city known for traffic jams, most of which, have nothing to with protests of any kind. Disruptive has its place, but I think this is an issue where disturbing might also help. Blocking traffic is a annoying and kind-of-sort-of-disruptive until people get past the jam and get back home, crack open a beer, and turn on the idiot box like they do every other day. What could possibly be done is some kind of a public display of some of the personal effects of murdered trans people

I'd much rather see sit ins and people on the corners with signs.  The traffic in LA is so crazy that usually you have to sit and wait so long you could read the signs and such.  Frustrating even a single person who are driving ton+ vehicles in my opinion is akin to riling up someone of unknown sanity with a weapon. Blocking traffic is using your physical body to impede someon else.  If some yelling anti-trans person stopped me from driving or walking away from them, I would be very scared and upset.  These sorts of protests make people who are ignorant of the issues scared of the instigators.  Events like trans visibility are MUCH more positive ways of getting attention- I saw tons of pictures in the media from that event and only now just heard about the traffic thing. 

There are ways of protesting that don't involve as much injury to innocent bystanders (or drivers) by clogging traffic.  Ghandi used hunger strikes, King used abstaining from buses.  I know many movements also have violent aspects to other protests during the same times, but they should not have in my opinion.  I am just a pacifist unless my life depends on it and I think you can almost always find a way to avoid it, even in regards to self defense.