6 ms·

This is not civil disobedience. Flying drones to shut down an airport is nothing like sitting in the white seats of a bus. That's a ludicrous comparison. Such

This is not civil disobedience. Flying drones to shut down an airport is nothing like sitting in the white seats of a bus. That's a ludicrous comparison. Such drone attacks are dangerous (they do put aircrafts at risk), affect thousands of people, cause millions in damage, and, simply put, are lightweight terrorism. It is quite right that the article open with a reference to the IRA attacking Heathrow airport with empty mortar rounds to shut it down. This is exactly the same thing. And it is completely ineffective. The only result is to alienate the majority of the public.

samcday 7y ago
Of course, you are completely entitled to your opinions, but I'm not going to engage them because I don't think you're really interested in having an open discussion about this. Why do I say that? Because in response to a pre-planned demonstration from a group that has made abundantly clear that they intend to engage in acts of civil disobedience that are 100% non violent, you have used the words "drone attack", "terrorism" and have likened them to the IRA. I'm pretty confident I have absolutely no chance of changing your mind here, but it would mean a lot to me if you were to just consider for a moment your choice of words and what they say about your tolerance to people who hold different opinions to you.
- NotPaidToPost 7y ago
  I respect people with different opinions. I do not respect people who try to impose their opinions through criminal and reckless actions. By the way, I have not likened their actions to the IRA's, the article does that based on fact. That's obviously a very disturbing and inconvenient fact to you but that's a fact nonetheless. Again, what they are doing is not civil disobedience and has no place in a democratic country.
  - hanniabu 7y ago
    It was criminal to hide jews during the holocaust in order to save them. If we just blindly accept the rules and fate we are handed then let's just accelerate the process and welcome our dystopian 1984 George Orwell future.
    - dang 7y ago
      Please don't post unsubstantive comments here, let alone Godwinesque ones.
- navigatesol 7y ago
  >but it would mean a lot to me if you were to just consider for a moment your choice of words and what they say about your tolerance to people who hold different opinions to you. >I'm not going to engage them because I don't think you're really interested in having an open discussion about this. >I'm pretty confident I have absolutely no chance of changing your mind here What's that about tolerance of other's opinions? So far these people interfering with the airport operations have been compared to India fighting the British for independence, African Americans fighting for their civil rights and people hiding Jews from the Nazis. And you want people to take your arguments seriously?
  - samcday 7y ago
    Well, for starters, you are literally quoting me out of context. How about quoting me properly instead of making yourself look ridiculous? > Of course, you are completely entitled to your opinions, but I'm not going to engage them because I don't think you're really interested in having an open discussion about this. I feel like I shouldn't need to point out how this disproves your implication that I'm not tolerant of other people's opinions. But maybe I actually do. Yikes. Acknowledging that someone else holds a differing view but choosing not to engage with it is something I consider completely reasonable. Maybe you don't, and hey, that's cool! It's your opinion after all :) In case it wasn't obvious though, due to my forceful tone, I do want to state unequivocally for the record that not only do I respect that you might hold opinions that are incompatible with my own, but I also accept your conflicting opinions are 100% valid. If I then come up with rebuttals (even if they're worded as angry internet justice warrior rants), it's not because I think you're fundamentally an idiot, but because what you're saying makes me angry enough that I want to try and get you to look at things a different way. That's not intolerance. That's social discourse. > So far these people interfering with the airport operations have been compared to India fighting the British for independence, African Americans fighting for their civil rights and people hiding Jews from the Nazis. And you want people to take your arguments seriously? Actually, I didn't make those comparisons. So why are you making strawmans of other people's arguments and using them to discredit me?
- inflatableDodo 7y ago
  >Because in response to a pre-planned demonstration from a group Has anyone actually checked if extinction rebellion actually has any plans to fly drones round Heathrow? Currently we are taking a very vaguely worded article from the Economist at face value. Not to cast aspersions, but the Economist does talk a lot of bollocks sometimes.
  - NotPaidToPost 7y ago
    The Economist is one of the most serious source in the business. And yes, this is factual and does not come from the Economist: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-48470623 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-48470623
- subjectsigma 7y ago
  This is absurd moral grandstanding; you took three paragraphs to say "my opinions > your opinions." If you're going to do this at least don't try and pretend to be following the HN guidelines.
tomohawk 7y ago
Quite right. Disobedience is being told by an immoral law to do something immoral. Such as to turn in a fugitive slave, etc, and then not complying. This action is actively committing acts to interfere with people who are engaged in exercising their rights as free human beings.

samcday 7y ago

Of course, you are completely entitled to your opinions, but I'm not going to engage them because I don't think you're really interested in having an open discussion about this. Why do I say that? Because in response to a pre-planned demonstration from a group that has made abundantly clear that they intend to engage in acts of civil disobedience that are 100% non violent, you have used the words "drone attack", "terrorism" and have likened them to the IRA. I'm pretty confident I have absolutely no chance of changing your mind here, but it would mean a lot to me if you were to just consider for a moment your choice of words and what they say about your tolerance to people who hold different opinions to you.

NotPaidToPost 7y ago
I respect people with different opinions. I do not respect people who try to impose their opinions through criminal and reckless actions. By the way, I have not likened their actions to the IRA's, the article does that based on fact. That's obviously a very disturbing and inconvenient fact to you but that's a fact nonetheless. Again, what they are doing is not civil disobedience and has no place in a democratic country.
- hanniabu 7y ago
  It was criminal to hide jews during the holocaust in order to save them. If we just blindly accept the rules and fate we are handed then let's just accelerate the process and welcome our dystopian 1984 George Orwell future.
  - dang 7y ago
    Please don't post unsubstantive comments here, let alone Godwinesque ones.
navigatesol 7y ago
>but it would mean a lot to me if you were to just consider for a moment your choice of words and what they say about your tolerance to people who hold different opinions to you. >I'm not going to engage them because I don't think you're really interested in having an open discussion about this. >I'm pretty confident I have absolutely no chance of changing your mind here What's that about tolerance of other's opinions? So far these people interfering with the airport operations have been compared to India fighting the British for independence, African Americans fighting for their civil rights and people hiding Jews from the Nazis. And you want people to take your arguments seriously?
- samcday 7y ago
  Well, for starters, you are literally quoting me out of context. How about quoting me properly instead of making yourself look ridiculous? > Of course, you are completely entitled to your opinions, but I'm not going to engage them because I don't think you're really interested in having an open discussion about this. I feel like I shouldn't need to point out how this disproves your implication that I'm not tolerant of other people's opinions. But maybe I actually do. Yikes. Acknowledging that someone else holds a differing view but choosing not to engage with it is something I consider completely reasonable. Maybe you don't, and hey, that's cool! It's your opinion after all :) In case it wasn't obvious though, due to my forceful tone, I do want to state unequivocally for the record that not only do I respect that you might hold opinions that are incompatible with my own, but I also accept your conflicting opinions are 100% valid. If I then come up with rebuttals (even if they're worded as angry internet justice warrior rants), it's not because I think you're fundamentally an idiot, but because what you're saying makes me angry enough that I want to try and get you to look at things a different way. That's not intolerance. That's social discourse. > So far these people interfering with the airport operations have been compared to India fighting the British for independence, African Americans fighting for their civil rights and people hiding Jews from the Nazis. And you want people to take your arguments seriously? Actually, I didn't make those comparisons. So why are you making strawmans of other people's arguments and using them to discredit me?
inflatableDodo 7y ago
>Because in response to a pre-planned demonstration from a group Has anyone actually checked if extinction rebellion actually has any plans to fly drones round Heathrow? Currently we are taking a very vaguely worded article from the Economist at face value. Not to cast aspersions, but the Economist does talk a lot of bollocks sometimes.
- NotPaidToPost 7y ago
  The Economist is one of the most serious source in the business. And yes, this is factual and does not come from the Economist: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-48470623 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-48470623
subjectsigma 7y ago
This is absurd moral grandstanding; you took three paragraphs to say "my opinions > your opinions." If you're going to do this at least don't try and pretend to be following the HN guidelines.

tomohawk 7y ago

Quite right. Disobedience is being told by an immoral law to do something immoral. Such as to turn in a fugitive slave, etc, and then not complying. This action is actively committing acts to interfere with people who are engaged in exercising their rights as free human beings.