Deflating SUV Tyres

[pwa]

Protesting is something everyone has a right to do, but interfering with another person's property or obstructing their movements isn't protesting. It is an attack. It is intended to cause stress or emotional harm to another human being, which is not peaceful protest. It is low level violence.

[Psamathe]

Protesting is something everyone has a right to do, but interfering with another person's property or obstructing their movements isn't protesting. It is an attack. It is intended to cause stress or emotional harm to another human being, which is not peaceful protest. It is low level violence.

I agree but your point also raises the question about the rights another person has to pollute the air I breath, to damage the environment I depend on, etc.

Ian

[thirdcrank]

Protesting is something everyone has a right to do, but interfering with another person's property or obstructing their movements isn't protesting. It is an attack. It is intended to cause stress or emotional harm to another human being, which is not peaceful protest. It is low level violence.

I agree but your point also raises the question about the rights another person has to pollute the air I breath, to damage the environment I depend on, etc.

Ian

This is just going round in circles. All motor vehicles pollute and some are more polluting than others. It seems that with this protest, the protesters are making up their own rules over what counts as more polluting. And doing it after dark.

[Psamathe]

Protesting is something everyone has a right to do, but interfering with another person's property or obstructing their movements isn't protesting. It is an attack. It is intended to cause stress or emotional harm to another human being, which is not peaceful protest. It is low level violence.

I agree but your point also raises the question about the rights another person has to pollute the air I breath, to damage the environment I depend on, etc.

Ian

This is just going round in circles. All motor vehicles pollute and some are more polluting than others. It seems that with this protest, the protesters are making up their own rules over what counts as more polluting. And doing it after dark.

I agree (and agree about it going round in circles so I'm doing another loop ...). Whilst I don't support interfering with other people's property, I can also see an aspect that rules are needed to protect against climate change, etc. and when our Government fails to make adequate rules people are faces with either watching ever increasing degredation of climate/environment or to take action based on their own rules.

Government has access to experts and data so has the ability to make better rules than well-intentioned protestors. But failure of Government to act to protect our rather crucial climate leaves people with difficult choices.

I don't see this as a question of agree with or disagree with binary choice but rather degrees of sympathising with different aspects ... which as you say sends things round in circles.

Ian

[Nearholmer]

If you look back across history, big moments of social change have often come with elements of ‘civil disobedience’, the long, drawn-out process of obtaining universal sufferage being a good example, and they always provoke debates of this very kind, so it’s no surprise really that it’s difficult to come up with a rock solid agreement as to where the line between enough and too much lies.

[pete75]

Protesting is something everyone has a right to do, but interfering with another person's property or obstructing their movements isn't protesting. It is an attack. It is intended to cause stress or emotional harm to another human being, which is not peaceful protest. It is low level violence.

I agree but your point also raises the question about the rights another person has to pollute the air I breath, to damage the environment I depend on, etc.

Ian

Many of us would be interested to learn how you do nothing that pollutes the air we breath.

[Psamathe]

Protesting is something everyone has a right to do, but interfering with another person's property or obstructing their movements isn't protesting. It is an attack. It is intended to cause stress or emotional harm to another human being, which is not peaceful protest. It is low level violence.

I agree but your point also raises the question about the rights another person has to pollute the air I breath, to damage the environment I depend on, etc.

Ian

Many of us would be interested to learn how you do nothing that pollutes the air we breath.

Sorry but to expect somebody to emit no pollution is daft. It's a question of degree and need.

Ian

[thirdcrank]

Yes. But to say "My car is OK but anything larger is not OK" is imo pure humbug.

[Psamathe]

Yes. But to say "My car is OK but anything larger is not OK" is imo pure humbug.

(I suspect we are mostly in violent agreement) True and I wont guess as the circumstances of those making these protests. Again a question of degree and need - for some they have the minimum vehicle they need to live in our society whilst for others their excessive vehicle is as much a status symbol as a transport need. But then we come down to guessing on an individual basis.

And decisions on needs are also subject to interpretation. I have a car, an old petrol hatchback that does pretty good mpg for it's age. But given how rarely it gets used my view is that to replace it with e.g. a small EV would generate more pollution.

Ian

[Nearholmer]

I don’t think that’s what the protestors, or anyone else is saying, is it?

My reading is that the protestors are targeting those perceived (probably rightly given the way emissions rise with prosperity) as being the biggest offenders, in a way that creates the most publicity, and elicits sympathy for their cause, rather than the car owner.

It’s headline grabbing, in the same way that Emily Davison elected to risk death under the king’s horse at the Derby, rather than some unknown nag in the 3:15 at Pontefract.

If they let down the tyres of any random cars in the street, you can bet that it would backfire when it turned out they’d accidentally prevented a nurse or a paramedic getting to a shift, or old Mrs Whatsername to her medical appointment. Still possible with SUVs, but far less probable.

[pete75]

I agree but your point also raises the question about the rights another person has to pollute the air I breath, to damage the environment I depend on, etc.

Ian

Many of us would be interested to learn how you do nothing that pollutes the air we breath.

Sorry but to expect somebody to emit no pollution is daft. It's a question of degree and need.

Ian

Of course it is but so is trying to assuage guilt about something you think is bad on the grounds that some are worse.

And why do you think you're in a position to judge the needs of others?

[Psamathe]

Many of us would be interested to learn how you do nothing that pollutes the air we breath.

Sorry but to expect somebody to emit no pollution is daft. It's a question of degree and need.

Ian

Of course it is but so is trying to assuage guilt about something you think is bad on the grounds that some are worse.

And why do you think you're in a position to judge the needs of others?

I don't think I've made a judgement about any other individual's needs. I've been talking in broad general terms. There are undoubtedly some who have far larger and more polluting vehicles than they need (e.g. a family that live near me and that assessment is their own and not mine). There are also others who place high priority on environmental impact and make big changes to their lives to reduce their impact.

But yet again you are "attacking the person" rather than discussing the point by trying to suggest I regard myself as being the judge of the needs of others. I'm happy to discuss the issues but fed-up with you turning it into a "you"/personal issue so I wont be engaging with you further on this subject (pity but it becomes futile).

Ian

[thirdcrank]

I don’t think that’s what the protestors, or anyone else is saying, is it?

My reading is that the protestors are targeting those perceived (probably rightly given the way emissions rise with prosperity) as being the biggest offenders, in a way that creates the most publicity, and elicits sympathy for their cause, rather than the car owner.

It’s headline grabbing, in the same way that Emily Davison elected to risk death under the king’s horse at the Derby, rather than some unknown nag in the 3:15 at Pontefract.

If they let down the tyres of any random cars in the street, you can bet that it would backfire when it turned out they’d accidentally prevented a nurse or a paramedic getting to a shift, or old Mrs Whatsername to her medical appointment. Still possible with SUVs, but far less probable.

There must be a figure of speech for the comparison with somebody who openly acted with such defiance and people who slink about anonymously under cover of darkness. The suggestion that it elicits sympathy seems to stretch the meaning of the word. Above all, I don't think there's any real evidence that this approach somehow "works." I'm relying on my unreliable memory here, but IIRC, in an otherwise carefully researched media piece linked early in the thread, there was a vague reference to this or something similar having been successful in Sweden. (Sweden, the home of the urban tanks rather than Chelsea tractors.) I tried to see what I could find and I came up with a Scandinavian academic who believes the industrial revolution was a "bad thing."

[pete75]

Sorry but to expect somebody to emit no pollution is daft. It's a question of degree and need.

Ian

Of course it is but so is trying to assuage guilt about something you think is bad on the grounds that some are worse.

And why do you think you're in a position to judge the needs of others?

I don't think I've made a judgement about any other individual's needs. I've been talking in broad general terms. There are undoubtedly some who have far larger and more polluting vehicles than they need (e.g. a family that live near me and that assessment is their own and not mine). There are also others who place high priority on environmental impact and make big changes to their lives to reduce their impact.

But yet again you are "attacking the person" rather than discussing the point by trying to suggest I regard myself as being the judge of the needs of others. I'm happy to discuss the issues but fed-up with you turning it into a "you"/personal issue so I wont be engaging with you further on this subject (pity but it becomes futile).

Ian

The phrase you used about degree and need, implies you mak esome judgement on what you think are others needs. You claim not to in your second paragraph despite having done so in your first.

[Psamathe]

Of course it is but so is trying to assuage guilt about something you think is bad on the grounds that some are worse.

And why do you think you're in a position to judge the needs of others?

I don't think I've made a judgement about any other individual's needs. I've been talking in broad general terms. There are undoubtedly some who have far larger and more polluting vehicles than they need (e.g. a family that live near me and that assessment is their own and not mine). There are also others who place high priority on environmental impact and make big changes to their lives to reduce their impact.

But yet again you are "attacking the person" rather than discussing the point by trying to suggest I regard myself as being the judge of the needs of others. I'm happy to discuss the issues but fed-up with you turning it into a "you"/personal issue so I wont be engaging with you further on this subject (pity but it becomes futile).

Ian

The phrase you used about degree and need, implies you mak esome judgement on what you think are others needs. You claim not to in your second paragraph despite having done so in your first.

You assume judgement, I'd say opinion or view or just listening to what others say about themselves and their vehicles. But sorry, you keep wanting to make this personal and it defeats any aspect of discussion and exchange of views, you expect people to declare e.g. "Many of us would be interested to learn how you do nothing that pollutes the air we breath.". You've done this in the past and I'm not going to get into such futile and daft personal word games.

(My bold and colour)

Ian