Protest is almost always wrong?

[SS-18 ICBM]

You're not following the OP and are jumping to conclusions. It doesn't start with the premise that there are people who want to ban protests, but rather that there are those who adhere very strictly to the two notions stated (i.e. sanctity of the democratic process and non-violence).

The implication of such strict adherence is that protests are generally bad because either they're outside the democratic process or they're in practice likely to result in violence.

I think your premises (well, a little doubt about the "protests not being democratic", but you can debate that with the people who already posted about that) and reasoning are sound. The logical conclusion of such a strict adherence is disapproval of protest in general. I'm interested in who has expressed such sentiments here.

 

[aelf]

I think your premises (well, a little doubt about the "protests not being democratic", but you can debate that with the people who already posted about that) and reasoning are sound. The logical conclusion of such a strict adherence is disapproval of protest in general. I'm interested in who has expressed such sentiments here.

Again the premise of the thread is not that people have clearly expressed such a sentiment, or the discussion would be very different. My argument is that such is the logical conclusion of strictly adhering to the two notions stated.

Although it loses some of the context, I guess this is one way to put it: If peaceful (meaning no violence or any kind of disturbance) protest is the only kind of protest you approve of, then you should not agree to any protests as long as there's a high chance of violence occurring, which is often the case in practice.