Quote:

Pariah said:
Quote:

thedoctor said:
Well, remember that one of the main reasons behind the Revolutionary War was that colonists didn't want to have to pay taxes to pay for the French and Indian Wars.



But isn't that the difference? Revolt?

They stopped paying taxes because they didn't want to support a particular country. That's seems like more than just protest.



They stopped paying taxes because they didn't want to pay taxes. Taxes that were to pay for a war fought to protect them. That protest led to rebellion. So if you approve of the protest of the colonists in the late 1700's which was definetly more violent as it involved vandalism, then you'd also have to approve of the protest of the Australian couple who are using a non-violent form of protest. Not their politics, but their use of non-violent protest. Otherwise, you're just splitting hairs due to your unacceptance of their reason for the protest.

whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules.
It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness.
This is true both in politics and on the internet."

Our Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said: "no, the doctor's right. besides, he has seniority."