To 劉嗡 , 人力是否支持陳雲的勇武抗爭?

To 劉嗡 , 人力是否支持陳雲的勇武抗爭?

This is a question, not a criticism of 人力


大舊's definition of勇武抗爭 is basically the same as 公民抗命
(http://hkreporter.loved.hk/talks/thread-1819368-1-1.html)


However that is not the same as 陳雲

https://www.facebook.com/pages/%E5%8B%87%E6%AD%A6%E6%8A%97%E7%88%AD/537587909593440?sk=info


Let me quote part of what 陳雲 says "「和平、理性、非暴力」,是起義的緊箍咒,彷彿和平與理性的衡量標準,就是「非暴力」了,一旦動武,就不是和平與理性了。弱者除了和平抗爭,動武是不可剝奪的最後手段。"


從黃毓民議員在立法會扔蕉,到示威青年扔鞋、上台搶咪,到包圍地產霸權商店、堵塞地鐵出口及鬧市街道、到燃燒雜物、燃燒自己(自焚)與投擲石頭、玻璃樽、汽油彈,乃至組織起義兵團,都是暴力。


大舊 or YukMan or 人民力量, please come out and clarify, do they really support what 陳雲 says! Do they support violence, do they support 投擲石頭、玻璃樽、汽油彈?   They need to come out and define
1 what is 暴力
2 do they support 陳雲's definiton of 暴力 and
3 do they agree 動武是不可剝奪的最後手段? Are they saying in the end under some circumstances they would not mind 汽油彈?


I sincerely hope 劉嗡 can respond to this. He needs to take a more active role in leading the party, explaining the party's stance rather than being so passive on so many issues.


Thanks.
PS: I volunteered and support 劉嗡 in the election several times a week during the election on the street and I hope he doesn't disregard my concerns.
我支持 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is a question, not a criticism of 人力


大舊's definition of勇武抗爭 is basically the same as 公民抗命(http://hkreporter.loved.hk/talks/thread-1819368-1-1.html)


However that is not the same as ...
rayallen 發表於 [url=tel:26-3-2013]26-3-2013[/url] 10:20
我想請問閣下,你係咪反對孫中山先生領導嘅革命?
我想請問閣下,你係咪反對孫中山先生領導嘅革命?
james_chem 發表於 29-3-2013 11:52
Sorry for the late reply, did not realize you have posted a question until just then.

The answer to your question is no and here is why.
I do not believe the end justify the means. Violence is not tolerable (self defense is not violence) under any circumstances.

Yet I would understand 陳雲's 勇武抗爭 if we have guns and army, even though i will still disagree, I would understand.


Howeer we have no guns nor army now, so using any violence is just stupid. There is no need to even to think about whether the end justify the mean, because "the mean" here, which is violence with no guns nor army, is in fact harming the end, which is achieving democracy.


Hopefully you will think of what I've said and change your mind on the matter.