Hi, if I got you correctly, you answer that it is justified to create inconveniences to the public while fighting for a cause. My question is based on your experience in 2014. You spoke about how it affected your economy( the outcome of that event) so my question is, was the aim achieved? If not then why would you carry on a cause that won't yield any result?
I believe there are many ways to fight for a cause and it is best to go with the option that doesn't affect the general public and most especially, will yield a positive result afterward.
I enjoyed reading your post though.
#Dreemport led me here
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Hello! Yes, I justify it. I think it is not wrong to create inconveniences but not violence.
The protest didn't affect my economy, but when it became radical it affected our security. The economy and bad policies were the reason for the protest among other political and social problems, and since no change was achieved, the country ended up in a brutal hyperinflation.
In my opinion, some protests should often affect the public and attract attention which is one of the objectives of protesting. To gain followers or to make those who can make a change do it. But what I am referring to here is the limit that must exist when exercising the right to protest. And in my opinion, when violence is a factor it is time to rethink strategies and set limits.
Thanks for your comment and for stopping by.