
I thought their little stunt was stupid enough as it was, now I find out they've got young kids as well.
( , Sun 19 Aug 2012, 14:05, Reply)

they chose to have kids, if you've got kids and you go out causing civil disturbances that get you thrown in prison, strikes me as a bit irresponsible.
( , Sun 19 Aug 2012, 14:45, Reply)

( , Sun 19 Aug 2012, 15:26, Reply)

I admit to having to google for the name but I knew there were some that had popped out sprogs and still had an opinion.
( , Sun 19 Aug 2012, 16:19, Reply)

because of that name...your position in society today is arguably a tribute to that "name" amongst others who shared her similar position of being a mother, and an active member of society.
( , Sun 19 Aug 2012, 15:40, Reply)

I don't owe this person any loyalty because of what I got out of it. So she was irresponsible as well, and she turned out to be on the winning side, well there you go.
( , Sun 19 Aug 2012, 15:45, Reply)

you don't owe anything to the people who fought and often died for your freedom which you exercise?
do emancipated slaves not owe anything to the people who fought for their emancipation?
do i not owe anything to my grandfather who went to war on the front lines in germany and witnessed his friends dying, to contribute to a world which allows me to sit her typing this right now?
yes i do, and you are seriously, and sadly and disappointingly wrong.
( , Sun 19 Aug 2012, 15:48, Reply)

I don't have to approve of everything anybody did just because I got something out of it in the end.
If I had been saved from hypothermia I wouldn't owe loyalty to the nazi scientists who threw prisoners into barrels of ice-water to see what would happen.
If someone neglected their responsibilities as a parent and risked arrest to get women the right to vote I don't have to approve of people neglecting their responsibilities to their children for the sake of some other political cause.
( , Sun 19 Aug 2012, 15:53, Reply)

i love a good nazi,
"I don't have to approve of everything anybody did just because I got something out of it in the end."
no you don't, but your argument is roughly, these women as mothers should not put their kids welfare in danger by protesting.
why is the children's welfare at danger if they protest? imagine living in that world...if they will take your children for protesting, what else will they do...is it not better to get the worlds media attention so such an atrocity sparks outrage?
is it the duty of a mother to bring her child into a world where they could be imprisoned or killed just for having a different "opinion"?
or is the correct thing to do, as a mother, or human being, to try to create the best possible world for all of us, our brothers, sisters, friends and children?
and to do that by making a big fuss...to get global attention, by taking a risk... aren't they trying to protect their children ultimately?
im bored of this now,
( , Sun 19 Aug 2012, 15:58, Reply)

I only wanted to point out that I can support someone's cause without approving of their methods.
( , Sun 19 Aug 2012, 16:04, Reply)

So long as you're not wanting free speech, challenge the political establishment, believe in an deity not approved by the state, be the wrong colour, have sex with people the same gender as you....
If you're silly enough to want any of that then it's pretty horrible.
( , Sun 19 Aug 2012, 16:22, Reply)

You should probably do some research first before spouting shit then.
( , Sun 19 Aug 2012, 20:43, Reply)

I can read exactly this sort of paranoid rant on Infowars any day of the week and I take it with a pinch of salt. I need something of substance.
( , Sun 19 Aug 2012, 21:16, Reply)

The right to vote for women owed just as much to WW1 as it did to people chaining themselves to railings. It was then that women emerged from the home and drove buses, made all the munitions and basically did all the jobs that they were thought incapable of that made people think they might just have the sense to vote sensibly too.
( , Sun 19 Aug 2012, 17:21, Reply)

You implied the right to vote was a result of protest; I say it was more down to circumstances.
( , Mon 20 Aug 2012, 11:23, Reply)

backed up a concept which had been brought to the pubic attention through a series of protests and attention grabbing stunts.... the mouth opened first and then the body followed through on the promises...
so owing a debt of gratitude, or at least supporting the people who where involved in that process is the right thing to do, they where just as much a part of it, being the vocal genesis of it.
so my point still stands.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 12:42, Reply)

that I saw "spun" and immediately replaced it with "spunked"?
( , Sun 19 Aug 2012, 15:05, Reply)

I just read that as "Emmeline Spankhurst".
( , Sun 19 Aug 2012, 18:15, Reply)

They would have known full well what they were doing and that by performing this stunt they could potentially get into a lot of trouble. Whilst I'm all for free pussy (fnar), these brought it upon themselves.
( , Sun 19 Aug 2012, 14:30, Reply)

blaming these people for the trouble they are in is like blaming protesters in dictatorships for getting themselves shot.
( , Sun 19 Aug 2012, 14:53, Reply)

In fact I think it's deplorable. But I wouldn't go out and shit in a policemens helmet, because I know full well I'll be in trouble for it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg
( , Sun 19 Aug 2012, 14:56, Reply)

( , Sun 19 Aug 2012, 15:10, Reply)

and started singing a song about how much they hate burglars.
( , Sun 19 Aug 2012, 15:12, Reply)

So being a bit of a nob in a church and saying you don't like the prime minisiter justifies jail and having your kids taken away? Can't say I agree, old chum.
( , Sun 19 Aug 2012, 15:14, Reply)

but this is Russia, they should hardly have been surprised.
( , Sun 19 Aug 2012, 15:17, Reply)

you shouldn't do anything to fight against it, because they might kill you?
isn't that a sort of parasitic view of society...
( , Sun 19 Aug 2012, 15:42, Reply)

and what they did wasn't merely protesting, as is their right in my opinion. What they did was a stunt.
( , Sun 19 Aug 2012, 15:47, Reply)

or throwing yourself under horses?
( , Sun 19 Aug 2012, 15:49, Reply)

like that. Very foolish things to do. Especially the latter.
( , Sun 19 Aug 2012, 15:55, Reply)

more that they would have known of the potential consequences
( , Sun 19 Aug 2012, 15:49, Reply)

will know of potential consequences before they take a risk, thats what makes them so special... people like this that will say "bad shit could happen to me because of this, but i'm not willing to let it continue without making a stand"
fucking hell, when did "the man" castrate everyone?
( , Sun 19 Aug 2012, 15:53, Reply)

So it's only people with testicles who can be brave is it!
Seriously though, I think we're talking at crossed purposes here.
( , Sun 19 Aug 2012, 15:58, Reply)

That is what I posted
"They would have known full well what they were doing and that by performing this stunt they could potentially get into a lot of trouble"
( , Sun 19 Aug 2012, 16:10, Reply)

serves them right,
you should be more like...
fuck thats terrible...
well you can be whatever you want... but...damn.
( , Sun 19 Aug 2012, 16:26, Reply)

I said they brought it upon themselves. Meaning is different. I do think it's terrible...
Let's not fight, let's be friends... *hugs*
*gropes*
( , Sun 19 Aug 2012, 16:27, Reply)

(what a nonsensical phrase anyway)
but I still find it difficult really to take their side in the matter, what they did overstepped freedom of speech and was inappropriate. And then what the authorities did overstepped justice and was inappropriate. Both sides want their heads knocking together if you ask me.
( , Sun 19 Aug 2012, 16:31, Reply)

I don't agree with it at all. It's terrible. I'm just saying they must have known what they were letting themselves in for by doing it...
( , Sun 19 Aug 2012, 15:22, Reply)

Well, just to cheer us up, have you noticed that one of the three is smoking hot? Every cloud has a sexy lining.
( , Sun 19 Aug 2012, 15:58, Reply)

I do love the way it is suddenly OK to say 'pussy' on the telly and radio.
( , Sun 19 Aug 2012, 16:04, Reply)

And they'll be able to say pretty much anything on tv :)
( , Sun 19 Aug 2012, 16:08, Reply)

"Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, 22, and Maria Alyokhina, 24, were scrambling to arrange foster-care agreements to prevent social workers from taking the tots away from their families"
Sounds like they did know what they were risking, their families are already looking after the kids. What they didn't expect was the government to try and remove the children from their families.
( , Sun 19 Aug 2012, 15:26, Reply)

I watched their "church gig" on youtube. It was shit. I would have asked for my money back.
( , Sun 19 Aug 2012, 16:54, Reply)