Anti-U.N. residents plan protest during peace garden dedication Sunday
The dedication of the peace garden in Batavia on Sunday will draw a quiet protest from some local residents, according to Mike Barrett, owner of Barrett's Batavia Marine.
The problem, Barrett said, is that the peace garden is a little too closely linked with the United Nations and Barrett and others are no fan of the U.N.
One of Barrett's current concerns is a U.N. push to create an international treaty on the trade of guns, and while supporters of the treaty say it merely deals with the illicit sale of guns, groups such as the NRA fear it's really an attempt to circumvent the 2nd Amendment (Wikipedia).
"(The peace garden is) a noble effort," Barrett said, "but when one of the principles of the peace garden gets an award from the United Nations and they're going to have a torch run via the U.N. from Buffalo to Albany, that concerns us. We don't want anything to do with the U.N."
Barrett is referring to Paula Savage, a Batavia native who organized the first peace garden in Ottawa and is now part of the International Peace Garden Foundation.
Savage was recently honored by the U.N. for her peace garden efforts.
The Batavia garden is adjacent to the Holland Land Office Museum on West Main Street and the protest is scheduled to start at 2 p.m. on the opposite side of the street.
"It will be peaceful. There will be no bullhorns," Barrett said. "We're going to have an informational protest to show that the the peace garden is associated with the United Nations and that we're dead set against what the U.N. does."
Howard - Straw men, ad-hominem, stretching an argument way into extremes way beyond it's original scope? Are you really being like this, or am I seeing things? Firstly, not giving is not the same as taking away, you seem to think that because Mr. Barrett owns a local business that he's somehow entitled to our support, that the legitimacy behind the idea of his protest (and not the actual protest) is entitled to not be challenged and that doing both is the same thing. I'm rejecting your premise Howard, I know, you must be stunned.
You seriously believe that a boycott it's just like punching someone in the nose, because you think he somehow deserves success in the first place? No, I know that you know better deep down. The truth is, you really think that there is no way you could ever be wrong, and systematically proving it causes you to inevitably fly off the handle, throw up straw men and start making cute little insinuations about attitudes and age because you somehow think you deserve to be right. You're not arguing for anything, you're just arguing that I'm wrong without any context because you can't handle the possibility that you're wrong. Precious.....and I thought that liberals where the ones who wanted hand outs.
For all of Howard's whining about personal attacks, he's the only one in this thread that has engaged in personal attacks on others.
Mark - Threatening someone with physical harm or financial damage via a crime, like theft, or extortion, is a coercion.
Boycotting, or non-violently using one's right as a consumer to shop somewhere else is not.
Not being able to tell the difference is not only puzzling, it's deeply troubling and indicative of an attitude that thinks that a business somehow deserves our money in the first place.
Rick - I won't speak for Charlie, but I'm fairly certain that his tongue was planted firmly in his cheek when he made that comment.
Dan, I've not made one personal attack in this thread.
There have been no straw men, no ad-hominem attacks, nor have I been emotional about it. I've made a logical, irrefutable case that you can't deal with unless you twist meaning into it that's not there.
And now you're in attack mode because you can't refute the point.
Examples of twisting: I never said any business was owed anything nor entitled to anything. I also never said a person's ideas shouldn't be challenged. Nor have I argued for hand outs.
To say I've flown off the handle is to engage in utter delusion.
Nor have you systematically proven anything, other than an unwillingness on your part to deal with fact and reason.
It's flatly ridiculous to accuse me of being unwilling to accept being wrong when any logical examination of the facts of the matter would demonstrate that I am not wrong in this case. That would be like you arguing that the earth is flat and when I prove you wrong, you accuse me of being stubborn and close minded. Clearly, facts are facts. You can't win on the facts so you're resorting to calling my character into question.
Again, I note that you have not once addressed the fact that attempting to deprive somebody of money is causing harm. That's an irrefutable point that you're unwilling to address. Instead of addressing it, you now attack me. Clearly, you can't win this argument so you want to make it personal.
Howard - Who says he was entitled to money in the first place? That's the whole point. You're arguing as if money to him is a right and that I'm depriving him of the right via a boycott. No, in business money is a goal, something earned, not given out and after your years in business you really should know better, it's something I understand despite what you described as my "lack of private sector experience". Whatever it takes to make yourself feel better, though, Howard. Just because you say it over and over again doesn't make it true.
I'm in attack mode? Did I call for you to get a refund on your college degree? Did I mention anyone else's age? No, of course not, but then again in your mind you aren't capable of personal attacks because everything you say is true to begin with.
It's like arguing with a member of the flat earth society. The opposing argument is 'you're wrong because it's my assertion that you're wrong'.
Threatening a person's livelyhood as a means of shutting down his political position may not be a crime, it is just immoral.
If you won't shop at Barrett's because you disagree with his political opnions, I suggest it is your loss not his.
If you can't see how calling for a Boycott as a means of stiffling polictal views and or action is vastly different than voicing critism to his views than I guess is is pointless to continue discussing it with you.
Be Well my Friend, Live Long and Prosper
Mark - Then our disagreement is fundamental in nature and honest. I agree, there is no point continuing this discussion. I also would point out the evolution of the discussion, I made a suggestion of a boycott of Barrett's, but it's become a discussion about boycotts in general and the argument has become largely void of Mr. Barrett.
Since I'm a Star Wars fan, may the force be with you.
In post #70 I said in part;
“Below are some of the insulting despicable comments and/or implied innuendos; in whole or in part directed at Michael Barrett.”
In post #75 Charlie stated emphatically that he stood by his comment. He did not disagree that the comments were insulting and despicable.
I asked Charlie for a clarification in post #96;
I need a clarification?
You stated in part in post #75 in reply to my post #70, “Richard, I stand by my comment you quoted.”
To refresh your memory you said, “There has to be some environmental cause of this stupidity. Was there another toxic train derailment?”
If not contaminated ground water, what other environmental causes may come into play with people to whom you don’t agree?
In post #96.
Charlie’s position is perfectly clear and he stands by his original comment.
"THERE HAS TO BE SOME ENVIRONMENTAL CAUSE OF THIS STUPIDTY.”
In post #97 Charlie again confirmed that he stands by his words.
Danny, a man’s word is his bond!
In Post #112
Charlie said the same dam thing....
LOL When I came back from Montour Falls this Sunday we went by the Peace garden during the 21 gun salute. I didnt even think to look for protesters. My guests stayed overnight and thanks to Dan's ridiculous boycott talk, we went to Barretts monday to fill our tackleboxes for the season. A good chunk of change that usually went to Wal-Mart because of convenience. Seems alot of my soportsmen friend were commenting to me outside of the batavian forums yesterday n today. So it seems Mr. Jones comments have been heard, and as a community it seems they have been weighed and measured and the results? the great barretts boycott resulted in a probable increase in business. Good job Dan....you got your point of view stated and the perception of the general public exposed to it was......to ignore you and your opinion and shop at barretts.
Good job......best results of a classic fail I have ever seen.
Charlie, you amaze me with this comment. "There is nothing more American than a boycott."
So, is a protest, un-American? I mean you support Dan's call for a boycott but, you do not support MR Barrett's right to protest. Just because, you do not agree with MR Barrett. I guess what is good for one, is not good for all?
Someone stated above that MR Barrett did protest but, did not get the numbers he wanted to support him.
Great comment, thanks Mark. However, I believe this will still go over the heads of both Charlie and Dan.
I love a good Straw man, so much more interesting than a Tin Man...and less whinny too. I wonder what a Tin Man in an argument would sound like...
Here's the thing, boycotting a business is your personal right. Telling others to do so is your right as well. For instance way, WAY back on post 12 Dan said:
I also think that reasonable people should boycott Mr. Barrett's shop, I wouldn't want to support someone who thinks like him
That is his right and opinion. Just as it is my personal right to find that comment ridiculous and ignore it flatly. Which, no offense Dan, I'm pretty sure just about everyone did.
Now, is it right for Dan to do this? That's opinion. My opinion was just stated, but others see it as coercion, and still others find it appropriate. It can be argued that Mr. Barrett's business both does, and does not have anything to do with the argument, because of the type of business he is in and the stance that he took. That said, the quality of that business, its associates or products, have nothing to do with Mr's Barrett's personal views.
Since he was just speaking as himself, and not as a representative of his company, in fact it was only because Howard said that he owned the store that I knew it. Dan's comments are an overreach.
If, however, he was speaking as an advocate for his business, then I would say different. Just my two cents.
John, after 117 posts you still seem to have trouble understanding. A publicity stunt isn't the same thing as a protest. One is done for profit. When a stunt takes advantage of another's accomplishments, who has worked to create something of benefit to the community, that's in real poor taste. When no one shows up, what point is there in talking about it anymore?
It was pretty clear I thought that people should buy from that local store. Mr. Barrett doesn't deserve financial harm for a bad decision. In general I support protests, boycotts and any other god given right I have. Should I start the 118th post or has it sunk in?
Phil - None taken, if I took offense to criticism I would have never gotten involved in politics, especially in Batavia. :)
I also want to make clear that I did not expect to nor want to do any harm to Mr. Barrett, and if Kyle thinks I'm petty enough that it was my goal, then he doesn't know me too well. I did not organize a boycott, I did not spread awareness, have a protest, send out press releases to other media outlets, hold meetings or work through an organization or create one. I just made a statement, one that was probably thought provoking and struck a nerve, and caused over 100 comments by making it. That was the larger the idea behind me saying what I said. I thought that his protest was ridiculous and asinine, and I thought that reasonable people shouldn't support someone who was unreasonable enough to protest a peace garden because that hurts our community's image on a broader scale. If you really thought I wanted a serious boycott of Barrett's, don't you think I would have at least made a Facebook page? Do you really think I'm thick in the head enough to think I could put a dent in a business that's over 50 years old? Of course not. I did, however, make my points in a way that made the community of The Batavian feel a little unnerved, which I really don't mind, because I can stand the heat in the kitchen.
I am a little surprised though that so called tough people acted in an outraged manner over one statement, and that they believe that my choosing to not shop at a place is the same as physical assault and that I was personally attacked, even though I didn't nor have I ever delved into someone's personal life. Regardless though, it is what it is.
So Charlie, how is a publicity stunt? Do you know this for fact? Did Mike say hey Charlie watch I am going to stage a phony protest to drum up business? Or is simply an assumption on your part based on your vast knowledge of human nature?
Thanks Bea We all had a great time at the Peace Garden! And you know what nobody even looked across the street. Remember Paula Savage recieved an award from Ireland from the Harmony Peace Run group NOT THE UN!!!!! The race started in front of the UN. How the heck that story got started is bull crap. People only read between the lines I guess! The next thing you know when we start planting in the garden some people will think we are planting weed!!! If you know what I mean! By the way we are going to have a talk in the garden at a later date all about how the war of 1812 got started and how it ended, won't that be interesting? I wonder if we will get protested again when we start talking about the guns and how many people died in the war? We'll see right! Come and enjoy the Garden it really is nice. Carol:)
@dan: "I also want to make clear that I did not expect to nor want to do any harm to Mr. Barrett..."
Nice way to try and back down and save face, Dan.
It's not that easy. There was nothing equivocal about your comments, and you went to the mat to try and defend your proposal.
Now that you see you're backed into a corner with no logical place to run, as a practical matter you are attempting to disown your words. By this latest comment you essentially just admitted that in fact you were trying to harm a long-standing, community-minded local business.
Mark, my vast knowledge of human nature. Tell Mr. Barrett the Girl Scouts just won a UN award for removing palm oil from their cookies.
I’ve known Danny since he was a little boy and lived on the corner across the street from me; and now he is a young man with much the cockiness that goes with it; most of us went through that.
I can assure you that his mother taught Danny to do the right thing and apologize to Mike.
Are you going to be the bigger man and apologize to Mike, shake his hand and put this behind you?
It’s not about saving face, Danny; it’s about doing the right thing.
Wow, this is still going on five days later?
"Am not." "Are too." "Am not." "Are too." "Am not." "Are too." "Am not." "Are too." "Am not." "Are too." "Am not." "Are too."
Wow Charlie, Your comment is an ASSUMPTION, that this is a publicity stunt! It is not a FACT but, YOUR OPINION! Come on I thought you were smarter than that! According to others who attended, they stated, he had a low turn out in support of his protest. Just because, people do not agree with MR Barrett makes his protest a publicity stunt. It means most do not agree with him on the issue of his protest! So Charlie, it seems to me you are failing to understand not myself!
" In general I support protests, boycotts and any other god given right I have." Hmmm, Charlie so, in general you did not agree with MR Barrett's right to protest because, you did not agree with it and you viewed it as a publicity stunt. However, it did not bother you that Dan cried for a boycott of MR Barrett's store because, it his GOD given right to do so? Honestly, you only generally support protests and boycotts? Proceed with your 1 million post because, like I stated, the failure of understanding falls on you.
"I did not spread awareness, have a protest, send out press releases to other media outlets, hold meetings or work through an organization or create one."
Well Dan, wouldn't you say using a social media (The Batavian) and making a statement to boycott MR Barrett's business is an attempt to make awareness? Yes, you may not have gone to Channel 4, Channel 13, CNN or FOX but, you still made an public announcement to boycott a local business!
BTW Charlie, here is an old quote for you. "Assumption is the Mother of all F _ _ _ Ups!"
I've thought about this for a few days, and I've come to the following conclusions.
1. A boycott is a legitimate form of protest, and saying it's like punching someone in the nose is a massive logical fallacy.
2. A protest of a peace garden was ridiculous and asinine.
3. Supporting someone's right to protest and criticizing their protest are not opposities, including a boycott. We've gotten to this point where being critical of someone is assumed to mean you don't support their right of free speech.
I don't think a boycott, even a personal one, is needed, and I'll buy that shotgun from Barrett's (probably next month). I do apologize if anyone thought that I was actively trying to destroy Mr. Barrett's business by making the above comment.
Dan, I agree that having a protest against the UN at the Peace Garden is a asinine and not a well thought of location. You might want to ensure no hard feelings with MR Barrett when you try to purchase a shotgun . :-)