Ask Me Help Desk - Civil disobedience

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

Yes, violent insurrection is morally superior to nonviolent civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is carried out with-in the frame-work of a legal authority; that is, the legal authority granted by the people is not challenged but the ethic of following law is broken…a law is violated.

Where-as with revolution the right of the legal authority is challenged, as for instance in America it was the declaration of independence which declared that the Thirteen Colonies in North America were "Free and Independent States" and that "all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved."

Are you saying this with a straight face? Can you really believe that civil disobedience doesn't challenge "the legal authority granted by the people"? And that armed insurrection is "morally superior" because "the right of the legal authority is challenged"? Both approaches challenge "the right of the legal authority", but one does it by force and violence, the other does it nonviolently. Your argument is logically preposterous and morally nonsensical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

Are you saying this with a straight face? Can you really believe that civil disobedience doesn't challenge "the legal authority granted by the people"? And that armed insurrection is "morally superior" because "the right of the legal authority is challenged"? Both approaches challenge "the right of the legal authority", but one does it by force and violence, the other does it nonviolently. Your argument is logically preposterous and morally nonsensical.

Like I pointed out earlier, by that definition everyone who breaks a law is committing an act of civil disobedience; when in fact they are simply criminals. To act criminally is to act ethically immoral. There is a legal and moral path that can lead to a law being changed.

It is a pity you can’t seem to make a distinction between a government (a legal authority) and a law that is passed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

To act criminally is to act ethically immoral.

Interesting concept. :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

To act criminally is to act ethically immoral. There is a legal and moral path that can lead to a law being changed.

It is a pity you can’t seem to make a distinction between a government (a legal authority) and a law that is passed.

Hello again, DC:

Frankly, the pity is that you can't distinguish between a moral law and an immoral one. To you, there's no difference.

To ME, however, it isn't immoral to defy an immoral law. Indeed, the immorality would be going along... What gives me the right to decide? I'm a sovereign.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, DC:

Frankly, the pity is that you can't distinguish between a moral law and an immoral one. To you, there's no difference.

To ME, however, it isn't immoral to defy an immoral law. Indeed, the immorality would be going along.... What gives me the right to decide? I'm a sovereign.

excon

Morality is a human (or sentient) invention. Once an individual or community has accepted a general set of basic moral premises (e.g. committing a crime is wrong), moral disputes can arise when applying those premises in real-life cases--such as when one has to choose between breaking the law and going-about changing it legally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

Morality is a human (or sentient) invention. Once an individual or community has accepted a general set of basic moral premises (e.g. committing a crime is wrong), moral disputes can arise when applying those premises in real-life cases--such as when one has to choose between breaking the law and going-about changing it legally.

Hello again, DC:

Yes, we do that too. We get together and decide that doing such and such is a crime, and it's wrong to do that. Then we write it down and call it law.

But what if the law is immoral? I suspect, although you won't admit it, that you think, simply by virtue of it BEING a law, makes it moral. I don't subscribe that stuff.

So, if one attempts to change it legally and it doesn't work, how long do you wait? 10 years? 100 years? Or do you just go along forever? Given that you don't subscribe to my definition of an immoral law, you wouldn't even try to change one, so how could you answer? You'd just go along.

Nope, there's no question in my mind. The immoral thing to do, would be to go along with an immoral law.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

It is a pity you can’t seem to make a distinction between a government (a legal authority) and a law that is passed.

I can distinguish between a government and a law perfectly well. I'm just boggled that you could claim with a straight face that overthrowing a government by violent means is morally superior to nonviolently disobeying an unjust law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, DC:

Yes, we do that too. We get together and decide that doing such and such is a crime, and it's wrong to do that. Then we write it down and call it law.

But what if the law is immoral? I suspect, although you won't admit it, that you think, simply by virtue of it BEING a law, makes it moral. I don't subscribe that stuff.

So, if one attempts to change it legally and it doesn't work, how long do you wait? 10 years? 100 years? Or do you just go along forever? Given that you don't subscribe to my definition of an immoral law, you wouldn't even try to change one, so how could you answer? You'd just go along.

Nope, there's no question in my mind. The immoral thing to do, would be to go along with an immoral law.

excon

You just don’t get it do you…Laws are not immoral or moral in and of themselves; morality means a code of conduct held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

Laws are not immoral or moral in and of themselves;

Hello again, DC:

Yeah, they are.

excon

excon

And you got that from which God?:eek:

Hello again, DC:

You need God to tell you what's right and what's wrong. I don't. I'm smart enough to figure it out for myself.

I'm sure you're on some plane different than the rest of us, but just as an example of how smart I am, I can tell that a law that allows one human being to be owned by another is immoral. You, on the other hand, can't.

I know, I know, I should be ashamed of myself for making such a Godlike proclamation.

You're still out there, DC. Waaaaay out there.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

I can distinguish between a government and a law perfectly well. I'm just boggled that you could claim with a straight face that overthrowing a government by violent means is morally superior to nonviolently disobeying an unjust law.

Violent insurrection is your words and I just used them in the “context of revolution”. My original words were: I did not say I was against revolution as a means to an end. Which you interpreted as “violent insurrection.” That’s when I complained about you “twisting words.” Then Excon picked-up on your lead and said, “violent revolution.” Then you came back with, “armed revolution.”

During revolution (Which was my premise) there is no legal authority (there is no consent of the governed) all political connection is dissolved between two parties. There is no immorality in that act alone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, DC:

You need God to tell you what's right and what's wrong. I don't. I'm smart enough to figure it out for myself.

I'm sure you're on some plane different than the rest of us, but just as an example of how smart I am, I can tell that a law that allows one human being to be owned by another is immoral. You, on the other hand, can't.

I know, I know, I should be ashamed of myself for making such a Godlike proclamation.

You're still out there, DC. Waaaaay out there.

excon

You're the one who claimed Laws are immoral or moral in and of themselves, in other words moral laws are not man-made… how did they come about if not by some other source.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

You really do need to pay more attention.

Ex, I've been paying attention and I've been wondering what happened to free speech on college campuses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

ex, I've been paying attention and I've been wondering what happened to free speech on college campuses.

Please avoid derailing the discussion; you can start your own thread. Thank you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

You're the one who claimed Laws are immoral or moral in and of themselves, in other words moral laws are not man-made… how did they come about if not by some other source.

Hello again, DC:

I have no idea what you just said. But, I got it. You think God made the laws and man is just enforcing 'em. Or, some other gobbeldegook like that.

I understand Christians. In your church, you are told not to question God. Just go along.

In my church, we're told to question EVERYTHING - ESPECIALLY GOD!

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, DC:

I have no idea what you just said. But, I got it. You think God made the laws and man is just enforcing 'em. Or, some other gobbeldegook like that.

I understand Christians. In your church, you are told not to question God. Just go along.

In my church, we're told to question EVERYTHING - ESPECIALLY GOD!

excon

I’ve noticed that, with you, it always comes to this…you elevating yourself and putting other people down.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

I’ve noticed that, with you, it always comes to this…you elevating yourself and putting other people down.

Hello again, DC:

I can't help it if God made me better.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Please avoid derailing the discussion; you can start your own thread. Thank you.

NK, you have a lot of chutzpah. The issue of peaceable assembly and petitioning the government was raised and my post is entirely relevant to that discussion.

The issue was raised here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

College campuses all over this nation have prohibited assembly to exercise one's rights unless they are in declared speech zones, harassed and punished those who have exercised their rights, prohibited assembly of certain groups, censored students and otherwise trampled on constitutional rights.

Brandeis University: Professor Found Guilty of Harassment for Protected Speech

California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly): Use of Disruption Claim to Suppress Free Speech

Central Michigan University: Abridgement of Freedom to Display Patriotic Symbols

College of William and Mary: Suppression of Affirmative Action Bake Sale

Colorado State University: Students Fight for Rights to Free Speech and Assembly

DePaul University: Censorship of Student Group Protesting Ward Churchill

Rhode Island College: Violation of Student’s Freedom of Conscience

New York University: Suppression of Discussion of Mohammed Cartoons

Saint Cloud State University: Thought Reform and Suppression of Free Speech

University of Alabama: Attempt to Limit Freedom of Speech and Right to Petition

If that isn't relevant I don't know what is, and if these incidents don't stop you just might see me engage in some civil disobedience of my own.

Hah, made you work. :)

Anyway it's funny how you are incensed by actions on a campus by not by the same actions done by your own government.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

Violent insurrection is your words and I just used them in the “context of revolution”. My original words were: I did not say I was against revolution as a means to an end. Which you interpreted as “violent insurrection.” That’s when I complained about you “twisting words.” Then Excon picked-up on your lead and said, “violent revolution.” Then you came back with, “armed revolution.”

So what's your point? That you condone only revolution without violence? Has there ever been a revolution that didn't depend on violence or the threat of violence? The American Revolution sure did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

During revolution (Which was my premise) there is no legal authority

Sure there is. The existing government is the legal authority, at least until it's overthrown. After that, the new government assumes legal jurisdiction and responsibility.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

(there is no consent of the governed)

"The governed" is not a monolithic entity. Some consent to be ruled by one side, some by the other, some consent to neither, and no party to the conflict has the consent of all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

all political connection is dissolved between two parties. There is no immorality in that act alone.

In a war, there's always plenty of immorality to go around, I'm sure.

I'm sorry, but your argument that nonviolent civil disobedience is morally inferior to revolution as a means to redress of grievances is preposterous. Give it up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Hah, made you work. :)

Anyway it's funny how you are incensed by actions on a campus by not by the same actions done by your own government.

You really don't have a clue do you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

You really don't have a clue do you?

More than you know. Now get back to screaming 'get off my lawn' to those pesky kids. :)

Free speech is not only the personal right of individuals to have their say; it is also the right of the rest of us to hear them. Unfortunately, not everyone else thinks this way.

Many universities have adopted codes or policies prohibiting speech that offends any group based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation; that's the wrong response, more speech -- not less – is what is needed.

DC and Speech,

You might find this amusing and interesting: Digg - Pitzer Student Creates 'Masculinist Coalition'
The link at the top takes you to their edict.

Now all we need is a Male Studies degree program in all of our universities. Someone has already come up with a curriculum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Now all we need is a Male Studies degree program in all of our universities. Someone has already come up with a curriculum.

Oh well, I didn’t get a degree in Male Arts either.:p

Quote:

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

Has there ever been a revolution that didn't depend on violence or the threat of violence?

Think of Gandhi. The reason democracy is so firmly entrenched in India, is because of Gandhi's legacy of non-voilent resistance, while the Dalai Lama is a huge embarrassment to the Chinese government.

Just a thought ;)

Oops, just noticed I've jumped in at the end of a long conversation...