Ask Me Help Desk - Civil disobedience

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...