Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it? If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
I'm saying that in some instances of state overreach and bad law, civil disobedience is justified.
In some instances, armed confrontation is.
Who determines whether or not it's a bad law, YOU? Seems you are saying if you don't like it you can disobey it and not be punished. You are more than welcome to use civil disobedience to protest what you call bad laws or overreach. However, that doens't mean you are exempt from being punished for it.
Yes, one's individual conscience and conscientious actions are determined by that individual. And no, civil disobedience generally requires an acceptance that if you are caught, you WILL be punished. In many cases, the punishment is the point, in order to bring the incorrectness of the law into the public eye.
The problem with that is who decides when the law is wrong? I agree with you that the law can be wrong- and civil disobedience is an option- if you are willing to face the legal consequences of the civil disobedience.
Legally though- the correct way to deal with a bad law is to either change it legislatively or change it through the courts- which is of course what is being done with the bad laws forbidding same gender marriage.
Armed confrontation though all too often results in tragedies like John Brown's raid.
Oh, that's the biggie with jury nullification, you are putting your fate in a jury's hands. If they don't decide the law is wrong you are about fucked because you basically admit your guilt when trying to get a jury to nullify. After all an argument of" I didn't do it, but in case you don't believe me nullify the law" isn't going to go very far.
Yep- I am a big proponent of the right to peaceful civil disobedience- but I don't want to hear any whining from those who get arrested for it. IF you want to try to force change in the law by civil disobedience you need to be prepared for the consequences.
IF you are lucky enough to get jury nullification thats great. But the goal of civil disobedience is to change the law- not escape the consequences.
The problem is those practicing civil disobedience think the punishment should go away because they chose to protest a law they thought was wrong.
Well, and the fact that these days, the disobedience is rarely ever "civil".
We hear much more about the cases that are not civil.
And for the record- I am absolutely against violent disobedience which I don't consider to be civil.
The problem with that is who decides when the law is wrong? I agree with you that the law can be wrong- and civil disobedience is an option- if you are willing to face the legal consequences of the civil disobedience.
Legally though- the correct way to deal with a bad law is to either change it legislatively or change it through the courts- which is of course what is being done with the bad laws forbidding same gender marriage.
Armed confrontation though all too often results in tragedies like John Brown's raid.
Oh, that's the biggie with jury nullification, you are putting your fate in a jury's hands. If they don't decide the law is wrong you are about fucked because you basically admit your guilt when trying to get a jury to nullify. After all an argument of" I didn't do it, but in case you don't believe me nullify the law" isn't going to go very far.
Yep- I am a big proponent of the right to peaceful civil disobedience- but I don't want to hear any whining from those who get arrested for it. IF you want to try to force change in the law by civil disobedience you need to be prepared for the consequences.
IF you are lucky enough to get jury nullification thats great. But the goal of civil disobedience is to change the law- not escape the consequences.
The problem is those practicing civil disobedience think the punishment should go away because they chose to protest a law they thought was wrong.
Well, and the fact that these days, the disobedience is rarely ever "civil".
Much like Ferguson, MO. Many of those protestors considered burning and looting justified. I've never figured out how burning and stealing from a business that had nothing to do with why you were protesting was OK.
Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it? If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
I'm saying that in some instances of state overreach and bad law, civil disobedience is justified.
In some instances, armed confrontation is.
Who determines whether or not it's a bad law, YOU? Seems you are saying if you don't like it you can disobey it and not be punished. You are more than welcome to use civil disobedience to protest what you call bad laws or overreach. However, that doens't mean you are exempt from being punished for it.
Yes, one's individual conscience and conscientious actions are determined by that individual. And no, civil disobedience generally requires an acceptance that if you are caught, you WILL be punished. In many cases, the punishment is the point, in order to bring the incorrectness of the law into the public eye.
Correct.Which is what makes, for example, these n!ggers running around today screaming about justice a pimple on Rosie Parks', for example, ass.
Mrs Parks KNEW that refusing to move to the back of the bus would land her in trouble. She did it anyway. When the police showed up, dd she fight them? Did she scream about she didn't do anything wrong? Nope, she calmly accepted her punishment.
The problem with that is who decides when the law is wrong? I agree with you that the law can be wrong- and civil disobedience is an option- if you are willing to face the legal consequences of the civil disobedience.
Legally though- the correct way to deal with a bad law is to either change it legislatively or change it through the courts- which is of course what is being done with the bad laws forbidding same gender marriage.
Armed confrontation though all too often results in tragedies like John Brown's raid.
Oh, that's the biggie with jury nullification, you are putting your fate in a jury's hands. If they don't decide the law is wrong you are about fucked because you basically admit your guilt when trying to get a jury to nullify. After all an argument of" I didn't do it, but in case you don't believe me nullify the law" isn't going to go very far.
Yep- I am a big proponent of the right to peaceful civil disobedience- but I don't want to hear any whining from those who get arrested for it. IF you want to try to force change in the law by civil disobedience you need to be prepared for the consequences.
IF you are lucky enough to get jury nullification thats great. But the goal of civil disobedience is to change the law- not escape the consequences.
The problem is those practicing civil disobedience think the punishment should go away because they chose to protest a law they thought was wrong.
Well, and the fact that these days, the disobedience is rarely ever "civil".
We hear much more about the cases that are not civil.
And for the record- I am absolutely against violent disobedience which I don't consider to be civil.
Oh, that's the biggie with jury nullification, you are putting your fate in a jury's hands. If they don't decide the law is wrong you are about fucked because you basically admit your guilt when trying to get a jury to nullify. After all an argument of" I didn't do it, but in case you don't believe me nullify the law" isn't going to go very far.
Yep- I am a big proponent of the right to peaceful civil disobedience- but I don't want to hear any whining from those who get arrested for it. IF you want to try to force change in the law by civil disobedience you need to be prepared for the consequences.
IF you are lucky enough to get jury nullification thats great. But the goal of civil disobedience is to change the law- not escape the consequences.
The problem is those practicing civil disobedience think the punishment should go away because they chose to protest a law they thought was wrong.
Well, and the fact that these days, the disobedience is rarely ever "civil".
Much like Ferguson, MO. Many of those protestors considered burning and looting justified. I've never figured out how burning and stealing from a business that had nothing to do with why you were protesting was OK.
I don't know of anyone who would argue that rioting is okay. What the protesters did after the Ferguson ruling was wrong.
Oh, that's the biggie with jury nullification, you are putting your fate in a jury's hands. If they don't decide the law is wrong you are about fucked because you basically admit your guilt when trying to get a jury to nullify. After all an argument of" I didn't do it, but in case you don't believe me nullify the law" isn't going to go very far.
Yep- I am a big proponent of the right to peaceful civil disobedience- but I don't want to hear any whining from those who get arrested for it. IF you want to try to force change in the law by civil disobedience you need to be prepared for the consequences.
IF you are lucky enough to get jury nullification thats great. But the goal of civil disobedience is to change the law- not escape the consequences.
The problem is those practicing civil disobedience think the punishment should go away because they chose to protest a law they thought was wrong.
Well, and the fact that these days, the disobedience is rarely ever "civil".
Much like Ferguson, MO. Many of those protestors considered burning and looting justified. I've never figured out how burning and stealing from a business that had nothing to do with why you were protesting was OK.
I don't know of anyone who would argue that rioting is okay. What the protesters did after the Ferguson ruling was wrong.
Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it? If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it? If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
I'm saying that in some instances of state overreach and bad law, civil disobedience is justified.
In some instances, armed confrontation is.
The problem with that is who decides when the law is wrong? I agree with you that the law can be wrong- and civil disobedience is an option- if you are willing to face the legal consequences of the civil disobedience.
Legally though- the correct way to deal with a bad law is to either change it legislatively or change it through the courts- which is of course what is being done with the bad laws forbidding same gender marriage.
Armed confrontation though all too often results in tragedies like John Brown's raid.
What makes the laws forbidding same sex marriage wrong? It sounds to me as if you think they are wrong because you disagree.
It's easy to see why those supporting same sex perversion use the courts. They know they can't get it done legislatively but can find one sympathizer to the cause.
Let me guess, you think those women who used the courts to sue for the right not to be slapped around by their husbands were perverted to?
Yep- I am a big proponent of the right to peaceful civil disobedience- but I don't want to hear any whining from those who get arrested for it. IF you want to try to force change in the law by civil disobedience you need to be prepared for the consequences.
IF you are lucky enough to get jury nullification thats great. But the goal of civil disobedience is to change the law- not escape the consequences.
The problem is those practicing civil disobedience think the punishment should go away because they chose to protest a law they thought was wrong.
Well, and the fact that these days, the disobedience is rarely ever "civil".
Much like Ferguson, MO. Many of those protestors considered burning and looting justified. I've never figured out how burning and stealing from a business that had nothing to do with why you were protesting was OK.
I don't know of anyone who would argue that rioting is okay. What the protesters did after the Ferguson ruling was wrong.
Oh I there are MANY on this board who were okay with it, some of them like Asclepias actually had the nerve to say it, but others denied it , even though there every post indicated they were fine with it.
I guess I missed those posts. Or more likely, didn't read the same inferences that you did in the posts I did see.Yep- I am a big proponent of the right to peaceful civil disobedience- but I don't want to hear any whining from those who get arrested for it. IF you want to try to force change in the law by civil disobedience you need to be prepared for the consequences.
IF you are lucky enough to get jury nullification thats great. But the goal of civil disobedience is to change the law- not escape the consequences.
The problem is those practicing civil disobedience think the punishment should go away because they chose to protest a law they thought was wrong.
Well, and the fact that these days, the disobedience is rarely ever "civil".
Much like Ferguson, MO. Many of those protestors considered burning and looting justified. I've never figured out how burning and stealing from a business that had nothing to do with why you were protesting was OK.
I don't know of anyone who would argue that rioting is okay. What the protesters did after the Ferguson ruling was wrong.
LOTS of people have argued that it was okay. What rock have you been hiding under?
Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it? If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it? If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
I'm saying that in some instances of state overreach and bad law, civil disobedience is justified.
In some instances, armed confrontation is.
The problem with that is who decides when the law is wrong? I agree with you that the law can be wrong- and civil disobedience is an option- if you are willing to face the legal consequences of the civil disobedience.
Legally though- the correct way to deal with a bad law is to either change it legislatively or change it through the courts- which is of course what is being done with the bad laws forbidding same gender marriage.
Armed confrontation though all too often results in tragedies like John Brown's raid.
What makes the laws forbidding same sex marriage wrong? It sounds to me as if you think they are wrong because you disagree.
It's easy to see why those supporting same sex perversion use the courts. They know they can't get it done legislatively but can find one sympathizer to the cause.
Let me guess, you think those women who used the courts to sue for the right not to be slapped around by their husbands were perverted to?
No... and we know this because there is absolutely no evidence of such, anywhere in the record. What you have advanced there is an argument which you created... logicians of old referred to such as straw reasoning, and such arguments as 'straw men'. With the premise being that the opposition could not argue the points of the man at issue, thus they created a straw man to oppose. One which possesses the traits against which they are more 'comfortable' opposing.
Its a function of delusion, which serves function of deviating from sound reasoning. Therefore the purveyors of straw reasoning are those who, for whatever reason, choose to recognize that which does not really exist, as reality.
Now, if it helps at all, that is why you find yourself in a losing battle trying to compete with me, when the bulk of the content of your public professions, would otherwise provide that there would be very little on which the two of us would disagree.
Now I wonder, why would someone would struggle so hard against someone with whom the bulk of their professions would otherwise have them agreeing?
Any ideas why that would be the case?
The problem is those practicing civil disobedience think the punishment should go away because they chose to protest a law they thought was wrong.
Well, and the fact that these days, the disobedience is rarely ever "civil".
Much like Ferguson, MO. Many of those protestors considered burning and looting justified. I've never figured out how burning and stealing from a business that had nothing to do with why you were protesting was OK.
I don't know of anyone who would argue that rioting is okay. What the protesters did after the Ferguson ruling was wrong.
Oh I there are MANY on this board who were okay with it, some of them like Asclepias actually had the nerve to say it, but others denied it , even though there every post indicated they were fine with it.
I'd go as far as to say that I understood their anger and motivation. But then I could wrap my head around OJ's anger and motivation in killing his wife.
You still don't do it. Its still wrong when you do.
This is the intellect we have to work with.
In another thread, one of these retards is acting superior, while telling me that when I used the term "magnaminous" I was mispelling "monogamous" and I should return to school.
She didn't recognize the word magnaminous, or understand it's meaning, even in context.
Because they are straight up idiots.
Sadly they exist on both sides here to. Just dummies
No, primarily they exist on the left. They are uneducated ignorami who honestly believe that what they have picked up off youtube and middle school can be disguised as intelligence, knowledge, and education.
Rightwingers who are lacking in education do not typically try to convince people that they know more than they actually do.
And progressive douches actually think people can't see through their ignorance.
Oh, I don't know about that, look at idiots like Keys, at first glance he seems intelligent, but read his threads and its clear he isn't very smart.
On THAT front I think left/right are even on this board
Where the left has a HUGE lead is in the number of douches who lie and just ignore facts which run counter to their opinions.
ROFLMNAO!
Calm down scamp. Just because I'm here, doesn't mean that you're somehow reduced.
Their opinions are their lies. Such is the nature of the douche and that's truly all there is to it.
Son, stick to offering to money for Ravi's identity.
Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it? If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?I'm saying that in some instances of state overreach and bad law, civil disobedience is justified.
In some instances, armed confrontation is.
The problem with that is who decides when the law is wrong? I agree with you that the law can be wrong- and civil disobedience is an option- if you are willing to face the legal consequences of the civil disobedience.
Legally though- the correct way to deal with a bad law is to either change it legislatively or change it through the courts- which is of course what is being done with the bad laws forbidding same gender marriage.
Armed confrontation though all too often results in tragedies like John Brown's raid.
What makes the laws forbidding same sex marriage wrong? It sounds to me as if you think they are wrong because you disagree.
It's easy to see why those supporting same sex perversion use the courts. They know they can't get it done legislatively but can find one sympathizer to the cause.
Let me guess, you think those women who used the courts to sue for the right not to be slapped around by their husbands were perverted to?
No... and we know this because there is absolutely no evidence of such, anywhere in the record. What you have advanced there is an argument which you created... logicians of old referred to such as straw reasoning, and such arguments as 'straw men'. With the premise being that the opposition could not argue the points of the man at issue, thus they created a straw man to oppose. One which possesses the traits against which they are more 'comfortable' opposing.
Its a function of delusion, which serves function of deviating from sound reasoning. Therefore the purveyors of straw reasoning are those who, for whatever reason, choose to recognize that which does not really exist, as reality.
Now, if it helps at all, that is why you find yourself in a losing battle trying to compete with me, when the bulk of the content of your public professions, would otherwise provide that there would be very little on which the two of us would disagree.
Now I wonder, why would someone would struggle so hard against someone with whom the bulk of their professions would otherwise have them agreeing?
Any ideas why that would be the case?
I'll put it to you plainly
I don't base whether I "like" someone or not, on whether we agree or not. You sir , are an asshole, and dishonest, and were previously known as Pubes.
Well, and the fact that these days, the disobedience is rarely ever "civil".
Much like Ferguson, MO. Many of those protestors considered burning and looting justified. I've never figured out how burning and stealing from a business that had nothing to do with why you were protesting was OK.
I don't know of anyone who would argue that rioting is okay. What the protesters did after the Ferguson ruling was wrong.
Oh I there are MANY on this board who were okay with it, some of them like Asclepias actually had the nerve to say it, but others denied it , even though there every post indicated they were fine with it.
I'd go as far as to say that I understood their anger and motivation. But then I could wrap my head around OJ's anger and motivation in killing his wife.
You still don't do it. Its still wrong when you do.
I mean we have several posters on this board who have openly declared that they hope police get killed.That would indicate agreeing with the violence, would it not?
Yep- I am a big proponent of the right to peaceful civil disobedience- but I don't want to hear any whining from those who get arrested for it. IF you want to try to force change in the law by civil disobedience you need to be prepared for the consequences.
IF you are lucky enough to get jury nullification thats great. But the goal of civil disobedience is to change the law- not escape the consequences.
The problem is those practicing civil disobedience think the punishment should go away because they chose to protest a law they thought was wrong.
Well, and the fact that these days, the disobedience is rarely ever "civil".
Much like Ferguson, MO. Many of those protestors considered burning and looting justified. I've never figured out how burning and stealing from a business that had nothing to do with why you were protesting was OK.
I don't know of anyone who would argue that rioting is okay. What the protesters did after the Ferguson ruling was wrong.
LOTS of people have argued that it was okay. What rock have you been hiding under?
The problem is those practicing civil disobedience think the punishment should go away because they chose to protest a law they thought was wrong.
Well, and the fact that these days, the disobedience is rarely ever "civil".
Much like Ferguson, MO. Many of those protestors considered burning and looting justified. I've never figured out how burning and stealing from a business that had nothing to do with why you were protesting was OK.
I don't know of anyone who would argue that rioting is okay. What the protesters did after the Ferguson ruling was wrong.
LOTS of people have argued that it was okay. What rock have you been hiding under?
If they were rioting that are, at the very least, implying it's OK.
Much like Ferguson, MO. Many of those protestors considered burning and looting justified. I've never figured out how burning and stealing from a business that had nothing to do with why you were protesting was OK.
I don't know of anyone who would argue that rioting is okay. What the protesters did after the Ferguson ruling was wrong.
Oh I there are MANY on this board who were okay with it, some of them like Asclepias actually had the nerve to say it, but others denied it , even though there every post indicated they were fine with it.
I'd go as far as to say that I understood their anger and motivation. But then I could wrap my head around OJ's anger and motivation in killing his wife.
You still don't do it. Its still wrong when you do.
I mean we have several posters on this board who have openly declared that they hope police get killed.That would indicate agreeing with the violence, would it not?
Maybe, depending on the context of the statement. I'd disagree in just about every context.
Well, and the fact that these days, the disobedience is rarely ever "civil".
Much like Ferguson, MO. Many of those protestors considered burning and looting justified. I've never figured out how burning and stealing from a business that had nothing to do with why you were protesting was OK.
I don't know of anyone who would argue that rioting is okay. What the protesters did after the Ferguson ruling was wrong.
Oh I there are MANY on this board who were okay with it, some of them like Asclepias actually had the nerve to say it, but others denied it , even though there every post indicated they were fine with it.
I'd go as far as to say that I understood their anger and motivation. But then I could wrap my head around OJ's anger and motivation in killing his wife.
You still don't do it. Its still wrong when you do.
I mean we have several posters on this board who have openly declared that they hope police get killed.That would indicate agreeing with the violence, would it not?
Well, and the fact that these days, the disobedience is rarely ever "civil".
Much like Ferguson, MO. Many of those protestors considered burning and looting justified. I've never figured out how burning and stealing from a business that had nothing to do with why you were protesting was OK.
I don't know of anyone who would argue that rioting is okay. What the protesters did after the Ferguson ruling was wrong.
LOTS of people have argued that it was okay. What rock have you been hiding under?
If they were rioting that are, at the very least, implying it's OK.
Or caught up in the moment. I've done plenty of shit that I later realized was wrong.
