4 ms·

But if he had the right to his seat, then why should he leave?

by denom 9y ago

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
Once the cops show up and tell him to? Because the cops told him to, that's why. Note well: I am not saying that the cops are always right. I am not saying that we should all be good little citizens and obey whatever the authority figures tell us to do. I am saying that, in the actual world we live in, disobeying police orders will often involve painful physical consequences, almost immediately. You can argue about whether that should be. Fine. I'm saying that it is that way, though, and you'd better plan on it being that way in your situation before you decide to ignore what the cops tell you to do.
- FireBeyond 9y ago
  > I am not saying that we should all be good little citizens and obey whatever the authority figures tell us to do. I am saying that, in the actual world we live in, disobeying police orders will often involve painful physical consequences, almost immediately. > Because the cops told him to, that's why. "I am not saying obey authority figures whenever they tell us to do something. Even though I said in the previous sentence, 'because the cops told him to, that's why'." Your note completely and utterly contradicts your previous statement. There is no way to reconcile them.
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    OK, let's try this again. I'm not saying that you should obey the police because they're authority figures, even if they're wrong. I'm saying that you should obey the police because they're going to physically hurt you (at least) if you don't. That is, when the authority figures are morally in the wrong, you can make a case that the moral thing to do is to disobey them. But just in terms of the actual way things work in this less than perfect world, you'd better think seriously about the price you're going to pay for doing so. You can say "they shouldn't use force". Fine. But in the real world, they're going to use force. So, no, I'm not contradicting myself. I'm speaking in two different senses. There's the ideal world, and there's the practical way things actually work. In the real world, if you disobey an order from the cops, it's going to hurt you, no matter how morally right you are.
- truth_sentinell 9y ago
  You have what's called a cognitive dissonance.
rhino369 9y ago
He didn't have the right to his seat. He had a carriage contract. Even if United breached the contract that doesn't allow you to trespass. Trying to solve business disputes by force, which is what the passenger did by refusing to leaves, is bad policy.
- denom 9y ago
  I completely disagree. It was United and the police who tried to solve this with force. As I saw the video, there is no violent act from him and he should have been left alone. It's amazing how Americans can justify the most extreme violence for the most petty of reasons. This incident was absolutely meaningless _until_ this man had his face bloodied. There were a thousand different options, besides force. Do that instead!

But if he had the right to his seat, then why should he leave?

by denom 9y ago

But if he had the right to his seat, then why should he leave?

Once the cops show up and tell him to? Because the cops told him to, that's why. Note well: I am not saying that the cops are always right. I am not saying that we should all be good little citizens and obey whatever the authority figures tell us to do. I am saying that, in the actual world we live in, disobeying police orders will often involve painful physical consequences, almost immediately. You can argue about whether that should be. Fine. I'm saying that it is that way, though, and you'd better plan on it being that way in your situation before you decide to ignore what the cops tell you to do.

FireBeyond 9y ago
> I am not saying that we should all be good little citizens and obey whatever the authority figures tell us to do. I am saying that, in the actual world we live in, disobeying police orders will often involve painful physical consequences, almost immediately. > Because the cops told him to, that's why. "I am not saying obey authority figures whenever they tell us to do something. Even though I said in the previous sentence, 'because the cops told him to, that's why'." Your note completely and utterly contradicts your previous statement. There is no way to reconcile them.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  OK, let's try this again. I'm not saying that you should obey the police because they're authority figures, even if they're wrong. I'm saying that you should obey the police because they're going to physically hurt you (at least) if you don't. That is, when the authority figures are morally in the wrong, you can make a case that the moral thing to do is to disobey them. But just in terms of the actual way things work in this less than perfect world, you'd better think seriously about the price you're going to pay for doing so. You can say "they shouldn't use force". Fine. But in the real world, they're going to use force. So, no, I'm not contradicting myself. I'm speaking in two different senses. There's the ideal world, and there's the practical way things actually work. In the real world, if you disobey an order from the cops, it's going to hurt you, no matter how morally right you are.
truth_sentinell 9y ago
You have what's called a cognitive dissonance.

rhino369 9y ago

He didn't have the right to his seat. He had a carriage contract. Even if United breached the contract that doesn't allow you to trespass. Trying to solve business disputes by force, which is what the passenger did by refusing to leaves, is bad policy.

denom 9y ago
I completely disagree. It was United and the police who tried to solve this with force. As I saw the video, there is no violent act from him and he should have been left alone. It's amazing how Americans can justify the most extreme violence for the most petty of reasons. This incident was absolutely meaningless _until_ this man had his face bloodied. There were a thousand different options, besides force. Do that instead!