3 ms·

That is true but not the point. You wrote '[...] rightfully so' which I have to object clearly.

by arendtio 8y ago

maxxxxx 8y ago
Are you saying the people living in a country have no right to try to change things when their elites fail them?
- arendtio 8y ago
  No. I am saying that what nationalists call 'social upheaval' is often against the law and therefore not rightful. So if you are using the established democratic processes (voting, demonstrating, etc.) to change the political situation that is okay. But if you do so forcefully, that is most likely not okay (depending on the law of the country you live in).
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    History is full of situations where people decided that the current environment is not working for them and changed them through unlawful actions. Gandhi did it, the French revolution, the USA was created by unlawful means, the civil Rights movement Al were unlawful, a lot of unlawful stuff happened in East Germany before the wall fell. This happens when the general population decides that their leadership is not working for them anymore.
    - arendtio 8y ago
      You don't seem dumb, but your argument is flawed. You are taking 'true' situations out of context and rearrange them so that they serve your purpose. For example, yes, what happened in East Germany before the wall fell was unlawful, but the context is, that East Germany was an occupied country which changes the whole situation and is not applicable to the modern US. Instead, the criminal deeds of that Nazis were what lead to the situation in East Germany in the first place. Similarly, India wasn't a free country either at Gandhi's time, and France wasn't a democracy at the time. So even if you might find a few situations where unlawful behavior changes the world for the better, it doesn't mean that it is an appropriate tool to solve conflicts in general. I doubt that I will change your mind, but you should seriously consider looking to the world from multiple perspectives.

That is true but not the point. You wrote '[...] rightfully so' which I have to object clearly.

maxxxxx 8y ago

Are you saying the people living in a country have no right to try to change things when their elites fail them?

arendtio 8y ago
No. I am saying that what nationalists call 'social upheaval' is often against the law and therefore not rightful. So if you are using the established democratic processes (voting, demonstrating, etc.) to change the political situation that is okay. But if you do so forcefully, that is most likely not okay (depending on the law of the country you live in).
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  History is full of situations where people decided that the current environment is not working for them and changed them through unlawful actions. Gandhi did it, the French revolution, the USA was created by unlawful means, the civil Rights movement Al were unlawful, a lot of unlawful stuff happened in East Germany before the wall fell. This happens when the general population decides that their leadership is not working for them anymore.
  - arendtio 8y ago
    You don't seem dumb, but your argument is flawed. You are taking 'true' situations out of context and rearrange them so that they serve your purpose. For example, yes, what happened in East Germany before the wall fell was unlawful, but the context is, that East Germany was an occupied country which changes the whole situation and is not applicable to the modern US. Instead, the criminal deeds of that Nazis were what lead to the situation in East Germany in the first place. Similarly, India wasn't a free country either at Gandhi's time, and France wasn't a democracy at the time. So even if you might find a few situations where unlawful behavior changes the world for the better, it doesn't mean that it is an appropriate tool to solve conflicts in general. I doubt that I will change your mind, but you should seriously consider looking to the world from multiple perspectives.