3 ms·
Imagine a mixture of 1984: Who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present controls the past. On the specifics of the lawsuit.. well if th
by HenryBemis 3y ago
Imagine a mixture of 1984: Who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.
On the specifics of the lawsuit.. well if the law us bad, then change the law. But not following the law is not nice.
- rvba 3y agoTbh that's how cliques on wikipedia work. There are cases when 2 admins "guard" an article and no user can change them. Worst is that wikimedia foundation takes tens of millions and doesnt even bother to spend anything to defend wikipedia from that.
- praptak 3y agoIn principle, not following an unjust law is a moral obligation. Yes, you can argue the edge cases. I also agree that there's some good in obeying a particular law even if it is a little bad (to uphold respect for law in general). This doesn't refute the general principle though - unjust laws should be broken. Historically enough repulsive stuff was mandated by law.
- jancsika 3y ago> On the specifics of the lawsuit.. well if the law us bad, then change the law. The March on Selma and Greensboro Lunch Counter Sit-ins agree with you. > But not following the law is not nice. The March on Selma and Greensboro Lunch Counter Sit-ins disagree with you.
- HenryBemis 3y agoThose who have the power will never give it up. If they DO give it up, be afraid, be very afraid as they have moved on to a bigger power, and let you have the old rusty one. I do insist about the power of the Law. And I do insist that we should either respect or change a law. An unfair law should not exist. But we should never make law voluntary. But that's my opinion, it's not the Law :)
- account42 3y agoSometimes civil disobedience ins the only way to change unjust laws.