2 ms·

[flagged]

by moralestapia 2y ago

[flagged]

precommunicator 2y ago
So you never drove your car at 1mph over the speed limit?
- moralestapia 2y ago
  I don't drive a car. But on the spirit of a good conversation (see @dang, I'm behaving :)) to your point of whether I have ever broke the law or not ... most likely yes, but not consciously. Many times I have refrained from doing things for the sole reason that it would be unlawful, even though I disagree with it. There's a big difference between that and choosing to consciously break the law for a menial pleasure. Edit: So weird to be on the hot pan for defending the rule of law, lmao. What a terrible status quo.
  - precommunicator 2y ago
    I guess learning about every single law in every single situation would be this one thing that's "sure they're not easy and they take time" but: Quoting from the swedish driver education book[1]. > It is not desirable to have 100% adherence to the rules. According to the criteria for a category B licence, you must display “good judgement when interacting with other road users”. A reasonable interpretation of this statement is that you may depart from the rules in some cases. I feel the same can be said about many other situations. - [1] https://korkortonline.se/en/theory/learning-maturity/ https://korkortonline.se/en/theory/learning-maturity/
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > weird to be on the hot pan for defending the rule of law You’re confusing lawbreaking/lawlessness with the rule of law [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
kasey_junk 2y ago
One of the alternatives in the US, especially for issues regarding laws that infringe on rights, is to have a court adjudicate if the law is allowed. You almost always need to break that law to get that to happen.
8note 2y ago
the law includes punishments because its expected and designed in that the law is broken. there are wve past that, laws about how the law can be written, where they cant contreve more important laws like constitutions. the most impactful way to challenge illegal laws is to not follow them, and the court process afterwards figures out invalidating that law however, nreaking bad laws also brings attention to them so that legislative changes can be made.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> If you think "I mostly follow the law except for this one rule I don't like" you didn't get it, you are just not a civilized person You’re really calling the likes of Rosa Parks uncivilised [1]? If the law is illegal or wrong, there is no higher calling than getting it overturned. There are two ways to do that in America: through the legislature and through the courts. To access the latter, you need a violation. (There is technically a third: not enforcing it. But that actually is a breakdown in the rule of law.) [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks

[flagged]

precommunicator 2y ago

So you never drove your car at 1mph over the speed limit?

moralestapia 2y ago
I don't drive a car. But on the spirit of a good conversation (see @dang, I'm behaving :)) to your point of whether I have ever broke the law or not ... most likely yes, but not consciously. Many times I have refrained from doing things for the sole reason that it would be unlawful, even though I disagree with it. There's a big difference between that and choosing to consciously break the law for a menial pleasure. Edit: So weird to be on the hot pan for defending the rule of law, lmao. What a terrible status quo.
- precommunicator 2y ago
  I guess learning about every single law in every single situation would be this one thing that's "sure they're not easy and they take time" but: Quoting from the swedish driver education book[1]. > It is not desirable to have 100% adherence to the rules. According to the criteria for a category B licence, you must display “good judgement when interacting with other road users”. A reasonable interpretation of this statement is that you may depart from the rules in some cases. I feel the same can be said about many other situations. - [1] https://korkortonline.se/en/theory/learning-maturity/ https://korkortonline.se/en/theory/learning-maturity/
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > weird to be on the hot pan for defending the rule of law You’re confusing lawbreaking/lawlessness with the rule of law [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law

kasey_junk 2y ago

One of the alternatives in the US, especially for issues regarding laws that infringe on rights, is to have a court adjudicate if the law is allowed. You almost always need to break that law to get that to happen.

8note 2y ago

the law includes punishments because its expected and designed in that the law is broken. there are wve past that, laws about how the law can be written, where they cant contreve more important laws like constitutions. the most impactful way to challenge illegal laws is to not follow them, and the court process afterwards figures out invalidating that law however, nreaking bad laws also brings attention to them so that legislative changes can be made.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> If you think "I mostly follow the law except for this one rule I don't like" you didn't get it, you are just not a civilized person You’re really calling the likes of Rosa Parks uncivilised [1]? If the law is illegal or wrong, there is no higher calling than getting it overturned. There are two ways to do that in America: through the legislature and through the courts. To access the latter, you need a violation. (There is technically a third: not enforcing it. But that actually is a breakdown in the rule of law.) [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks