6 ms·

> You have found yourself in contradiction. You can't both believe that breaking laws is a last resort and also believe that it is a duty based on subjective cr

> You have found yourself in contradiction. You can't both believe that breaking laws is a last resort and also believe that it is a duty based on subjective criteria like morality. I don't take the phrase "a duty to disobey unjust laws" as literally as you do. If it's more effective to overturn the law through legal means, then of course do that first. Calling something a "duty" doesn't mean you get to turn your brain off and follow it blindly. Ships have a duty to help people in distress at sea, but they obviously need to first ensure that they don't put themselves in danger. > That you are somehow special like MLK. Believing that you need to be 'special' to act morally is one of the main causes of widespread societal injustice. As MLK said: "I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice" > Don't be a jackass. Obey the law. You're not smarter than everyone that made the law. When you are, we'll tell you. That's democracy. I was in favor of gay marriage long before it became law, or even was supported by the majority of people. Yet now it is. So the law at the time was ultimately wrong and I was ultimately right. By your definition, doesn't that mean I am smarter than everyone who made the law? I don't think you need to be smarter than lawmakers to identify unjust laws. You need only look at the progressive causes of today to find the moral norms of tomorrow.

trimethylpurine 1y ago
By not taking the word literally you're asking me to take your own opinion of what that word means, so that you can be right. No. My answer to that request is no. You don't get to choose what words mean. Society does. Again, democracy. You didn't have to break any laws for me to help you vote for gay marriage. We all knew it was wrong that's why it's legal. Not because you punched someone or burned a car, or whatever illegal things you did, or in your revised view, advised people to do using the wrong definition of the word "duty." Next time just be patient. Wrong laws take time to fix. And they take longer when you derail society into thinking that people who support gay marriage are violent law breakers. Democracy requires that citizens have a duty to obey the law. Not a duty to break it. Gay marriage is now the law in your example. I don't want everyone opposed to that law to go ahead and break it! Right? Wouldn't it be better if they just went ahead and tried to overturn it legally so that we normal people can do normal things like not letting them? So, no, you don't appear to me to be the most intelligent person on the block. Certainly not enough to carry the cause for us tactfully. I wouldn't follow you. Neither would the vast majority of Americans, thankfully. And don't tell people it's their duty to do illegal things, that is also illegal, especially when it leads to violence. Just accept that you're not smarter. Have humility. Chill out. Get a law degree if you want to help. Don't be annoying. Don't be an idiot. Don't break the law. Have some respect for society. You didn't single handedly create it. Stop acting like you did. We all created it; and the laws that run it. And we all need to come together and discuss what laws fit for us today. And we can't do that if you go around breaking them and acting like the conversations we agree on don't matter.
- weavejester 1y ago
  > By not taking the word literally you're asking me to take your own opinion of what that word means, so that you can be right. No, I'm pointing out that we need to use our brains when considering glib generalizations. If you want a more accurate phrase, you could say that: "People have a moral duty to oppose unjust laws, beginning with legal avenues of opposition, followed by non-violence civil disobedience, followed by violent uprising as a last resort, all while giving a reasonable period of time between steps that is governed by the severity of the injustice being perpetrated, weighed against the actions being taken to prevent it." However, that doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. The point of a phrase like "Americans have a duty to disobey unjust laws" is to trade precision for concision. It's up to you to extrapolate what people mean, or just ask them to clarify. I'm guessing this is something you find difficult? > You didn't have to break any laws for me to help you vote for gay marriage. We all knew it was wrong that's why it's legal. What do you mean by this? It was only in 2010 that the majority of Americans finally believed that same-sex marriage should be allowed. If we accept that same-sex marriage is moral, then we must also accept that the majority of Americans prior to 2010 were wrong. Similarly, people were wrong in the past about racial segregation, women's rights and so forth. Doesn't this indicate to you that morality is not just what the majority think? > And they take longer when you derail society into thinking that people who support gay marriage are violent law breakers. Why are you so obsessed with bringing violence into this? At every point I've emphasized that violence is a last resort, and that breaking the law does not automatically imply being violent. > Just accept that you're not smarter. You've missed my point. I didn't say I was smarter than lawmakers; I pointed out that by your criteria I was, thereby implying that your criteria was flawed. It was a self-deprecating rhetorical device, but I see it flew over your head, so let me try to speak more plainly: I don't believe that morality is defined by the majority, because to do so would imply that it was moral in 1950 to persecute people by the color of their skin, and that it was moral in 1980 to persecute people by their sexual orientation. I reject that. I do believe that people have a duty to act morally, even if this means breaking the law. That's not to say that people shouldn't exhaust legal means of protest first; legal protests are less personally risky and in free societies can be very effective. But I can certainly think of scenarios where doing the right thing would necessitate breaking the law, and in these situations, people have a duty to do what's right.

trimethylpurine 1y ago

By not taking the word literally you're asking me to take your own opinion of what that word means, so that you can be right. No. My answer to that request is no. You don't get to choose what words mean. Society does. Again, democracy. You didn't have to break any laws for me to help you vote for gay marriage. We all knew it was wrong that's why it's legal. Not because you punched someone or burned a car, or whatever illegal things you did, or in your revised view, advised people to do using the wrong definition of the word "duty." Next time just be patient. Wrong laws take time to fix. And they take longer when you derail society into thinking that people who support gay marriage are violent law breakers. Democracy requires that citizens have a duty to obey the law. Not a duty to break it. Gay marriage is now the law in your example. I don't want everyone opposed to that law to go ahead and break it! Right? Wouldn't it be better if they just went ahead and tried to overturn it legally so that we normal people can do normal things like not letting them? So, no, you don't appear to me to be the most intelligent person on the block. Certainly not enough to carry the cause for us tactfully. I wouldn't follow you. Neither would the vast majority of Americans, thankfully. And don't tell people it's their duty to do illegal things, that is also illegal, especially when it leads to violence. Just accept that you're not smarter. Have humility. Chill out. Get a law degree if you want to help. Don't be annoying. Don't be an idiot. Don't break the law. Have some respect for society. You didn't single handedly create it. Stop acting like you did. We all created it; and the laws that run it. And we all need to come together and discuss what laws fit for us today. And we can't do that if you go around breaking them and acting like the conversations we agree on don't matter.

weavejester 1y ago
> By not taking the word literally you're asking me to take your own opinion of what that word means, so that you can be right. No, I'm pointing out that we need to use our brains when considering glib generalizations. If you want a more accurate phrase, you could say that: "People have a moral duty to oppose unjust laws, beginning with legal avenues of opposition, followed by non-violence civil disobedience, followed by violent uprising as a last resort, all while giving a reasonable period of time between steps that is governed by the severity of the injustice being perpetrated, weighed against the actions being taken to prevent it." However, that doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. The point of a phrase like "Americans have a duty to disobey unjust laws" is to trade precision for concision. It's up to you to extrapolate what people mean, or just ask them to clarify. I'm guessing this is something you find difficult? > You didn't have to break any laws for me to help you vote for gay marriage. We all knew it was wrong that's why it's legal. What do you mean by this? It was only in 2010 that the majority of Americans finally believed that same-sex marriage should be allowed. If we accept that same-sex marriage is moral, then we must also accept that the majority of Americans prior to 2010 were wrong. Similarly, people were wrong in the past about racial segregation, women's rights and so forth. Doesn't this indicate to you that morality is not just what the majority think? > And they take longer when you derail society into thinking that people who support gay marriage are violent law breakers. Why are you so obsessed with bringing violence into this? At every point I've emphasized that violence is a last resort, and that breaking the law does not automatically imply being violent. > Just accept that you're not smarter. You've missed my point. I didn't say I was smarter than lawmakers; I pointed out that by your criteria I was, thereby implying that your criteria was flawed. It was a self-deprecating rhetorical device, but I see it flew over your head, so let me try to speak more plainly: I don't believe that morality is defined by the majority, because to do so would imply that it was moral in 1950 to persecute people by the color of their skin, and that it was moral in 1980 to persecute people by their sexual orientation. I reject that. I do believe that people have a duty to act morally, even if this means breaking the law. That's not to say that people shouldn't exhaust legal means of protest first; legal protests are less personally risky and in free societies can be very effective. But I can certainly think of scenarios where doing the right thing would necessitate breaking the law, and in these situations, people have a duty to do what's right.