Oddly enough, that’s not what I said. At least not an honest quoting of what I said. Please be so kind as to work on honest quoting. I deliberately used words to indicate appearance and opinion.
Actually, I’m calling your “debating” dishonest. Your posting is what I called stunningly ignorant.
The evidence at hand in this thread seems (look up that word, if you please, so when you quote the following, you’ll manage to quote it honestly) that the crimes you want reported are those that you aren’t committing.
That’s not the way it works. You’re attempting yet another version of “Yes or no, have you stopped beating your wife?”
No. There’s three logical choices, and one must be true:
a) All crimes must be reported.
b) No crimes must be reported.
c) Some crimes must be reported.
My stance is c). Which crimes is really a subjective thing. If somebody else agrees with c) but completely disagrees with me on which crimes should be reported and when, I’m not going to argue in general (maybe in some specific cases I care about). This thread isn’t about that to me - I started it because I’ve expressed a sentiment in another thread that the particular case of potential copyright infringement should not be reported directly to the authorities. Somebody disagreed with me stating that it’s a crime, and as such HAS to be reported (stance a) ). Now, I have a problem with stance a). I really have no problem with most variants of stance c) and really if somebody firmly believes in b) then good for them.
Now, since you refused to pick a) or b) then the logical conclusion is that you agree with c). Some crimes must be reported. Fine, we agree. Can we move on please?
Sincerely, Groman.
P.S. Note how choices a,b and c are not a false trichotomy, since None, Some and All naturally encompass all possible cases.
Wait, what? I just noticed your post…
Why not. It clearly defines that a straw man, in rhetorical use, is a set of non-normative statements. Rhetorical questions that are disguised attempts to discredit the person are examples of a personal attack, but I assure you all my questions are genuine.
Driving on a suspended license ain’t some kind of civil disobedience, y’know. When a kid cheats on test, it ain’t because he “believes his actions to be right;” he damn well knows its wrong, but thinks he can get away with it.
I was breaking the law because I was putting my own desires above the rights of my fellow citizens and violating the social contract I have agreed to live under as a citizen. On some level, I suppose there was a psychological rationalization about why the rules didn’t apply to me, or how I really wasn’t hurting anyone, or how my circumstances made it OK.
And it was and is bullshit.
If you’re seriously talking about actual civil disobedience, yes, you *should * be prepared to go to jail for violating a law you think unjust; I refer you to King and Gandhi, both of whom said exactly that. The aim of civil disobedience is to get the laws changed, not just to get out of having to obey the laws you don’t personally dig. It is a fundamentally social act.
What you advocate – I don’t like this law, so I won’t obey it and hope nobody caches me – is nothing of the sort.
I think it’s a fine course of action for someone who feels the law is unjust but isn’t in a position to willingly go to jail. Not everyone can be a martyr. It’s wrong to call it civil disobedience, though.