Many black people (and their allies) disobeyed Jim Crow laws. They were right, and the people who obeyed them were wrong.
Taxation without representation, among others.
All of them. They all involved civil disobedience, and other ways to disobey the law peacefully.
Exactly. I can’t think of a better way of showing people that, firstly, you are in fact being mistreated and secondly, contrary to popular perception at the time, you are not in fact barely human, violent thugs.
Not that what you mention is punishment, and so the moral obligation isn’t there, just a practical one.
Right – they told everyone about the mistreatment. Like the protesters are today, for the mistreatment they perceive. Also known as complaining.
If it wasn’t punishment, what was it?
By your standards. There were obviously millions of other people whose standards disagreed, to the degree that those people were able to influence the government to codify their moral standards into law. Why are your moral standards more objectively right than anyone else’s? Because they’re yours? Because your side “won”? Because you believe that some supernatural force has endorsed your worldview?
So you’ll be joining the people protesting the unfair and immoral taxation of Cliven Bundy, then?
What act of civil disobedience was necessary to the passage of the 14th amendment? Or R-74? Or the rulings in Murray v. Curlett, Lawrence v. TX, Roe v. Wade, or US v. Windsor? Do you acknowledge that there is any way to advance the cause of civil rights that does not involve breaking the law?
Are you invoking the legacy of this terrorist? Look at this terrorism!
http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/resources/uploads/selmatomontgomerymarch.jpg
King and his followers had received approval from a federal judge to conduct that march and they were escorted by the Army and federalized National Guard troops. It was a lawful and peaceful exercise of their First Amendment rights, unlike the thugs destroying property and disrupting business in support of Garner and Brown.
That’s how morality works. I understand you don’t have any – you’ve said you wouldn’t risk anything at all to help free slaves, among other absolutely repugnant things – but most people do. People who have morality understand that sometimes moral questions are more important than questions of law, and sometimes the right thing to do is to disobey the law.
If I thought it was unfair and immoral, I would. But I don’t – he is represented.
The many, many violations of the law by slaves who wanted to be free and their supporters.
For gay rights in general, Stonewall, local officials violating the law and giving marriage documents to gay couples, etc.
For this and other issues of religions freedom, an example is teachers and students who refused to obey the law with regards to mandated religious expression.
Are you fucking kidding? Buttfucking was against the law. Many people buttfucked. Those who buttfucked in violation of the law were right.
Again – you must be joking. Many women had illegal abortions, some of whom suffered due because of bad practices.
See gay rights above.
Yes, and there are many ways that involve breaking the law. For pretty much every advance in Civil Rights, both categories were used, and both were necessary.
If slaves hadn’t broken the law and escaped from slavery, many wouldn’t have learned that they actually wanted to be free, or were even fully capable and independent human beings. That’s an extreme example, but there are many for pretty much every major advance in our history.
There were many instances, already cited, in which King and other Civil Rights leaders disrupted traffic, which you said was terrorism. Don’t back down now – just accept that you stated that MLK Jr. was a terrorist.
Disrupting traffic without permission.
King had permission this time.
And I ask you again - what makes your morality right and those other people’s morality wrong?
And he believes he isn’t. Why are you right and he’s not?
Slavery was no longer a thing when the 14th amendment became law.
I didn’t ask about “gay rights in general”. What specific act of lawbreaking was inexorably responsible for the passage of R-74?
Which doesn’t even have anything to do with Murray v. Curlett, where the plaintiff was a parent upset that school officials were following the law.
And whose butt had to be unlawfully fucked in order for Lawrence v. KS to happen?
Roe did not have an unlawful abortion. What unlawful abortion lead to the passage of Roe v. Wade?
Criminal assault. Something actually worth complaining about, rather than someone being shot after they violently robbed a shot and punched a policeman, or someone complaining about being locked up for repeatedly not paying fines or child support.
Try finding some innocent people to be your poster children, not a bunch of criminals, and you might get some sympathy. Stop protesting about criminals being punished for their crimes, and focus on innocent people being mistreated. Spend the time and money that’s being put into these ridiculous protests about Ferguson and Garner into challenging actual breaches of innocent people’s rights, not into challenging people getting nothing they didn’t bring on themselves.
Above all, do it peacefully, and be better than those you oppose. Like Martin Luther King. Like Gandhi. Like many others who stood up and did what was right, and took the consequences, not the violent “protesters” with their faces covered - whether black people in Ferguson or white people “occupying” places.
There many instances in which they didn’t have permission.
Irrelevant. There’s no point in arguing about morality with someone with none.
He’s wrong on the facts. He has representatives he can vote for.
It wouldn’t have become law without those illegal actions by slaves and abolitionists.
All of those I discussed. R-74, and other advances, wouldn’t have happened if gay people and their supporters didn’t assert their rights – and some of these assertions involved breaking the law.
Yes it does – none of this happened in a vacuum. All of these events were the culminations of long processes, which involved many forms of protest and civil disobedience, among other tactics.
Everyone who the judges (and the people in general) believed were immorally sanctioned for such activity.
All of the unlawful abortions over the decades that led to a swing of opinion (and a swing in the courts). It didn’t happen in a vacuum.
None of these things would have happened without the actions, many of which were against the law, of people before them.
There are innocent people being mistreated. And most of the protesters are peaceful.
So is it that you don’t want to answer the question, or you can’t?
Why is your morality more true than anyone else’s?
And so are the supporters of Brown and Garner. Why aren’t they out there voting instead of burning cars and looting businesses?
Morality is a human construct, from shared assumptions about the world, what works best, and what is most just. I’ve said this many times before. My moral system is better, in my view, because it fits more with the reality about how the world works, what justice is, and how people behave.
But this is a sideshow, because you’re unable to defend any of your assertions.
They are out there voting (and protesting), and most of them are not burning and looting.
No doubt, which is why it’s so confounding that all the protests focus on those who aren’t.
Again, no doubt. The problem is, most isn’t all, and until the majority actively distance themselves from the violent minority, nothing will change, and they will keep doing their cause more harm than good.
No they don’t. Most people in the US agree with the protesters on the Eric Garner case.
Most do distance themselves. Considering the change in polling from the Brown case to the Garner case, the protesters are doing their cause quite a bit of good, actually.
And why is your view right?