The way you posted it made it sound to me like you were saying I made the error about innate morality.
EDIT – I was very confused. I see what you’re saying now, and agree.
I’m saying you’re a sad, demented fuckwit. A misshapen oddity of a person.
It is not okay to go around shooting people because you oppose abortion. It’s not okay to go around blowing buildings full of people because you oppose the government.
The harm of ending someone’s life IS NOT EQUAL to the harm of making them late for work.
Again, you cannot comprehend these sorts of things beyond the two categories of illegal/legal, so you should not attempt to think about this any further. You might dissolve into a catatonic state.
There were other instances beyond the Kentucky derby. And again, this is a qualified difference than the “yes” you gave before.
But we should remember that according to Smapti, some of what Hosea Williams, the SCLC, and MLK Jr. did and advocated for was terrorism.
The “yes” you’ve yet to find a link to, you mean.
Yes, and it pains me to admit that, because the greatest acts of terrorism that occurred during the civil rights movement were committed against the activists, not by them (the murder of Medgar Evers and others, KKK members beating the Freedom Riders, etc.)
But bad terrorism does not excuse good terrorism.
So what? They espouse the ideals of absolute obedience and trust in the state. What a moral judgment of which government style is acceptable and which is not? If the people start challenging the “civilized state” of some governments won’t that lead to anarchy?
There are some forms of government to which anarchy would be preferable.
Linked to multiple times. Here it is again.
It shouldn’t pain you to admit it, because it’s totally ridiculous. Terrorism is not and has never been about threats of inconvenience, which is all that traffic disruption (or similar types of civil disobedience) is. Terrorism is and has always been about threats to life and limb – hence the root “terror”… harm to life and limb causes terror, not harm to traffic flow. No one experiences terror from the threat of being late.
This goes contrary to nearly everything you’ve said about government in this thread or any other. What forms of government are inferior to anarchy, in your view?
Funny how the “yes” in that post isn’t an answer to the question you want it to be an answer to. But I guess when you’re not concerned with facts it’s easy to put words in people’s mouths.
Have you ever been late?
I agree. But that’s a moral judgement of the type you think here in a democracy we are not equipped to make. The North Koreans have more rights to challenge their government than we do?
All those other than those in which sovereignty is vested in the people and exercised by elected civil servants bound to the rule of law.
Yes. The government of North Korea is illegitimate and its people are not obligated to be loyal to it.
And if those civil servants abuse their position, they deserve to protested against just as vigorously as if they took the rule by force. If those civil servants disenfranchised voters they didn’t want to vote (blacks, women etc), passed laws that harm those groups, then they have not upheld their duty and have institutionalized barriers to those groups having a voice. When women didn’t have the vote they were not functionally part of a democracy. When blacks were barred from voting by unethical means they were functionally not part of a democracy.
Says who- you?
It’s an answer to the question of whether the Civil Rights protesters who disrupted traffic and had demands were terrorists. First you answered “yes”, then you qualified it.
If being late caused you terror, then your sense of fear is as screwed up as your sense of morality and justice. Though, considering the “coward” accusation in the OP, and many of the things you’ve said since, this isn’t that surprising.
Yes, and it was not remotely terrifying.
This is bizarro Smapti. Several pages ago, I asked you about a hypothetical in a country like Mali, in which you had the chance to free slaves (in a hypothetical country with slavery) with virtually no risk to yourself. You said you wouldn’t do it, and that doing it would be wrong.
Are you now saying that this hypothetical country’s government, in which slavery is legal, is illegitimate? So are people obligated or not to be loyal to it?
And how do you determine whether this is so?
Conceded. They had the right to protest those people who were unlawfully restricting their Constitutional rights, which had at that point already been affirmed by the federal government. The federal government was also somewhat to blame for not defending their rights as vigorously as they ought to have.
Yes. Says me. And my opinion is obviously not shared by the leadership of North Korea, and they’re not going to be dissuaded from their course by my protest. And I’m not going to pretend that my opinion is based in any greater authority than my own say-so.
If I’m late, I can lose my job. And if I lose my job for being late, then I’m not going to get unemployment. I’m going to lose my source of income, the healthcare coverage that makes the medication I need to be able to live my daily life affordable instead of costing more than a weekend in Vegas, and unless I can find a new job in short order while having to admit that I was fired from my last job from being late, I’ll soon be out of a place to live as well.
You’re damn right being late causes me terror.
Direct contradiction between two posts by Smapti, about what forms of government are legitimate and superior to anarchy:
That government is not legitimate. Its citizens (or slaves, as the case may be) are not in my opinion obligated to it. In the opinion of that government, they are, and “but Smapti says you’re illegitimate!” is not likely to be an effective defense against accusations of treason.
I, the tourist, am obligated to the government, because I am a guest and a guest is expected to abide by the customs of their host.