Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Are Protests Civil Disobedience?

KhaosMage
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 9:17:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
It bothers me tremendously when you have protesters breaking the law, and they are outraged that they are arrested.
For example:
http://www.startribune.com...

Charges are finally being brought against protesters nearly one month after their Dec. 20th protest at the Mall of America. Similar demonstrations have shut down interstates for hours across the country. These are all illegal demonstrations, as they are without permit, trespassing, and/or impeding traffic.

My issue is not that they do this, even if it annoys the hell out of me, nor is it the controversial stance of seeking restitution that the above source mentions. My issue is, when I see protests like this, I scream "why aren't they being arrested"?!? The response is usually "it's civil disobedience". To which I respond, "yeah, and that is not immune to consequence".

Why do people seem to think that civil disobedience is not something that can land you in jail? Hell, Henry David Thoreau coined the phrase while in jail for refusing to pay taxes.
A justified action is not immune to prosecution. Is society really this stupid?
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 9:23:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Justified actions and prosecution seem to be pretty much mutually exclusive, Khaos.

You are so orderly, it's funny. I bet you've never once broken the speed limit, lol.
KhaosMage
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 9:56:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 9:23:22 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Justified actions and prosecution seem to be pretty much mutually exclusive, Khaos.

Actually, no.
How many times are their trials for self defense?
The fact that something is justified does not mean it is not illegal, or that others (jury, cops, DAs) will agree with you.
You are so orderly, it's funny. I bet you've never once broken the speed limit, lol.
You don't know the first thing about me.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 10:06:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 9:56:31 AM, KhaosMage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 9:23:22 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Justified actions and prosecution seem to be pretty much mutually exclusive, Khaos.

Actually, no.
How many times are their trials for self defense?
The fact that something is justified does not mean it is not illegal, or that others (jury, cops, DAs) will agree with you.

Wouldn't this be to decide if the action is justified or not? Of course the individual knows best the real truth.

You are so orderly, it's funny. I bet you've never once broken the speed limit, lol.
You don't know the first thing about me.

Well, have you? I know you're so stringently 'letter of the law' that it borders on the obsessive-compulsive. :P
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 10:08:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't mean to offend or anything btw. It's just the pattern of your concerns. And I suppose it fits a taxman, too.

People are a picture, Khaos.
KhaosMage
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 10:16:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 10:06:28 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 1/23/2015 9:56:31 AM, KhaosMage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 9:23:22 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Justified actions and prosecution seem to be pretty much mutually exclusive, Khaos.

Actually, no.
How many times are their trials for self defense?
The fact that something is justified does not mean it is not illegal, or that others (jury, cops, DAs) will agree with you.

Wouldn't this be to decide if the action is justified or not? Of course the individual knows best the real truth.

So, they are not mutually exclusive, are they? What was the point of your comment?

You are so orderly, it's funny. I bet you've never once broken the speed limit, lol.
You don't know the first thing about me.

Well, have you?
I break the law every time I drive my car, as a matter of principle.

I know you're so stringently 'letter of the law' that it borders on the obsessive-compulsive. :P
Evidence?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 8:22:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 7:49:24 AM, KhaosMage wrote:
No valid comments?

Most people who use the term have never even read Thoreau. People these days have a penchant for using words without having the first idea what they actually mean.

Though I do think that permit laws are absolute nonsense, and fully support people breaking them, they should realize that they are going to go to jail for it and accept the fact. As Thoreau put it: "Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. It is there that the fugitive slave, and the Mexican prisoner on parole, and the Indian come to plead the wrongs of his race, should find them; on that separate, but more free and honorable ground, where the State places those who are not with her but against her,"the only house in a slave-state in which a free man can abide with honor. If any think that their influence would be lost there, and their voices no longer afflict the ear of the State, that they would not be as an enemy within its walls, they do not know by how much truth is stronger than error, nor how much more eloquently and effectively he can combat injustice who has experienced a little in his own person. Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence. A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight."
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 9:07:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
So, in the 60's, you'd be screaming "why aren't they being arrested?!" at the protesters then?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
KhaosMage
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 7:40:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 9:07:50 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
So, in the 60's, you'd be screaming "why aren't they being arrested?!" at the protesters then?

Yep. And I may well have been a part of them as well.
Do you think that civil disobedience is immune from consequence?

However, from the pictures I've seen, I see no laws being broken from many of their demonstrations. They used city parks, not malls. Sidewalks, not interstates.
KhaosMage
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 7:46:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 8:22:22 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/25/2015 7:49:24 AM, KhaosMage wrote:
No valid comments?

Most people who use the term have never even read Thoreau. People these days have a penchant for using words without having the first idea what they actually mean.

So true.


Though I do think that permit laws are absolute nonsense, and fully support people breaking them, they should realize that they are going to go to jail for it and accept the fact. As Thoreau put it: "Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. It is there that the fugitive slave, and the Mexican prisoner on parole, and the Indian come to plead the wrongs of his race, should find them; on that separate, but more free and honorable ground, where the State places those who are not with her but against her,"the only house in a slave-state in which a free man can abide with honor. If any think that their influence would be lost there, and their voices no longer afflict the ear of the State, that they would not be as an enemy within its walls, they do not know by how much truth is stronger than error, nor how much more eloquently and effectively he can combat injustice who has experienced a little in his own person. Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence. A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight."

I enjoy permit laws, as long as they are offered justly/fairly/equally.
For example, blocking up the interstate for a protest literally trapped unsuspecting people in gridlock for over two hours, costing who knows how much money, from lost productivity to late fees for picking up kids from daycare late. However, with a permit, at least it can be known and advertised beforehand.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 9:14:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 7:46:56 PM, KhaosMage wrote:
At 1/25/2015 8:22:22 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/25/2015 7:49:24 AM, KhaosMage wrote:
No valid comments?

Most people who use the term have never even read Thoreau. People these days have a penchant for using words without having the first idea what they actually mean.

So true.


Though I do think that permit laws are absolute nonsense, and fully support people breaking them, they should realize that they are going to go to jail for it and accept the fact. As Thoreau put it: "Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. It is there that the fugitive slave, and the Mexican prisoner on parole, and the Indian come to plead the wrongs of his race, should find them; on that separate, but more free and honorable ground, where the State places those who are not with her but against her,"the only house in a slave-state in which a free man can abide with honor. If any think that their influence would be lost there, and their voices no longer afflict the ear of the State, that they would not be as an enemy within its walls, they do not know by how much truth is stronger than error, nor how much more eloquently and effectively he can combat injustice who has experienced a little in his own person. Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence. A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight."


I enjoy permit laws, as long as they are offered justly/fairly/equally.
For example, blocking up the interstate for a protest literally trapped unsuspecting people in gridlock for over two hours, costing who knows how much money, from lost productivity to late fees for picking up kids from daycare late. However, with a permit, at least it can be known and advertised beforehand.

I don't think that anyone should ever be allowed to protest on an interstate highway for any reason. It just seems stupid for me. But places like the National Mall shouldn't require government approval for a rally; the idea that citizens have to ask the government if it's alright for them to petition the government for a redress of grievances is absurd.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 9:27:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 9:17:48 AM, KhaosMage wrote:
It bothers me tremendously when you have protesters breaking the law, and they are outraged that they are arrested.
For example:
http://www.startribune.com...

Charges are finally being brought against protesters nearly one month after their Dec. 20th protest at the Mall of America. Similar demonstrations have shut down interstates for hours across the country. These are all illegal demonstrations, as they are without permit, trespassing, and/or impeding traffic.

My issue is not that they do this, even if it annoys the hell out of me, nor is it the controversial stance of seeking restitution that the above source mentions. My issue is, when I see protests like this, I scream "why aren't they being arrested"?!? The response is usually "it's civil disobedience". To which I respond, "yeah, and that is not immune to consequence".

Why do people seem to think that civil disobedience is not something that can land you in jail? Hell, Henry David Thoreau coined the phrase while in jail for refusing to pay taxes.
A justified action is not immune to prosecution. Is society really this stupid?

The law is at the behest of society, not the other way around. Civil disobedience is a call to mold the system to meet society's needs or interests.

Thoreau did not believe he belonged in prison.

Doctiur hits truthful tones in his brash chords; pedantry, indeed.
KhaosMage
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 9:41:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 9:27:12 PM, Such wrote:
At 1/23/2015 9:17:48 AM, KhaosMage wrote:
It bothers me tremendously when you have protesters breaking the law, and they are outraged that they are arrested.
For example:
http://www.startribune.com...

Charges are finally being brought against protesters nearly one month after their Dec. 20th protest at the Mall of America. Similar demonstrations have shut down interstates for hours across the country. These are all illegal demonstrations, as they are without permit, trespassing, and/or impeding traffic.

My issue is not that they do this, even if it annoys the hell out of me, nor is it the controversial stance of seeking restitution that the above source mentions. My issue is, when I see protests like this, I scream "why aren't they being arrested"?!? The response is usually "it's civil disobedience". To which I respond, "yeah, and that is not immune to consequence".

Why do people seem to think that civil disobedience is not something that can land you in jail? Hell, Henry David Thoreau coined the phrase while in jail for refusing to pay taxes.
A justified action is not immune to prosecution. Is society really this stupid?

The law is at the behest of society, not the other way around. Civil disobedience is a call to mold the system to meet society's needs or interests.
Then why stop at civil disobedience, and just be disobedient?


Thoreau did not believe he belonged in prison.
Did I say he did, or that these protesters do?
Arrested =/= conviction

Doctiur hits truthful tones in his brash chords; pedantry, indeed.
Which are those, exactly?
The lies or the acknowledgement that courts decide justification?
KhaosMage
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 9:45:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 9:14:37 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

I don't think that anyone should ever be allowed to protest on an interstate highway for any reason. It just seems stupid for me. But places like the National Mall shouldn't require government approval for a rally; the idea that citizens have to ask the government if it's alright for them to petition the government for a redress of grievances is absurd.

The issue for permits, to my understanding, is more for stages, electricity, and the like. The National Mall may be a special case, due to national security, but generally, a meeting in a public place, like a park, does not require a permit, as long as it does not bar others.

Look at Occupy Wall Street. They generally did not have permits, and generally were not arrested or harassed. Unless they were blocking sidewalks for others, entering streets, or trespassing.
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 9:47:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 9:41:34 PM, KhaosMage wrote:

Then why stop at civil disobedience, and just be disobedient?

I imagine you're asking why one would only be civilly disobedient rather than outright break the laws with which they disagree?

Because, these people are not interested in breaking the law, nor being criminals. They are interested in changing laws with which they have grievance or the way laws are enforced.

Thoreau did not believe he belonged in prison.
Did I say he did, or that these protesters do?
Arrested =/= conviction

In your reference to Thoreau, you seemed to insinuate that he accepted that civil disobedience will and should result in penalty. He didn't actually believe that.

Doctiur hits truthful tones in his brash chords; pedantry, indeed.
Which are those, exactly?
The lies or the acknowledgement that courts decide justification?

Well... just forget I said that. It was an nonconstructive appendage to my post, really.
KhaosMage
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 9:55:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 9:47:09 PM, Such wrote:
At 1/25/2015 9:41:34 PM, KhaosMage wrote:

Then why stop at civil disobedience, and just be disobedient?

I imagine you're asking why one would only be civilly disobedient rather than outright break the laws with which they disagree?

Because, these people are not interested in breaking the law, nor being criminals. They are interested in changing laws with which they have grievance or the way laws are enforced.
Trespassing is a crime. Walking on an interstate is a crime. Blocking traffic is a crime.
Shall I go on?

Thoreau did not believe he belonged in prison.
Did I say he did, or that these protesters do?
Arrested =/= conviction

In your reference to Thoreau, you seemed to insinuate that he accepted that civil disobedience will and should result in penalty. He didn't actually believe that.
He 100% was aware that it CAN result in penalty.

As I said, if the jury does not convict or the prosecutor does not prosecute, so be it. But, that is not for the police to decide.
They enforce the law. Laws are being broken. Ergo, there should be arrests.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 10:07:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 9:47:09 PM, Such wrote:
At 1/25/2015 9:41:34 PM, KhaosMage wrote:

Then why stop at civil disobedience, and just be disobedient?

I imagine you're asking why one would only be civilly disobedient rather than outright break the laws with which they disagree?

Because, these people are not interested in breaking the law, nor being criminals. They are interested in changing laws with which they have grievance or the way laws are enforced.

Thoreau did not believe he belonged in prison.
Did I say he did, or that these protesters do?
Arrested =/= conviction

In your reference to Thoreau, you seemed to insinuate that he accepted that civil disobedience will and should result in penalty. He didn't actually believe that.

Did you miss my direct quote from Civil Disobedience?

"Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. It is there that the fugitive slave, and the Mexican prisoner on parole, and the Indian come to plead the wrongs of his race, should find them; on that separate, but more free and honorable ground, where the State places those who are not with her but against her,"the only house in a slave-state in which a free man can abide with honor. If any think that their influence would be lost there, and their voices no longer afflict the ear of the State, that they would not be as an enemy within its walls, they do not know by how much truth is stronger than error, nor how much more eloquently and effectively he can combat injustice who has experienced a little in his own person. Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence. A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight."

Doctiur hits truthful tones in his brash chords; pedantry, indeed.
Which are those, exactly?
The lies or the acknowledgement that courts decide justification?

Well... just forget I said that. It was an nonconstructive appendage to my post, really.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 10:10:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 9:55:38 PM, KhaosMage wrote:
At 1/25/2015 9:47:09 PM, Such wrote:
At 1/25/2015 9:41:34 PM, KhaosMage wrote:

Then why stop at civil disobedience, and just be disobedient?

I imagine you're asking why one would only be civilly disobedient rather than outright break the laws with which they disagree?

Because, these people are not interested in breaking the law, nor being criminals. They are interested in changing laws with which they have grievance or the way laws are enforced.
Trespassing is a crime. Walking on an interstate is a crime. Blocking traffic is a crime.
Shall I go on?

The Mall of America is a public area, not private property. Therefore, they weren't trespassing, they were exercising their right to assembly. Blocking traffic is not necessarily a crime within the purview of peaceful assembly. Walking on the interstate is a statutory misdemeanor that wouldn't, and shouldn't, result in arrest -- it's essentially jaywalking.

So, no.

Thoreau did not believe he belonged in prison.
Did I say he did, or that these protesters do?
Arrested =/= conviction

In your reference to Thoreau, you seemed to insinuate that he accepted that civil disobedience will and should result in penalty. He didn't actually believe that.
He 100% was aware that it CAN result in penalty.

Uhhh, Henry David Thoreau was a philosopher, not a schizophrenic. He was aware of the potential outcome of civil disobedience, but he disagreed with those outcomes and thought that they shouldn't be viable outcomes.

As I said, if the jury does not convict or the prosecutor does not prosecute, so be it. But, that is not for the police to decide.
They enforce the law. Laws are being broken. Ergo, there should be arrests.

Negative.

Cops enforce the law to the extent that the law needs to be enforced. If enforcing laws violates rights, then there should be no such enforcement. Arrest is for the sake of removing people from the street pending trial, or if they are a danger to themselves or others. Civil disobedience, if cited, will result in citations alone, such as a ticket. Arresting someone for civil disobedience is tantamount to arresting someone for speeding.

It's outright preposterous.
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 10:16:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 10:07:46 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/25/2015 9:47:09 PM, Such wrote:
At 1/25/2015 9:41:34 PM, KhaosMage wrote:

Then why stop at civil disobedience, and just be disobedient?

I imagine you're asking why one would only be civilly disobedient rather than outright break the laws with which they disagree?

Because, these people are not interested in breaking the law, nor being criminals. They are interested in changing laws with which they have grievance or the way laws are enforced.

Thoreau did not believe he belonged in prison.
Did I say he did, or that these protesters do?
Arrested =/= conviction

In your reference to Thoreau, you seemed to insinuate that he accepted that civil disobedience will and should result in penalty. He didn't actually believe that.

Did you miss my direct quote from Civil Disobedience?

"Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. It is there that the fugitive slave, and the Mexican prisoner on parole, and the Indian come to plead the wrongs of his race, should find them; on that separate, but more free and honorable ground, where the State places those who are not with her but against her,"the only house in a slave-state in which a free man can abide with honor. If any think that their influence would be lost there, and their voices no longer afflict the ear of the State, that they would not be as an enemy within its walls, they do not know by how much truth is stronger than error, nor how much more eloquently and effectively he can combat injustice who has experienced a little in his own person. Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence. A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight."

I didn't miss that. I've read Thoreau. I also understand what I read. Thoreau believe that governments are, as a rule, corrupt and fallacious. He believed that a man, in exercising his rights, will end up in prison, but that shouldn't stop him from exercising his rights.

Nonetheless, he still believed that imprisonment was a reflection of such corruption and was therefore unjust.

To arrest people who exercise their right to assemble is, in essence, proving Thoreau, in all his distrust and distaste for government, right.

Don't get it twisted.

"That man who does not believe that each day contains an earlier, more sacred, and auroral hour than he has yet profaned, has despaired of life, and is pursuing a descending and darkening way."
KhaosMage
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 10:25:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 10:10:09 PM, Such wrote:
At 1/25/2015 9:55:38 PM, KhaosMage wrote:
At 1/25/2015 9:47:09 PM, Such wrote:
At 1/25/2015 9:41:34 PM, KhaosMage wrote:

Then why stop at civil disobedience, and just be disobedient?

I imagine you're asking why one would only be civilly disobedient rather than outright break the laws with which they disagree?

Because, these people are not interested in breaking the law, nor being criminals. They are interested in changing laws with which they have grievance or the way laws are enforced.
Trespassing is a crime. Walking on an interstate is a crime. Blocking traffic is a crime.
Shall I go on?

The Mall of America is a public area, not private property.
Uh, no, it is private. It is just like any other mall. This one is owned by Triple Five Group, not the government.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Therefore, they weren't trespassing, they were exercising their right to assembly.
You have no right to assemble on private property.
Open to the public =/= public property
Blocking traffic is not necessarily a crime within the purview of peaceful assembly.
Picket lines cannot block entrances to buildings, nor block traffic without a permit. So, I am not sure what you mean.
Are you suggesting that you and ten men can hold hands and form a link to bar traffic from accessing public streets? Your right to assemble stops when it hinders mine.

Walking on the interstate is a statutory misdemeanor that wouldn't, and shouldn't, result in arrest -- it's essentially jaywalking.
Which is a crime and there should be citations. (I said arrests, but I meant the police should do their job)

So, no.

Thoreau did not believe he belonged in prison.
Did I say he did, or that these protesters do?
Arrested =/= conviction

In your reference to Thoreau, you seemed to insinuate that he accepted that civil disobedience will and should result in penalty. He didn't actually believe that.
He 100% was aware that it CAN result in penalty.

Uhhh, Henry David Thoreau was a philosopher, not a schizophrenic. He was aware of the potential outcome of civil disobedience, but he disagreed with those outcomes and thought that they shouldn't be viable outcomes.
I'll take your word on it, then.
However, this hinges on the fact that what the envoker of civil disobedience is fighting for, is, in fact, true and good.

As I said, if the jury does not convict or the prosecutor does not prosecute, so be it. But, that is not for the police to decide.
They enforce the law. Laws are being broken. Ergo, there should be arrests.

Negative.

Cops enforce the law to the extent that the law needs to be enforced. If enforcing laws violates rights, then there should be no such enforcement. Arrest is for the sake of removing people from the street pending trial, or if they are a danger to themselves or others. Civil disobedience, if cited, will result in citations alone, such as a ticket. Arresting someone for civil disobedience is tantamount to arresting someone for speeding.

It's outright preposterous.
Okay, so I misspoke.
By arrest, I meant legal penalty of some sort. I am not saying they should be in prison, but whatever the penalty is, like jaywalking, should be enforced.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 10:31:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 7:40:16 PM, KhaosMage wrote:
At 1/25/2015 9:07:50 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
So, in the 60's, you'd be screaming "why aren't they being arrested?!" at the protesters then?

Yep. And I may well have been a part of them as well.
Do you think that civil disobedience is immune from consequence?


There may be consequences but I don't think there SHOULD be consequences for breaking unjust laws. And that's where the outrages come from.

However, from the pictures I've seen, I see no laws being broken from many of their demonstrations. They used city parks, not malls. Sidewalks, not interstates.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
KhaosMage
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 10:32:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 10:31:31 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/25/2015 7:40:16 PM, KhaosMage wrote:
At 1/25/2015 9:07:50 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
So, in the 60's, you'd be screaming "why aren't they being arrested?!" at the protesters then?

Yep. And I may well have been a part of them as well.
Do you think that civil disobedience is immune from consequence?


There may be consequences but I don't think there SHOULD be consequences for breaking unjust laws. And that's where the outrages come from.

Trespassing is an unjust law?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 11:22:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 10:16:51 PM, Such wrote:
At 1/25/2015 10:07:46 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/25/2015 9:47:09 PM, Such wrote:
At 1/25/2015 9:41:34 PM, KhaosMage wrote:

Then why stop at civil disobedience, and just be disobedient?

I imagine you're asking why one would only be civilly disobedient rather than outright break the laws with which they disagree?

Because, these people are not interested in breaking the law, nor being criminals. They are interested in changing laws with which they have grievance or the way laws are enforced.

Thoreau did not believe he belonged in prison.
Did I say he did, or that these protesters do?
Arrested =/= conviction

In your reference to Thoreau, you seemed to insinuate that he accepted that civil disobedience will and should result in penalty. He didn't actually believe that.

Did you miss my direct quote from Civil Disobedience?

"Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. It is there that the fugitive slave, and the Mexican prisoner on parole, and the Indian come to plead the wrongs of his race, should find them; on that separate, but more free and honorable ground, where the State places those who are not with her but against her,"the only house in a slave-state in which a free man can abide with honor. If any think that their influence would be lost there, and their voices no longer afflict the ear of the State, that they would not be as an enemy within its walls, they do not know by how much truth is stronger than error, nor how much more eloquently and effectively he can combat injustice who has experienced a little in his own person. Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence. A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight."

I didn't miss that. I've read Thoreau. I also understand what I read. Thoreau believe that governments are, as a rule, corrupt and fallacious. He believed that a man, in exercising his rights, will end up in prison, but that shouldn't stop him from exercising his rights.

Thoreau saw, as the above excerpt demonstrates, the act of civil disobedience as one intended to lead to imprisonment. He did believe that people who engaged in civil disobedience belonged in prison, as that was the entire point of engaging in it in the first place. The imprisonment was at once a symbolic defiance and a means of crippling the government by refusing to acquiesce to its threats. If he lived in a just government, then there would be no point to civil disobedience and no question of whether or not being thrown in jail for it was acceptable or not.

Nonetheless, he still believed that imprisonment was a reflection of such corruption and was therefore unjust.

To arrest people who exercise their right to assemble is, in essence, proving Thoreau, in all his distrust and distaste for government, right.

Don't get it twisted.

"That man who does not believe that each day contains an earlier, more sacred, and auroral hour than he has yet profaned, has despaired of life, and is pursuing a descending and darkening way."
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 9:25:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 10:32:57 PM, KhaosMage wrote:
At 1/25/2015 10:31:31 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/25/2015 7:40:16 PM, KhaosMage wrote:
At 1/25/2015 9:07:50 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
So, in the 60's, you'd be screaming "why aren't they being arrested?!" at the protesters then?

Yep. And I may well have been a part of them as well.
Do you think that civil disobedience is immune from consequence?


There may be consequences but I don't think there SHOULD be consequences for breaking unjust laws. And that's where the outrages come from.

Trespassing is an unjust law?

A particular application of a morally neutral or just law can be unjust.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
KhaosMage
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 10:01:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 9:25:52 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/25/2015 10:32:57 PM, KhaosMage wrote:
At 1/25/2015 10:31:31 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/25/2015 7:40:16 PM, KhaosMage wrote:
At 1/25/2015 9:07:50 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
So, in the 60's, you'd be screaming "why aren't they being arrested?!" at the protesters then?

Yep. And I may well have been a part of them as well.
Do you think that civil disobedience is immune from consequence?


There may be consequences but I don't think there SHOULD be consequences for breaking unjust laws. And that's where the outrages come from.

Trespassing is an unjust law?

A particular application of a morally neutral or just law can be unjust.

So, what you are saying is, is that protesters should be able to trespass on my property, shout and chant throughout the night making sleep difficult for me and my neighbors, block the road so I cannot drive to work, because they are upset about my position on a matter?

What law is unjust in these protests? The issue is a refusal to indict, which is not a law at all. Their response is to break numerous laws, with untold consequences for innocents (perhaps people are being fired for being late to work, or missing their flight) for them to make a point.
Kudos to them for making their point, but they do not have free reign to infringe on others' rights or wantingly break the law. Or do you believe that pro-lifers should be immune to prosecution, since they are fighting an unjust law?
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 3:56:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 11:22:26 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/25/2015 10:16:51 PM, Such wrote:
At 1/25/2015 10:07:46 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/25/2015 9:47:09 PM, Such wrote:
At 1/25/2015 9:41:34 PM, KhaosMage wrote:

Then why stop at civil disobedience, and just be disobedient?

I imagine you're asking why one would only be civilly disobedient rather than outright break the laws with which they disagree?

Because, these people are not interested in breaking the law, nor being criminals. They are interested in changing laws with which they have grievance or the way laws are enforced.

Thoreau did not believe he belonged in prison.
Did I say he did, or that these protesters do?
Arrested =/= conviction

In your reference to Thoreau, you seemed to insinuate that he accepted that civil disobedience will and should result in penalty. He didn't actually believe that.

Did you miss my direct quote from Civil Disobedience?

"Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. It is there that the fugitive slave, and the Mexican prisoner on parole, and the Indian come to plead the wrongs of his race, should find them; on that separate, but more free and honorable ground, where the State places those who are not with her but against her,"the only house in a slave-state in which a free man can abide with honor. If any think that their influence would be lost there, and their voices no longer afflict the ear of the State, that they would not be as an enemy within its walls, they do not know by how much truth is stronger than error, nor how much more eloquently and effectively he can combat injustice who has experienced a little in his own person. Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence. A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight."

I didn't miss that. I've read Thoreau. I also understand what I read. Thoreau believe that governments are, as a rule, corrupt and fallacious. He believed that a man, in exercising his rights, will end up in prison, but that shouldn't stop him from exercising his rights.

Thoreau saw, as the above excerpt demonstrates, the act of civil disobedience as one intended to lead to imprisonment. He did believe that people who engaged in civil disobedience belonged in prison, as that was the entire point of engaging in it in the first place. The imprisonment was at once a symbolic defiance and a means of crippling the government by refusing to acquiesce to its threats. If he lived in a just government, then there would be no point to civil disobedience and no question of whether or not being thrown in jail for it was acceptable or not.

It literally begins with, "Under a government which imprisons any unjustly...," to contextualize the excerpt. Therefore, the point of civil disobedience isn't to go to prison, and he didn't believe that those who engage in civil disobedience belonged in prison, else he would consider it a just and logical result of civil disobedience. He, instead, stated that going to prison should not deter someone from civil disobedience, and if going to prison allays one's inclination for civil disobedience in defense of his or her rights, then that person does not truly believe that he or she deserves those rights.

Why on earth would someone believe that that should be punished by an entity that they consider fallacious? How could someone disagree with the letter of the law, but agree with the consequences of breaking that law? That would be non-sequitur.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 4:13:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 3:56:23 PM, Such wrote:
At 1/25/2015 11:22:26 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/25/2015 10:16:51 PM, Such wrote:
At 1/25/2015 10:07:46 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/25/2015 9:47:09 PM, Such wrote:
At 1/25/2015 9:41:34 PM, KhaosMage wrote:

Then why stop at civil disobedience, and just be disobedient?

I imagine you're asking why one would only be civilly disobedient rather than outright break the laws with which they disagree?

Because, these people are not interested in breaking the law, nor being criminals. They are interested in changing laws with which they have grievance or the way laws are enforced.

Thoreau did not believe he belonged in prison.
Did I say he did, or that these protesters do?
Arrested =/= conviction

In your reference to Thoreau, you seemed to insinuate that he accepted that civil disobedience will and should result in penalty. He didn't actually believe that.

Did you miss my direct quote from Civil Disobedience?

"Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. It is there that the fugitive slave, and the Mexican prisoner on parole, and the Indian come to plead the wrongs of his race, should find them; on that separate, but more free and honorable ground, where the State places those who are not with her but against her,"the only house in a slave-state in which a free man can abide with honor. If any think that their influence would be lost there, and their voices no longer afflict the ear of the State, that they would not be as an enemy within its walls, they do not know by how much truth is stronger than error, nor how much more eloquently and effectively he can combat injustice who has experienced a little in his own person. Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence. A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight."

I didn't miss that. I've read Thoreau. I also understand what I read. Thoreau believe that governments are, as a rule, corrupt and fallacious. He believed that a man, in exercising his rights, will end up in prison, but that shouldn't stop him from exercising his rights.

Thoreau saw, as the above excerpt demonstrates, the act of civil disobedience as one intended to lead to imprisonment. He did believe that people who engaged in civil disobedience belonged in prison, as that was the entire point of engaging in it in the first place. The imprisonment was at once a symbolic defiance and a means of crippling the government by refusing to acquiesce to its threats. If he lived in a just government, then there would be no point to civil disobedience and no question of whether or not being thrown in jail for it was acceptable or not.

It literally begins with, "Under a government which imprisons any unjustly...," to contextualize the excerpt. Therefore, the point of civil disobedience isn't to go to prison, and he didn't believe that those who engage in civil disobedience belonged in prison, else he would consider it a just and logical result of civil disobedience. He, instead, stated that going to prison should not deter someone from civil disobedience, and if going to prison allays one's inclination for civil disobedience in defense of his or her rights, then that person does not truly believe that he or she deserves those rights.

Why on earth would someone believe that that should be punished by an entity that they consider fallacious? How could someone disagree with the letter of the law, but agree with the consequences of breaking that law? That would be non-sequitur.

Let me break this down.

"Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison."

You cut half of the sentence off, then contradicted that half. This is really cut and dry. If a society imprisons people unjustly, then it is a form of protest for just men to go to prison through civil disobedience.

"The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles."

Here it is, reiterated for you. The going to prison is an act of putting and locking oneself out physically, as they have in principle.

"It is there that the fugitive slave, and the Mexican prisoner on parole, and the Indian come to plead the wrongs of his race, should find them; on that separate, but more free and honorable ground, where the State places those who are not with her but against her, - the only house in a slave-state in which a free man can abide with honor."

Here he argues that the prison is the abode of free men in a slave state.

"If any think that their influence would be lost there, and their voices no longer afflict the ear of the State, that they would not be as an enemy within its walls, they do not know by how much truth is stronger than error, nor how much more eloquently and effectively he can combat injustice who has experienced a little in his own person."

Here Thoreau argues that it's good for those who combat injustice to experience it, another plus of going to prison. He also points out the the battle can be fought from within the prison's walls.

"Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence. A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight."

And here it is in stone. The ENTIRE PURPOSE of civil disobedience is to GO TO JAIL. To remove oneself not just on a philosophical basis, but on a physical one, from society. To exert one's entire influence to, as Thoreau put it, clog the system by a minority's whole weight. It is a method of protest whereby one turns the penalty of the state against itself, in order to, as Thoreau argues later: 'let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine.'

If you are arguing that Thoreau believes that a state of affairs in which men must disobey and be imprisoned for their principles is undesirable, then that is undoubtedly true, as well as painfully obvious. If you are arguing that he advocated something other than knowingly breaking the law with prison as the foreseeable, and intended, outcome, then you are flat-out wrong.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 6:58:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 4:13:00 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

Let me break this down.

"Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison."

You cut half of the sentence off, then contradicted that half. This is really cut and dry. If a society imprisons people unjustly, then it is a form of protest for just men to go to prison through civil disobedience.

"The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles."

Here it is, reiterated for you. The going to prison is an act of putting and locking oneself out physically, as they have in principle.

"It is there that the fugitive slave, and the Mexican prisoner on parole, and the Indian come to plead the wrongs of his race, should find them; on that separate, but more free and honorable ground, where the State places those who are not with her but against her, - the only house in a slave-state in which a free man can abide with honor."

Here he argues that the prison is the abode of free men in a slave state.

"If any think that their influence would be lost there, and their voices no longer afflict the ear of the State, that they would not be as an enemy within its walls, they do not know by how much truth is stronger than error, nor how much more eloquently and effectively he can combat injustice who has experienced a little in his own person."

Here Thoreau argues that it's good for those who combat injustice to experience it, another plus of going to prison. He also points out the the battle can be fought from within the prison's walls.

"Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence. A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight."

And here it is in stone. The ENTIRE PURPOSE of civil disobedience is to GO TO JAIL. To remove oneself not just on a philosophical basis, but on a physical one, from society. To exert one's entire influence to, as Thoreau put it, clog the system by a minority's whole weight. It is a method of protest whereby one turns the penalty of the state against itself, in order to, as Thoreau argues later: 'let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine.'

If you are arguing that Thoreau believes that a state of affairs in which men must disobey and be imprisoned for their principles is undesirable, then that is undoubtedly true, as well as painfully obvious. If you are arguing that he advocated something other than knowingly breaking the law with prison as the foreseeable, and intended, outcome, then you are flat-out wrong.

I didn't contradict any portion of any sentence. I isolated the qualifier that gave Thoreau's sentence, and the excerpt you posted, meaning.

Let me give you an example.

If someone says, "in a situation in which someone threatens a man's family's life or well-being, the true reaction for a man is to kill that someone," then goes on to explain how important it is to engage and execute that killing, that person is not issuing an argument for all murder. That person is, instead, indicating that within the purview of a threat to one's family, that person believes, out of preservation of that family, a killing should result.

The second excerpt was not a reiteration. It was, instead, an elaboration, in which Thoreau indicates that in a system in which someone has no rights, he is already imprisoned in that system, and might as well stand by his principles by allowing that imprisonment to be literal.

Thoreau, in the third section you quoted, continued to elucidate that in a system in which certain men already have their freedoms stripped away, they can reach a degree of freedom by choosing which way they will allow their freedoms to be stripped, and on an even keel with one another.

The next excerpt, you indicated that Thoreau was arguing another virtue of going to prison. He was not. He was, instead, stating that justice is better sought in the light of obvious and egregious injustice, i.e., prison. "How must more eloquently and effectively he can combat injustice who has experienced a little in his own person," is stating that one can more effectively communicate injustice if their very being serves as an example.

With your "stone," you claim that the purpose of civil disobedience is to go to jail. This isn't the case. The excerpt you provided was an explanation of just one type of civil disobedience, and given the fact of unjust imprisonment.

The purpose is not to incite unjust imprisonment. It suggests that all governments, including our own, imprison people unjustly as a rule.

What of those governments with unjust laws, but without unjust imprisonment? Who of those governments who allow for actions like civil disobedience in the form of strikes or assembly, as a right to combat injustices of the establishment? Is it impossible to exercise civil disobedience altogether, or instead, possible to exercise it without the necessity of imprisonment?

A call for imprisonment in the face of civil disobedience creates a government that mirrors Thoreau's interpretation, but that interpretation does not need to be the case. There may be unjust sanctions that can be brought to light and approached resulting from civil disobedience, without the requirement for the next step of injustice, which would be imprisonment.

A lack of imprisonment in the face of civil disobedience wouldn't make Thoreau wrong; it would make him proud.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2015 9:46:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 10:01:24 AM, KhaosMage wrote:
At 1/26/2015 9:25:52 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/25/2015 10:32:57 PM, KhaosMage wrote:
At 1/25/2015 10:31:31 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/25/2015 7:40:16 PM, KhaosMage wrote:
At 1/25/2015 9:07:50 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
So, in the 60's, you'd be screaming "why aren't they being arrested?!" at the protesters then?

Yep. And I may well have been a part of them as well.
Do you think that civil disobedience is immune from consequence?


There may be consequences but I don't think there SHOULD be consequences for breaking unjust laws. And that's where the outrages come from.

Trespassing is an unjust law?

A particular application of a morally neutral or just law can be unjust.

So, what you are saying is, is that protesters should be able to trespass on my property, shout and chant throughout the night making sleep difficult for me and my neighbors, block the road so I cannot drive to work, because they are upset about my position on a matter?


1. It's not YOUR property.
2. It's quite an important issue (literally life and death in many cases). I don't see any problem with people being inconvenienced that these protesters where there - that's the whole point.

What law is unjust in these protests? The issue is a refusal to indict, which is not a law at all. Their response is to break numerous laws, with untold consequences for innocents (perhaps people are being fired for being late to work, or missing their flight) for them to make a point.

Like I said, the point is quite important.

Kudos to them for making their point, but they do not have free reign to infringe on others' rights or wantingly break the law. Or do you believe that pro-lifers should be immune to prosecution, since they are fighting an unjust law?

Sure, if improper application of the law leads to them to call morally right protests trespassing....yeah
I find calling it trespassing just as silly as it was during the friendship 9.

http://www.theatlantic.com...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!