• More than violent

    Gandhi and Martin Luther King Junior were huge proponents of non violent civil disobedience. They thought that you have to have the moral high ground and then public opinion will turn with you. It should be glorified more than violence because it is more effective and actually harder to do.

  • It is what it is.

    No, non-violent civil disobedience should not be glorified, because it is neither a positive thing or a negative thing. A person who engages in non-violent civil disobedience has found a way to state his or her opinion. Others can join or not. The person who disobeys should have to live with the consequences.

  • No, not glorified.

    Non-violent civil disobedience should not be glorified, it should simply be done in cases where it needs to be done. People need to get out and stand together when wrongs are being committed. When you have unity, you have a thriving community. Especially when a thriving community controls their own government.

  • No, it shouldn't

    Civil disobedience for the sake of civil disobedience doesn't make you a hero, it makes you a moron. Occupy Wall Street is a great example, they got media attention and then when asked what they were protesting none of them had any idea, and they are rightfully a punchline now. Only glorify it if it has a clear and worthy purpose.

  • No, non-violent disobedience should not be glorified.

    I do not believe that non-violence disobedient should be glorified. I think that while it should be legal, I do not there is anything about it that makes it something that should be glorified by the media for example. People should be willing to express their beliefs without getting help from the media.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.