Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: BREAKING: 3 killed at Maryland mall [View all]mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)139. "To quote you"
Then you're just one more person I have to fight in order to change said unfair system.
I was referring to what you seemed to be saying, which was that we should only work within the system of laws. You seemed to be indicating that breaking laws was always bad and would resist anyone who did so. Hence, if I were to break laws in order to fight the system, I would also be fighting you.
Also, you did not specify which laws you were advocating breaking. It pretty much seemed like all of them so it was totally appropriate for "my ass" to speculate on which ones you were referring to.
Fair enough. I did comment that my idea or point needed refinement. That refinement is specifically this: first of all, with the system of laws applied unfairly, and with it also being changed to be more unfair (see TPP), it doesn't make sense to say that something is bad because it's not legal. That connection has been broken. Second, my point needs clarification in that, although it's no longer possible to make a case that one "shouldn't" disobey the law on moral grounds (the case can be made that it will get you into trouble), the times where some IS morally obligated to break the law are where the law is specifically designed to be unfair - to favor corporations' profits over people. Now, if the system of laws continues to become more unfair, overthrouw of the government is REQUIRED, which necessarily means breaking a lot of laws. Application will certainly be uneven and not well targeted, which is unfortunate but leaving the system in place is more so.
From this:
Also, just to be clear, I never argued that "one should limit themselves only to legal means in order to fight the system." My point is and was that your comment that "Why should "the little people" obey the law?" at all was asinine.
I'm arguing that, if corporations break the law, get ahead, and are not punished when found out, why should "the little people" limit themselves to get ahead only by legal means? Furthermore, when politicians alter laws in favor of corporations (that give contributions to said politicians' campaigns, so the changes to laws are benefiting those politicians and other people's expense), the case for not obeying the law by the little people becomes stronger. At some point, it become morally imperative for people to break the law in order to get ahead (or to make ends meet, save their families, etc.) and doing so in a way that harms those politicians or corporations is praiseworthy. Do you see the two levels here? One is, if some people don't follow the law, why should you, and the other is, if some don't follow the law, break it in such a way as to hurt them (the politicians or corporations in this example).
And as you do so, just remember that you will be modeling disrespect for the rule of law you now seem to care about.
I care about the law in that having all of us follow it is good for society, in that people prosper, we are able to lead more pleasant lives, we grow and discover things, etc. However, if the law is allowed to be broken by certain people, that is damaging to society. Not following the law may be the best way to bring attention to the problem and also to make sure that it's understood that we, collectively, are going to not live by the rules in order to make it unpleasant to those already not living by the rules.
It was extremely unpleasant having this interaction with you.
Why is that? My first guess would be that your arguments were challenged, forcing you to explain them more clearly. I did comment that you pulled a few things out of your ass, but that came late in the thread so I don't think it was the main factor. You did think that I was challenging your actions, whereas I was only challenging what seemed to be your point of view (that has been clarified to a good degree, and I have also clarified my point of view as well), which I think is the point of having discussions. If you found that unpleasant, I'm sorry, but that's how these things work. By extension, that's how the world works - it isn't a utopia, and I'm glad of that because what most people seem to think of as a utopia would be boring to start with, and not truly living.
If you want me to, I'll find a kitten picture and post it.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
156 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Why so many shootings - over 20 shot in Baltimore City already now Columbia
Rosa Luxemburg
Jan 2014
#24
I totally agree…the thrill isn't just in killing, it is in hopes of getting their way.
Tikki
Jan 2014
#19
I as an individual person am not allowing any of this to keep happening.
OrwellwasRight
Jan 2014
#112
I'm starting to wonder if this isn't copy cat actions based on media attention.
NutmegYankee
Jan 2014
#3
That's "aliens are in charge of the government" crazy you're peddling there
muriel_volestrangler
Jan 2014
#94
Damn, this is getting to be a daily event. Yet another WTF. I often wonder if this
RKP5637
Jan 2014
#18
In order to guarantee a well-regulated militia and countless homicidal maniacs?
Divernan
Jan 2014
#25
This is true, some states may have some common sense regulation but no state is very restrictive
Bjorn Against
Jan 2014
#37
It is true that VA and WV have more lenient laws but it is easy to legally get guns in all 50 states
Bjorn Against
Jan 2014
#124
While we can talk about everything, we can not pretend that all factors are equal
Bjorn Against
Jan 2014
#42
The strict gun law in Maryland means nothing when you have surrounding states that
Lint Head
Jan 2014
#38
Cue Gundamenralists saying it wasn't the gun in 5. . .4. . .3. . .2. . .1. . .
Nanjing to Seoul
Jan 2014
#57
Never said I did. I stick by my original statement. It's an oddity, not a regular thing.
ScreamingMeemie
Jan 2014
#107
You keep saying you're going to end the conversation, then you keep responding.
OrwellwasRight
Jan 2014
#111
We have a WalMart smack dab in the middle of the local mall.(suburban Pittsburgh)
Divernan
Jan 2014
#119
Too close to home. Husband called at 11:50am to tell me he was fine (at work at mall complex)
Neurotica
Jan 2014
#71
Instead of fire drills, employers/schools can have effing-crazy-gun-nut drills.
Divernan
Jan 2014
#118