durangodawood
re Member
- Aug 28, 2007
- 27,360
- 19,073
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Single
That makes total sense when the disposition of the court would favor your side.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That makes total sense when the disposition of the court would favor your side.And I've pointed out in this thread or some other current thread that the core principle of Civil Rights Era civil disobedience was to break--very narrowly and very specifically--the particular law at issue, be charged for it, and force that law to be proven in court.
Blacks lost in court many times for a long time, ever since the Dred Scott decision, before we started winning.That makes total sense when the disposition of the court would favor your side.
For sure. But what does that say about the civil disobedience prescription you offered: narrowly tailoring the disobedience to the particular unjust law? Whats the point during a time when theres no hope of prevailing in court?Blacks lost in court many times for a long time, ever since the Dred Scott decision, before we started winning.
See my edit.For sure. But what does that say about the civil disobedience prescription you offered: narrowly tailoring the disobedience to the particular unjust law? Whats the point during a time when theres no hope of prevailing in court?
You missed the point. I'm simply asserting that any right that you claim to have, I must also have.
So if you're going to claim for yourself the right to protest in one instance, then you tacitly approve of my right to do so in another.
Just did. Theres something touching and kind of shocking about hearing of how America, the different parts of it, was from someone I'm actually interacting with who experienced it.See my edit.
I get the sense theres too many dimensions to the issue to answer your question with a simple one or the other.Here is the thing: Do the majority of Americans actually disagree with deporting illegal immigrants...or is the problem with ICE for most Americans really just the optics?
What an odd statement. That's not a simple proclamation, that's law.
That's not persecution, that's prosecution.
As an American I would think that you would understand the significance of your right to prprotest.
Not all countries are born of rebellion..... but that was a long time ago.There is nothing "American" about protesting. Protesting long predates the United States, and every country across the world experiences protest, generation after generation. On and on.
Probably they'd be backed up with the traffic of others taking the same alternative route.This would be a big problem if there was only one single road in a city. Go a different route. That’s what I do when the streets backed up with traffic. Why would it be any different if the streets are backed up by protesters?
I agree with so much of what you say, only I think I'd send them home, instead of locking them up, with a warning that re-offending would lead to arrest.Yeah - I came here to say similar.
The blocking of traffic. It's an act to aggravate people. Random people. People who may not agree with your cause. Or, maybe they do agree with your cause. You aggravate several 100 to several 1000 people and there are bound to be people in that group that actually agree that whatever you are protesting about is wrong. Your actions may cause them to re-think their views.
Speaking only for myself. Let's say I agree with you 100% that whatever you are protesting about is wrong. But, you make me miss work and get fired (or cause someone else to get fired) or cause someone to die because ambulance / fire / police can't get through because you are blocking traffic and sitting in the middle of the road, then I'm going want the police would come and drag you out of the road. Because it isn't effective protest, it is just aggravating random people. Its like kids going around egging houses and knocking over mailboxes of random houses on halloween.
Its kind of like climate protestors damaging art work. Full disclosure. I think there does need to be more action on climate. I also love art. I also think protestors who throw glue, soup, paint, or otherwise damage art work should be locked up and are doing nothing to further their cause. Many museums are as "green" as possible, many art lovers lean left, and the artists themselves are usually long dead. It does nothing to further their cause and just makes the protestors look bad.
... what's legal doesn't matter... it's what's just that matters.
If "Joe" wants to protest by climate injustice by holding up a sign on sidewalk, that's very different than if Joe wants to protest climate injustice by spray-painting "Just Stop Oil" the side of your store.
Secondly,
A person's previous actions impact the degree to which those "rights to do the things I want to do" can be done "inconvenience-free".
For example, that random person sitting 18 cars back did nothing to impact the thing the protestors are blocking their road access for, therefore, their expectation of "I should be able to drive to work without getting hassled by a bunch of random people" is quite reasonable.
In ancient times, their version of protest was pelting rocks at one another. My how advanced we've gotten to transform our rocks into written slogans.Not all countries are born of rebellion..... but that was a long time ago.
The right to protest is not being obviated.As an American I would think that you would understand the significance of your right to protest.
This is LA. If you've driven LA, you'd know better than to say that.This would be a big problem if there was only one single road in a city. Go a different route. That’s what I do when the streets backed up with traffic. Why would it be any different if the streets are backed up by protesters?
The right to protest is not being obviated.
The E Pettus Bridge march was mentioned earlier. Go study that. Even just Google the images. The protestors were walking along the side of the road, not impeding traffic. They would have accepted arrest peacefully, because that's how things were being handled.
But the police attacked them brutally despite the fact that they were peaceful and not blocking social activity, only being visible...that's what persecution is.
I'm not going to deny the fact that you have a point, the person sitting 18 cars back did nothing to deserve being inconvenienced, and their right to "drive to work without getting hassled by a bunch of random people" is indeed quite reasonable. But the point of a protest is to raise the level of public discourse to a level where it can't simply be driven by and ignored, as much as you or I may want to.
As I alluded to previously, I acknowledge your right to protest only in-so-far as you'll acknowledge mine. If you can engage in what some might consider to be unjust behavior... legal or not, then you tacitly approve of my right to do the same.
There is nothing "American" about protesting.
It's peculiarly American. We have a constitutional right for peaceable assembly to voice grievances concerning our governance, which is a another way to say, "Protest." I mean, anything short of that is not-American.
Still thinking about this specific of this issue, and I dont think I really know where the American people come down on the various aspects of this question..Here is the thing: Do the majority of Americans actually disagree with deporting illegal immigrants...or is the problem with ICE for most Americans really just the optics?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?