"Minority Rule"

[Dill]

(06-03-2021, 01:17 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not to you, but thankfully that is not a bar the concept has to hurdle.
Of course you don't.
The most important part of that sentence being the word "I".  You clearly live in a bubble of what Dill believes and discount all other possibilities.

So far, it looks like you were not using the concept of civil disobedience as it is generally understood among political scientists and activists. Rather than assert that your usage was not a "bar the concept has to hurdle" or accuse you of living in your own bubble or responding "of course you don't," or immediately questioning your good faith, I have taken the time to explain in more detail the classic definition of civil disobedience.

My employment of the term, drawn from long-standing definitions and practice, does not establish that I "live in a bubble" or "discount all other possibilities" just because I "discount" as civil disobedience actions which don't fit generally acknowledged criteria of civil disobedience. Though I am still listening if you can show me how your example of refusal to register guns fits those generally acknowledged criteria. 

I'm asking for clarification, again, of what you mean by "subjective opinion" in adjudicating ethical behavior based upon principles collectively held and objectively enshrined in law. So far, it just seems you are using the notion to create a false equivalence between actions which have more solid ethical ground and those with less (or none). So far, no one responding to your original example has expressed ethical paralysis regarding the walkout or the intent to reduce access for some demographics.

If "massive double standards" are bad, and "honest debate" is a goal here and a criterion you'd hold me to, then my request for clarification ought to be met with clarification, not dismissal. 

(06-03-2021, 01:17 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:*Think of someone publicly burning a draft card and going to jail, as opposed to someone driving through a stop sign because no one was looking.

Yes, let's look at this fascinating analogy.  One involves ignoring a law based on principle, and the other involves ignoring a traffic ordinance because "no one's looking".  Honestly, it's like you're not even trying to have an honest debate.  Please explain to us all how ignoring a stop sign is an example of civil disobedience.  

"Us"? 

The point of the example was to contrast a clearly defined act of civil disobedience with an act which was just "general law breaking." So someone ignoring a stop sign was not offered as an example of civil disobedience, but of an action which was NOT civil disobedience.  Note the cue: "as opposed to."