06-03-2021, 06:18 PM
(06-03-2021, 08:46 AM)Dill Wrote: The "personal criteria" you refer to exist as a long history of precedent, beginning with Thoreau's 1848 essay "Civil Disobedience."
But refined through engagement with MLK, who spends most of his "Letter from Birmingham Jail" explaining the steps involved in non violent direct action (non-violence being one of the criteria for defining an act as civil disobedience) and the relation of the disobedient to the law which separates his actions from "general law breaking."
https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html
An updated "capsule" definition might be found here, just to establish how widely recognized the criteria of civil disobedience are, how the practice of civil disobedience is separated from "general law breaking":
The Six Characteristic Elements Of Civil Disobedience https://youmatter.world/en/definition/civil-disobedience-definition/
If people employed the above-mentioned "elements" in protesting abortion, then I would certainly agree they were practicing civil disobedience. I can do that without agreeing with their goal. And not agreeing doesn't involve me in a "massive double standard."
So now we are back to your claim that people silently refusing to follow the law and register guns qualifies as civil disobedience. How, specifically, is rule of law honored in the violation here?
(06-03-2021, 08:55 AM)Dill Wrote: 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.
"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."
Both of these, predictably, long winded posts are essentially one long, drawn out, semantic argument. You don't like the term "civil disobedience" being used in this regard, fine. I couldn't care less. Refusing to follow an unjust law is exactly civil disobedience, whether it meets your provided criteria or not. Call it whatever you want IDGAF, the act remains the same.
