"Minority Rule"

[Dill]

(06-05-2021, 05:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Again, we're discussing a concept.  If you dislike the term "civil disobedience" to describe gun owners refusals to adhere to gun laws then pick another.  As stated, I don't care, but the concept is exactly the same, a refusal to adhere to laws that are unjust.  All of the rest of your argument is semantics. 

We are not discussing the same concept though. And there isn't another term for what I am calling "civil disobedience." Were I to use another term, it would confuse people--at least those familiar with the practice of civil disobedience.

King recognized that just disobeying laws because one thinks they are unjust is insufficient to distinguish true civil disobedience from garden-variety law breaking. 

He knew proponents of segregation recognized that as well. They asked him why he demanded others obey the court decision striking down segregation--i.e. obey the law--while he reserved for himself the right to break it by organizing an "illegal" demonstration. That's why he added extra qualifications, like breaking the law publicly and deliberately engaging legal authority by submitting to punishment, in order to raise the question of law's real purpose.

If you are right, then all the rest of his argument was "semantics" too.  But even King's enemies didn't misunderstand his point that badly.

(06-05-2021, 05:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Your sole purpose with this discussion is to lessen the objections and actions of people you don't agree with and strengthen those that you do.  

?? So in short, I object to actions I don't agree with and support actions I do agree with?? 

Just wondering--

Do you "lessen the objections" etc. of people you agree with while supporting actions of those you don't agree with?