Originally posted by BackFireYes you are saying it's right. By saying that the consequences she faced were appropriate to the crime she committed that's basically saying that the law was right about not letting black people sit in the front of the bus. If she got what she deserved than that basically means she was wrong to want to keep her seat. What would you consider is the best way for someone to try to change a law they feel is unjust, assuming they have no authority on the subject?
Well, at that time she should have gotten whatever the consequence is for breaking that law. Not saying it's right, or fair, but she knowingly broke the law, and as such she deserved the penalty for that time.There are ways to try to change laws other then blatantly breaking them, in fact, breaking laws is probably the worst way to try to make a point about them being unjust, it just makes you look dumb for purposely breaking a law.
...
Originally posted by Darth Revan
Maddox is often right, but he's wrong about this one... True civil disobedience includes accepting whatever punishment that you are dealt for any illegal activities. The idea being that people will realize how unjust being punished for whatever it is was. If you resist punishment, you are not practicing civil disobedience.
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Yes you are saying it's right. By saying that the consequences she faced were appropriate to the crime she committed that's basically saying that the law was right about not letting black people sit in the front of the bus. If she got what she deserved than that basically means she was wrong to want to keep her seat. What would you consider is the best way for someone to try to change a law they feel is unjust, assuming they have no authority on the subject?
Oh, maybe protest, write to their government representative. Just about anything but purposely breaking a law and then acting like some victim when they get punished for it.
Also, I'm not saying being punished for sitting on a bus is right (not by my current standards, anyways. At the time it was "right" though). I'm saying that at that time, she knowingly broke the law and as such is subjectable too punishment fitting her crime. What IS right is that she was punished for breaking a law.
Oh, and DR, you're right. People don't realize that civil disobedience includes accepting whatever sentance you're dealt.
Originally posted by BackFireThose forms of protest are always good too but sometimes ineffective on their own when the country chooses to ignore them.
Oh, maybe protest, write to their government representative. Just about anything but purposely breaking a law and then acting like some victim when they get punished for it.Also, I'm not saying being punished for sitting on a bus is right (not by my current standards, anyways. At the time it was "right" though). I'm saying that at that time, she knowingly broke the law and as such is subjectable too punishment fitting her crime. What IS right is that she was punished for breaking a law.
What makes sitting on a bus any more "right" today than it was 50 years ago? Just cause the law says so? The action is exactly the same. I get what you are saying don't push authority if you don't want to deal with the consequences but if you believe that anyone who does this and gets punished gets what they deserve than that's basically the same thing as agreeing with the laws they were fighting. The punishment can't be right without the law being right.. that doesn't make any sense to me.
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
But how will people realize this punishment is unjust if they never know about it happening? Without resisting and causing a scene basically, nobody would even notice the event except for the other people on the bus.
I'm just saying, it's not civil disobedience if you cause a big scene when the cops try to arrest you. What Rosa Parks did was still civil disobedience because although she refused to move she didn't resist arrest. She broke the law and willingly accepted punishment.