When slaves ran away before the Civil War they were breaking the law..

[Fumesucker]

When Abolitionists sheltered runaway slaves they were breaking the law.

Moral authority is sometimes in direct opposition to the law.

[Occulus]

1. "Oh, but that's DIFFERENT."

-DU Authoritarian Follower Personalities

[Donald Ian Rankin]

9. Well, yes, it is.

Satirising a position is not a substitute for refuting it!

[RZM]

13. Pointing out the differences between slaves/abolitionists and OWS protesters

Does not make one an 'authoritarian follower.' It's evidence of basic critical thinking skills.

[HappyMe]

17. Yes, it is way different.

I find it incredibly arrogant for ows to compare themselves to abolitionists, the Underground Railroad and Rosa Parks.

Sorry ows, not even fucking close.

[OneGrassRoot]

2. Rosa Parks broke the law. Bless her for doing so. :) n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. She broke it by "occupying" a bus seat.

[Philosopher King]

4. That is the same logic used by anti-abortion advocates...

[Fumesucker]

5. How many 1% ers has OWS killed again?

:shrug:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. How many people has it saved from slavery?

Some laws are sufficiently bad that breaking them is justifiable.

Most are not.

Drawing the analogy with slavery to justify breaking a law, and leaving it at that, is not a line of argument, just an opportunity for backslapping.

[lumberjack_jeff]

11. The day is still young. There are plenty of slaves to liberate. n/t

[JoeyT]

19. All of us if it's successful. n/t

[PETRUS]

6. Which is why public opinion matters.

And that is fundamental to civil disobedience. If people strongly disapprove of the methods (violence, for example, turns most people off) or your cause, you generally don't get anywhere. If the ideas behind your actions appeal to people's moral sensibility, you're on your way to change.

[pitohui]

12. and yet this has not proven to be true at all

example--everyone, everywhere, loves animals and wildlife and trees and parks, the full force of public opinion is that we should all support the environment, and yet we are well on our way to extinction of a significant portion of the earth's biosphere -- having public opinion on your side hasn't proved to be worth very much at all and this in a battle for the very survival of the planet

asking nicely hasn't worked, appealing to the 99% who already support you hasn't worked

the propaganda argument against violence is weak -- if you are against violence, make the moral argument that it's wrong or the practical argument that it just results in attacking other people on your side or stuck in the mess with you (the l.a. rioters destroyed their own neighborhoods and people, they could never reach the 1% who benefit from a large underclass)

the argument that "folks won't like you if you get violent" is not proven true by history, anyway, did people respect gays more or less after stonewall? did people respect the libyan rebels more or less after they (FINALLY) rose up against qaddafi? people respond to violent resistance in unpredictable ways and anyway...folks liking you or not liking you is turning out to be less important than we are taught in high school anyway

i for one don't support violence but make a strong argument against violence not a contemptible one or you're just egging on the higher energy/needs action crowd -- "they won't like you if you get uppity" is a contemptible argument to an independent mind

[PETRUS]

14. You're making good points.

But I think you misunderstand where I'm coming from, as I don't disagree with you.

I did not mean to suggest that the moral high ground and majority support guarantees anything. Defenders of the status quo have overwhelming resources at their disposal.

Nor did I mean to imply by making only one point about problems relating to the use of violence that that is the only reason to employ nonviolent methods.

There is so much to be said, and even several paragraphs wouldn't cover it all. I was just trying to be concise and make a couple of points that related directly to the previous post. I have no objections to your expansion.

[PETRUS]

7. +1

[WingDinger]

8. I expect them to soon charge with terrorism.

Once, a cop said I was the american terrorist, and that he could throw me into Guantanamo. I had followed a guy that tried to cause a pileup on the freeway. TRIED. HARD. I said he SHOULd worry about getting his ass kicked. they waited with me till he was long gone. I said they were enablers. they didnt like me taking justice into my own hands.

[treestar]

15. Those laws were the laws being protested themselves

The same laws. The one that said blacks must sit on the back of the bus.

As opposed to whatever municipal ordinances are in question.

And Rosa Parks did get arrested, no? Those protestors took on the penalty too. The DU idea seems to be no, suspend those laws and don't enforce them.

Interestingly, had the South done that, they wouldn't have created a need for the Civil Rights laws. Had those states just said forget it and quit enforcing those laws, they'd be antiquated laws on the books.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

16. Native Americans would break the law by merely trying to assert the law

When tribes like the Cherokee, for example, tried to assert property ownership rights to land on which legal deeds had been filed and began winning in state courts, states like Georgia then passed laws making it illegal for a Native American to bring any kind of legal action against a White man.

[HopeHoops]

18. Well said. K&R.