Originally posted by STANGWrong. You made a post that was loosely on topic (and that's being generous), but was intended to hijack this thread and make it about you and your tedious diatribe against the Bush administration.
It answered the question that was the subject matter of this thread.
Originally posted by Natural ScienceI think Bush is a good example. International law should also be considered.
Wrong. You made a post that was loosely on topic (and that's being generous), but was intended to hijack this thread and make it about you and your tedious diatribe against the Bush administration.
There are many circumstancers, IMO, that it is not only morally acceptable, but perhaps even necessary to break the law.
I agree that using whatever means are necessary to feed oneself ond your dependants in a crisis like Hurricane Katrina. Only people like Bush would put profit before people in these circumstances - I'm told Haliburton have already been awarded contracts for reconstruction.
The different point I'd like to make is in the circumstances of an unjust law. In such cases, breaking the law is the right thing to do. For example, people in the US who ignore segregation laws and sat in 'forbidden' seats on busses, british sufferagetes who broke the law to campaign for womens' votes, non-payment of thatcher's poll tax in britain, campaigners outside Faslane - britain's Trident base. Etc Etc.
In circumstances like this, it is not only ok to break the law, it is necessary for any sort of social progress.
Originally posted by ivanhoeMost laws are to protect the rich from the poor. So, in my honest and humble opinion, most laws should be systematically broken.
..... in case of an emergy ?
or: Is it ok to loot in case of a catastrophy ?
What are your thoughts on this ?
EDIT: Spelling catastrophy as I did must be a Freudian slip .......
Originally posted by shavixmirThough there are an increasing number of laws to protect the poor from being enslaved by the rich ... and we wouldn't want to see them broken.
Most laws are to protect the rich from the poor. So, in my honest and humble opinion, most laws should be systematically broken.
Originally posted by DelmerI'm not on about appeasing terrorists. You're on about killing them all.
And make no mistake, Stang, we are a threat to your one-dimensional, terrorist-appeasing, slogan-ruled universe.
I use slogans in much the same way America does with its marketing.
You will never kill all the terrorists. You will also kill innocent people. You will breed more terrorism.
Violence leads to Violence.
Peace requires compromise. If this includes what you call "appeasing" then "appeasing" is worth while.
As they say in America, "HAVE A NICE DAY!"
Originally posted by WajomaGets my rec
This has come up on one of the other threads, given certain circumstances (Katrina is one example) it is OK to take things that, in an emergency, would sustain your life.
But IMHO people should if possible leave an IOU and make some effort to repay damage done and goods taken.