Disagreeing with laws and upholding laws and arguing they should be upheld

I'm pretty sure I can. I'm not just arguing the "rightness" of upholding the law. I'm arguing the effectiveness. You point to a handful of "successful" revolutions but you ignore the millions of changes made in laws by peaceful means. One might even be able to argue that the "trouble-maker" approach causes a net hindrance to change. I'm not sure that fictional examples help your case either. I don't.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

Okay, point taken. But then I'd likely counter by suggesting that the failures might not have been of the character as the ones that succeeded. I mean how many Latin American revolutions were motivated out of actual anger over a law or unjust system, rather than simple greed? How many were simply manipulations by outside forces?And then how many were actually well thought out and executed?Remember I do agree that one has to choose carefully when to implement defiance... especially openly, and especially with violence. Hmmmmmm, and I was about to start noting how successful the rebels were against the Empire. Heheheh. When you say that, I stand completely confused. I originally said that the fetal-homicide law could then be extended to punish stem cell researchers and abortionists. If your reply wasn't that that was a case of good laws being applied badly, can you repeat and explain what your response is to that possibility. Wouldn't that possibility indicate the errant nature of that law, the unjust nature of the law?

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

There's always the possibility of a good law being applied badly. I don't think I've ever mentioned stem cell research at all. Abortion could/would certainly fall under fetal-homicide laws, but I've never said that fetal-homicide laws were good in any way. So I don't know where your confusion lies. What I remember is that I said the law should be upheld, even if the individual doesn't agree with it, even if the police officer or prosecutor doesn't agree with it. I remember you disagreeing vehemently and coming up with bogus examples of how important it is to break the law.If you've backed off to pretty near my position, I'll accept your sword. Edited by Ringo, : Spellling.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

i think its impossible to not the break the law; our legal syatem in the US ius "self-funded". if everyone followed the laws then our very huge expensive legal system would go bankrupt.so they make sure theres laws your going to break. (ever driven 5 miles over the speedlimit? yes, it does get expensive)unjust laws, if they can be proven unjust, should not be followed, but by diplomacy and unification of the governed people found as unjust by the courts.this would be the "proper" way..yet..sometimes as history has proven, not always effective.corruption around my parts is very high. most cops dont get paid well..so they take bribes. so do our politicians. id say the greatest police force we have around these parts is the media.i beleive laws need to be followed tho. although i can rant pretty hard about the seatbelt law. whats next, a bathmat law? you COULD slip and fall...i cant really add much value to this topic, because just and unjust is a matter of opinion. and would differ by region.what id like to see added as legal in the US:right to protect your property.right to protect your family.theives who cut themselves breaking into your house , can NOT sue.