Here you go again, @seguso, painting the world with absolute broad strokes of black and white.
You seem to want to win arguments on technicalities and word play rather than practical reason.
Sorry, but it doesn’t appetizer me. I wish you luck.
dZ.
What does it even mean to “win” an argument? I don’t care about this. I even hate to contradict someone. But if I read something that (to me) clearly means “in no case an unjust law must be disobeyed”, of course I reply with an obvious example of an unjust law that it’s ok to disobey. And then, if you make me look like someone who compares Hitler with copyright laws, of course I am annoyed.
The problem is this particular example is cheap and hyperbolic. @DZ-Jay was just trying to say that there is an area between blind obedience and violent revolution.
1 Like
I read and reread the original paragraph, but I can’t find any place where DZ-Jay even slightly hints to the fact that sometimes it can be ok to disobey a law:
Whether you accept it, like it, or not, copyright is the law and a principle in most civil societies. I appreciate the fact that it has been co-opted and subverted by commercial interests, and that much in the current system is of questionable value to our society (that being precisely the overarching purpose of it); but it is the law and it exists. If you disagree with it, you should contact your elected official representatives (or the equivalent in your country) and have them change the law – but you don’t just say “I can’t justify it, so I won’t follow it.”
It looked like, for him, the only proper thing to do is to contact the elected representatives. He does not slightly hint to the fact that, at some point, it might become appropriate to disobey a law. And he looks like he is generalizing, not restricting himself to copyright law only: “it is the law and it exists.” He is talking of a law that must be followed just because it is law. The “cheap” reply that I gave seems appropriate to me. I cannot read minds.
He was talking about using your constitutional possibilities (changing things you don´t like without having to resort to disobedience), then you took the extreme example into it.
Can you please point me to the place where he acknowledges the possibility to do something else than contact the elected representatives?
Why do think this would be the better idea?
Let me restate: could you point me to the place where he acknowledges that, after contacting the elected representatives asking to change the unjust law, and after these representatives refused, it can be permissible to do something else? (Like disobeying the unjust law)
Nobody has to make statements about anything just so you don´t assume he condones the extreme opposite, that´s just a false assumption. And I´m not here to continue anyone else´s argument.
If
isn´t good enough for you I really can´t help you here.
He does not have to, right. But since a lot of (even most) people have the naive belief that law must be obeyed without exceptions, just because it is the law, and since he did not signal in any way that he was not one of those people, then I was right to assume he was one of those people, right? And then my "cheap " example was totally appropriate. Right? Naive positions call for cheap responses.
And the part that you cited was made after my reply.
I just think that Mike Godwin is a very smart guy.
4 Likes
No, give him the benefit of the doubt.
Again no, it was totally uncalled for. It creates false equivalents and totally derailes the discussion. If you cite nazism you create a place for yourself where no one can disagree with you and that is cheap.
@seguso: while I know perfectly what you did there, I suggest you to follow Riker’s advice: 
1 Like