>> ^imstellar28:
Non-violent protest against a political ideology...hmmm where does that sound familiar...Martin Luther King Jr., Ghandi? Didn't they receive Nobel Peaces Prizes? And this guy gets a Terrible and on the "Worst Person List?"
The liberal mind is seriously warped...


Comparing this guy to Martin Luther King Jr... Ghandi?... yeah... And Obama is the second comming of hittler... those liberal minds sure are warped... not at all a stretch.

Non-violent protest against a political ideology...hmmm where does that sound familiar...Martin Luther King Jr., Ghandi? Didn't they receive Nobel Peaces Prizes? And this guy gets a * Terrible and on the "Worst Person List?"

The liberal mind is seriously warped...

"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."

--Martin Luther King jr.

You're a really smart guy and from all accounts pretty darned talented, so I really don't understand this almost obsessive loathing that you have for anything that remotely resembles a group effort, i.e. collectivism. If I didn't hope to have a beer with you and "tie on one" someday I wouldn't even bother responding to your anti-collectivist, lone cowboy diatribes.

I think you're...kind of shooting yourself in the foot by ascribing a blanketed evil intent on everything that seems to involve two or more people working together to achieve a common goal.

I mean, even your movie, man. Look at your movie. You didn't do that all yourself. You couldn't have. You probably did a lot of it, and I'm not diminishing that effort, buy if it were left to you and only you to write, direct, produce, perform in, light, record, film, score, edit, and promote...you'd be working on it to this very day, and it wouldn't be nearly as good. And that kind of cooperation, that group effort for a greater good, applies to almost everything, not just movies.

And I'll make you a bet, anything that you can name, any goal, any achievement that you think you and I could do on our own, if I have one person to help me in reaching that goal, I'll get there before you. If I have ten people I'll get there even faster. And if I have a hundred, faster and greater still.

I know I'll lose some of those bets, but I'm confident that I'll win enough of them to make that loss insignificant.

Gonna watch "The Hurt Locker" tomorrow. Looking forward to it.






In reply to this comment by blankfist:
In reply to this comment by rougy:
Hmmmm. A lot to digest there, Kubrick.

Sort of neutral on J.D. Salinger. Only read Catcher in the Rye and one of his short stories, Banana Fish. I heard rumors that he and Thomas Pynchon were one in the same, and I really enjoyed Gravity's Rainbow, but I doubt the rumor was true after just now googling it.

Terrance Malick I really, really, really fucking like. I thought The Thin Red Line line was sublime. The New World, Days of Heaven, Badlands...I genuinely loved each and every one of those films. Each would deserve a post of its own for me to share my critique. The man has a gifted eye.

Gilmore Girls? Maybe I'll check it out. Doubtful. I really thought you knew me better than that, because from your description, it's not my kind of show at all. I don't really watch much television, especially series oriented shows. I only watch it now because I'm living with mamason and the thing's almost always on, or tempting me to turn it on. When I finally sell the house and get the fuck out of Roswell, I won't have a television in my home for a long, long time, not even for Netflix vids.

Few people detest...nay, despise the "corporate cog" scene more than I.

I thought you would have known that by now, too.



I was being facetious. I know you aren't the type to like Gilmore Girls, that's why I used them as an example, because they were so typical American fluff with typical pro-topical issues storylines. Entertainment Weekly and Time Magazine thought the show was fantastic. How lame is that? And they like it for its quick dialog. Really?

My point was that just because you're not pro-social doesn't mean you're wrong. There are a lot of great people who were recluses, and that is distinctively not pro-social behavior. The get along gangs need us contrarians. We like individualism over collectivism. Martin Luther King Jr didn't ask that we judge a group by the content of their character.

What you really mean when you say "I believe everyone should have access to equal healthcare" is that you want someone else to cure your disease. You want someone to pay for your X-rays, someone to extend your lifespan. "Equal healthcare," as you are describing, means we both walk in with a disease and we both walk out without it. It means we all live to be the same age regardless of our condition or lifestyle.

Yet you don't care about people with Xeroderma Pigmentosum. Do you even know what it is? Why not? Why aren't you trying to cure it? Why aren't you donating as much money to the Xeroderma Pigmentosum society (http://www.xps.org) as you are to the American Cancer Society (http://www.cancer.org)? Kids with Xeroderma Pigmentosum rarely live past the age of 20.

Xeroderma pigmentosa, for those not in the know, is caused by an autosomal recessive genetic disorder, aka you are born with it. The symptoms are instant and immediate burning and malignant skin cancer upon even brief exposure to sunlight. Yes, you have all the drawbacks of being a vampire and none of the perks - you die if you go outside, even for an hour.

http://ds9.ssl.berkeley.edu/lws_gems/4/images_4/xp_lg.jpg

http://www.tidsskriftet.no/lts-img/2001/fig200101023.jpg

http://www.metastaticlivercancer.org/dark-skin-girl.jpg

Without genetically modifying your DNA, you cannot cure this disease. This is just one of millions of examples of ways in which people will never be equal. Equality was never about everyone being identical...same height, same DNA, same lifespan, same income, same musical talent, same level of attractiveness...it was about people being treated equally, despite being different.

IMHO, Martin Luther King Jr. would spit on your vision of "equality" and "morality."

You want to make an argument for universal healthcare? You better use logic because you do not have morality or pity on your side.

You are lucky to live in a time where you even have access to a 60 year lifespan or diagnostic X-rays, because as far as I can tell, you haven't done a single thing to enable either. You think human progress is allocated by the government, 2.5% at a time? How many millions of people suffered through all types of diseases, plagues, wars, long hours, deprived social lives, rocky marriages, and short lifespans to create the technologies you are not only demanding as "rights" but complaining about the cost there of?

You resent those who inherit the fortunes of their fathers, yet you yourself have inherited the wealth of all of humanity - language, mathematics, engineering, art, music, literature, agriculture, architecture, and all the lessons of history - a sum far greater than any pile of gold. You are living your entire life off of the sweat, blood, and tears of your ancestors - and you have the gall to complain about what you've been given?

The billions of people who died before you weren't nearly as lucky, and I bet they didn't complain half as much.

Yes, it's a crap title. If you could help me come up with something better, I'm listening.

In reply to this comment by MaxWilder:
Title is inappropriate. It's not about forcing children to conform, but forcing people who want the world to be a better place into people who accept the cesspool that the world currently is. As shown by the dedication to Martin Luther King Jr., this is about people who reject hatred and warmongers.

>> ^MaxWilder:
Title is inappropriate. It's not about forcing children to conform, but forcing people who want the world to be a better place into people who accept the cesspool that the world currently is. As shown by the dedication to Martin Luther King Jr., this is about people who reject hatred and warmongers.



If anyone can come up with a better title Id be happy to change it.

Title is inappropriate. It's not about forcing children to conform, but forcing people who want the world to be a better place into people who accept the cesspool that the world currently is. As shown by the dedication to Martin Luther King Jr., this is about people who reject hatred and warmongers.

^Why must you lower the level of discourse, rougy? Name calling and labeling are a bit childish, don't you think.

You're being outclassed and out-debated by a university student in her early 20's (and everyone else involved in this thread) while you, a self proclaimed "smart person," lament the fact that you haven't yet left the most wonderful country in world. As far as I can tell, the reason you feel you should leave is because people exist in America with views that oppose your own. I don't know what to say to that. I'm speechless so, I'll just site MLK on Socrates: "Socrates felt that it is necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal."

In short, debate is good for you, rougy!


MOVING ON...

To me, one of the most important things to remember in regard to civil disobedience is that authority is given to all to make the world the place that we want it to be. We are "endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights." Remember that Socrates, Gandhi, and MLK had no formal authority. They were able to impact the world through MORAL authority.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws...

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law."

St. Thomas Aquinas said, "An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust." He also said, "An unjust law is no law at all."


While we may have cushy jobs that we don't want to risk losing at the moment, it is OUR responsibility to keep our government in check. When the time for action comes, not a job nor jail time will dissuade me from "nonviolent direct action." Our governments continue to pass legislation that slowly whittles away at our self reliance and personal freedoms, and if we keep on this path we will one day wake up to a nation in shambles.

Two things come to mind when talk of real "change" or discussion of a "revolution" comes up: 1.) There has been a trend away from self-reliance in this country and increasing dependency on social programs. Are the social programs the cure for the dependency or are they the cause? As the citizens become more and more dependent on the government, they become less and less motivated to defend the common good. We are ever more selfish (hence the rise in mental disorders and depression, in my opinion) and 2.) Living in America (or in the affluent nations across the world) is becoming a spectator sport. We feel it is inconvenient to have to: research something for ourselves, become self-reliant, read a book, get out of debt, study history, engage in thoughtful discourse, be a good neighbor, take responsibility for our own actions and situation, etc. We are so "connected" to television, the internet, MP3 players, and mobile phones that we are becoming increasingly disconnected from each other.

What am I getting at?

Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were willing to give their lives for religious freedom. Socrates gave his life for the law. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. devoted their whole being (and ultimately their lives) for the cause of freedom and equality. Change takes a lot of hard work and dedication. I mean, it takes EVERYTHING from at least one man. If we want policy change, we write letters to the editor, we start a website, we knock on doors, and so on. When it really matters (such as what the world protested against in2003, civil disobedience is in order. Anything worth civil disobedience is absolutely worth our cushy jobs. But, we'll need moral justification and moral leadership. I don't think that we're past that as some have said. I DO, however, think that wading through opposing propaganda would be more difficult today than it has historically been, but I digress.

The question I have is, "Which modern day issues/hypothetical scenarios would require civil disobedience to be solved?"


>> ^rougy:
>> ^thepinky:
As much as I respect your opinion, rougy, I think that your suggestion is utter drivel.
Pinky, this goes without saying, but you are exactly the kind of person that I want to get away from when I sell everything I own and move to Europe. I'm sick of butting heads with people like you, deedub, QM, WP, and all of the other rightwing chickenshits here on the Sift, and in real life.
It's just not worth it any more, to me.
But I did rethink my statement and realized it wasn't really civil disobedience, so here's one for you: blue collar sick-outs.
Every blue collar person in Washington D.C. should call in sick once per month, preferrably during the same week.
Delivery people should stop delivering things to health care insurers as a form of protest. Waitstaff and bartenders should stop serving food and drinks to industry bigwigs.
It won't work unless it's done en masse, so this being America, it probably won't work at all.
Marching in the street doesn't cut it. We have to hit them where it hurts: in their pocketbook.

>> deedub81

I can't say I agree with Obama's philosophy found in his observations and comparisons.

I'll share with you one of the most glaring examples: He compares the civil rights movement in the US with the Palestinian's struggle in Israel?

He doesn't compare them, he highlights the civil rights movement as a good example of what can be done without violence (in contrast to what's happening in Palestine).

For reals? I'm sure there are many Palestinians who just want peace, but a lot of the arabs and 97% of Palestinian leaders want death to Israel and death to the US. Are you going to compare the history of that movement (Hammas, The PLO, Yasser Arafat, Abu Nidal, Islamic Jihad movement in Palestine, PFLP) to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the civil rights movement in the US?

Where did you get those statistics? I doubt that most Palestinians want death to the US. Besides, many Israelis deny Palestinians their right for their own state.

I'm tired of all this talk about taking a neutral stance to make friends and outstretching our hand to tyrants and evil men!
To quote Dr. King himself: "The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict."
It's not okay to not take sides (especially when you're the President of The United States of America).

He doesn't remain neutral, he takes a definite stance against extremists and people who promote violence. He didn't say anything about any leaders, he was trying to extend a hand to the Muslim people. He takes the side of peace.

Diplomacy should not come at the expense of morality and high standards. Can we not be open and transparent in our discussions of past relationships? Do we have to pretend to have approved of past behavior in order to show that we will accept a change in future behavior?

NO! We need to have a candid discussion about mistakes that have been made. Arab leaders cannot continue spewing hate and propaganda (such as denying the holocaust) and expect us to accept them with open arms!

That's exactly what he's doing in this speech: He acknowledges mistakes made by both the US and the Arab world. He even specifically denounces people who deny the holocaust.

I can't say I agree with Obama's philosophy found in his observations and comparisons.


I'll share with you one of the most glaring examples: He compares the civil rights movement in the US with the Palestinian's struggle in Israel?

For reals? I'm sure there are many Palestinians who just want peace, but a lot of the arabs and 97% of Palestinian leaders want death to Israel and death to the US. Are you going to compare the history of that movement (Hammas, The PLO, Yasser Arafat, Abu Nidal, Islamic Jihad movement in Palestine, PFLP) to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the civil rights movement in the US?

That makes me ill.

Barack Obama of all people!!!

I'm tired of all this talk about taking a neutral stance to make friends and outstretching our hand to tyrants and evil men!
To quote Dr. King himself: "The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict."
It's not okay to not take sides (especially when you're the President of The United States of America).

Diplomacy should not come at the expense of morality and high standards. Can we not be open and transparent in our discussions of past relationships? Do we have to pretend to have approved of past behavior in order to show that we will accept a change in future behavior?

NO! We need to have a candid discussion about mistakes that have been made. Arab leaders cannot continue spewing hate and propaganda (such as denying the holocaust) and expect us to accept them with open arms!

Last night, Hope and Possibility Kissed. This morning, the Nation blushed....


Rosa Parks sat down so that Martin Luther King, Jr. could stand up and march.
Martin Luther King Jr. stood up and marched so that Barack Obama could run.
Barack Obama ran so that future generations could fly...

The police are doing much more to incite a riot here than any of the "radicals".
By the way, Martin Luther King Jr was called "radical".

The word "radical" is often used to conflate peaceful protest with armed revolutionaries, and only a tiny fraction of people who are called radicals actually promote violence.

The former U.S. president was spotted nodding off during a church ceremony honouring Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Cameras clearly caught Clinton drifting off into dreamland before being startled awake in the middle of a speech.

I like how he mentioned Martin Luther King Jr. and how his dream still hasn't been fully realized before telling someone to "go back to India."