> Unjust laws should be removed.

Yeah, in an ideal world. Good luck with that.

We live in a deeply unjust world where laws are literally bought and paid for by corporations. This age verification nonsense is just the latest example. They aren't going to sit idle if we attack their lobbying efforts, they're going to come after us. God only knows what a surveillance company like Meta can do to you if they really hate your guts.

▲

throw10920 an hour ago | parent [-]

OK, so then you think the entire system is corrupt, and you should reform/replace it.

Selective rejection of laws based on your own personal morals is wrong in every circumstance.

Either you believe the system is just and you follow all the rules (and work through the system to changes the individual rules you believe are unjust), or you believe that the system is fundamentally unjust and you take drastic action to fix it. If you don't, then you're a hypocrite - you don't really believe that the system is unjust, you're just using that as an excuse to selectively ignore laws you disagree with.

▲

fwipsy 22 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

There are many unjust laws on the books, and that will always be true:

- some are backed by powerful interests

- some have become load-bearing and are too difficult to replace

- some just don't matter and aren't enforced

- even if you fix some, new ones will be passed, because people are not perfect

If I prove this to you, will you then take your own advice and "take drastic action" to replace the US government?

	▲	throw10920 18 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> There are many unjust laws on the books, and that will always be true: > If I prove this to you, will you then take your own advice and "take drastic action" to replace the US government? No. You didn't actually read my comments before responding, and you're fundamentally misunderstanding my position. That's not "my own advice".

▲

matheusmoreira an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> you think the entire system is corrupt

I do.

> you should reform/replace it

This is a way to reform it. If nobody obeys a law, is it really illegal? It's more like a custom.

> Selective rejection of laws based on your own personal morals is wrong in every circumstance.

So if your so called authorities passed a law saying you're required to participate in some atrocity such as genocide, you'd do it with a clean conscience? Okay.

> you believe that the system is fundamentally unjust and you take drastic action to fix it

I don't have the power to do so. Also, people who try "drastic" actions are called terrorists.

▲

throw10920 an hour ago | parent [-]

> If nobody obeys a law, is it really illegal?

Factually, yes.

> It's more like a custom.

Incorrect. That leads to social breakdown.

> This is a way to reform it.

That is not reform. That leads to, as previously pointed out in a comment that's in this same chain that you nominally read, either anarchy or selective enforcement, which are the opposite of reform.

> So if your so called authorities passed a law saying you're required to participate in some atrocity such as genocide, you'd do it with a clean conscience? Okay.

Did you fail to read the part where I explicitly said that

>> or you believe that the system is fundamentally unjust and you take drastic action to fix it

I guess you didn't, because it's very clear that

> you'd do it with a clean conscience?

is incorrect, because I'd consider that system to then be fundamentally unjust.

Either you have reading comprehension problems at the high-school level or you're blatantly operating in bad faith.

> I don't have the power to do so.

You have a vote, do you not? And you can go out and raise awareness of issues, and organize protests, and contact your representatives, and do other things that are the basic requirements for existing in a democracy?

> Also, people who try "drastic" actions are called terrorists.

So either you've forgotten that you can do the above, or you're claiming that the government will call you a terrorist if you do those things.

You're saying that you believe the system is unjust, but you're unwilling to do anything substantial to fix it (which, as previously discussed, selective disobedience is not a fix). You are a hypocrite, and all of your stated beliefs are meaningless.

▲

matheusmoreira 23 minutes ago | parent [-]

This thread is devolving into insults and name calling, so I won't engage any further. Thanks for the discussion.

▲

throw10920 16 minutes ago | parent [-]

Before edit:

> You've started calling me names so I won't bother trying to engage any further. Thanks for the discussion.

A note to future readers of this thread: observe the inconsistency between the poster's stated positions and decide whether you believe that their words are genuine (and their positions/advocacy are worth taking into consideration) in light of that.

▲

matheusmoreira 11 minutes ago | parent [-]

Resolving inconsistencies between my ideas is the entire reason why I come here to discuss them. I'm just not willing to do it while being accused of bad faith and of having no reading comprehension.

	▲	throw10920 7 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Factually, you do either have bad reading comprehension or are operating in bad faith, because otherwise you could not have made this statement: > So if your so called authorities passed a law saying you're required to participate in some atrocity such as genocide, you'd do it with a clean conscience? Okay. No need to respond. This is just documentation for future HN readers.